The ideal Axis strategy

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
glenn239
Member
Posts: 5613
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by glenn239 » 04 Dec 2019 15:57

HistoryGeek2019 wrote:
04 Dec 2019 03:03
A German-Turkish alliance wouldn't have kicked the British out of the Middle East. It didn't kick the British out in WW1, and there's nothing to suggest the result would have been any different in WW2.

And the Middle East wasn't all that important to the Brits in WW2 anyway. The British merchant fleet sailed the long way around Africa, and that wouldn't have changed. The Brits still would have had the backing of the United States, which is all that mattered. The UK and USA would still obliterate the U-boats in the Atlantic and the Luftewaffe over Europe, and landed in France to destroy the rest of the Werhmacht.
The use of the term "obliterate" in reference to U-boats in the Atlantic is incorrect. U-boats, like surface to surface missiles, were a form of warfare that was impossible to eradicate because their usage was offensive in nature. At best the Anglo-Americans could neutralize the U-boats such that the investment Germany made in them did not make an adequate return. This is what happened after mid-1944, but even so, it was clear that technological developments towards the end of the war were not favorable to the Allies. One thing to stop a Type VII in 1944. Quite another to keep Liverpool functioning against hundreds or thousands of unsweepable air and submarine laid Oyster mines in 1946!

WRT to British convoys and the Indian Ocean, if Egypt falls then the Axis will attempt to repair the Suez Canal. If they succeed, then Axis naval power can use the Suez Canal to enter the Red Sea to threaten Aden. Again, as you say, not decisive because Britain's lifeline was to the Americas, not to India. But, by the same token, was there a point at which Churchill decides that he doesn't want to be the PM that loses the whole empire?

HistoryGeek2019
Member
Posts: 399
Joined: 06 Aug 2019 03:55
Location: America

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by HistoryGeek2019 » 04 Dec 2019 18:24

glenn239 wrote:
04 Dec 2019 15:57



The use of the term "obliterate" in reference to U-boats in the Atlantic is incorrect.
The U-boats suffered an 80% casualty rate. They were obliterated in May 1943 when Donitz made the decision to pull them back from the small sliver of the Mid-Atlantic where they could still operate without being obliterated by Allied air patrols.
One thing to stop a Type VII in 1944. Quite another to keep Liverpool functioning against hundreds or thousands of unsweepable air and submarine laid Oyster mines in 1946!
Another pie-in-the sky fantasy.
Axis naval power can use the Suez Canal to enter the Red Sea to threaten Aden.
The Axis had no naval power during the war, only naval weakness. Any Axis ships that ventured down the Red Sea would have been obliterated by Allied aircraft in Yemen and East Africa.

But, by the same token, was there a point at which Churchill decides that he doesn't want to be the PM that loses the whole empire?
Churchill decided that getting rid of Germany was more important than preserving the Empire in 1940 when he continued the war despite the fact that it was costing more than the Empire could afford without selling out to the United States.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5613
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by glenn239 » 04 Dec 2019 18:50

HistoryGeek2019 wrote:
04 Dec 2019 18:24
The U-boats suffered an 80% casualty rate. They were obliterated in May 1943 when Donitz made the decision to pull them back from the small sliver of the Mid-Atlantic where they could still operate without being obliterated by Allied air patrols.
So if the U-boats were "obliterated" in 1943, pray tell what was it that the German navy scuttled by the hundreds in 1945? If the Allied domination was so complete, then how come for this type here,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_XXIII_submarine

that for all 7 lost, not one was lost to ASW surface forces?
Another pie-in-the sky fantasy.
Not sure if you are familiar with WW2 mine warfare, (it sounds like you are not), but as the war went on there was a technical battle between offense and defense related to the sophistication of the triggering system, and increased countermeasures to sweeping. The defense was losing that race. That is to say, as the war was ending, mine technology was getting to the point that the mines themselves were becoming unsweepable.
The Axis had no naval power during the war, only naval weakness. Any Axis ships that ventured down the Red Sea would have been obliterated by Allied aircraft in Yemen and East Africa.
The surest way for Britain to make Aden safe was not to lose Egypt in the first place, hence the high priority the 8th Army received.
Churchill decided that getting rid of Germany was more important than preserving the Empire in 1940 when he continued the war despite the fact that it was costing more than the Empire could afford without selling out to the United States.
My impression is that Churchill wanted to invade the Balkans in 1944 rather than France because occupying Germany as quickly as possible was not his top priority.

HistoryGeek2019
Member
Posts: 399
Joined: 06 Aug 2019 03:55
Location: America

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by HistoryGeek2019 » 04 Dec 2019 19:08

glenn239 wrote:
04 Dec 2019 18:50
HistoryGeek2019 wrote:
04 Dec 2019 18:24
The U-boats suffered an 80% casualty rate. They were obliterated in May 1943 when Donitz made the decision to pull them back from the small sliver of the Mid-Atlantic where they could still operate without being obliterated by Allied air patrols.
So if the U-boats were "obliterated" in 1943, pray tell what was it that the German navy scuttled by the hundreds in 1945? If the Allied domination was so complete, then how come for this type here,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_XXIII_submarine

that for all 7 lost, not one was lost to ASW surface forces?
Another pie-in-the sky fantasy.
Not sure if you are familiar with WW2 mine warfare, (it sounds like you are not), but as the war went on there was a technical battle between offense and defense related to the sophistication of the triggering system, and increased countermeasures to sweeping. The defense was losing that race. That is to say, as the war was ending, mine technology was getting to the point that the mines themselves were becoming unsweepable.
The Axis had no naval power during the war, only naval weakness. Any Axis ships that ventured down the Red Sea would have been obliterated by Allied aircraft in Yemen and East Africa.
The surest way for Britain to make Aden safe was not to lose Egypt in the first place, hence the high priority the 8th Army received.
Churchill decided that getting rid of Germany was more important than preserving the Empire in 1940 when he continued the war despite the fact that it was costing more than the Empire could afford without selling out to the United States.
My impression is that Churchill wanted to invade the Balkans in 1944 rather than France because occupying Germany as quickly as possible was not his top priority.
Your entire post amounts to: "Here are some minor incidental German successes that tangentially relate to this topic. Therefore, the German navy would have successfully blockaded the UK and won the war if only it had dragged on a little longer."

Pie in the sky.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 7538
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by Michael Kenny » 04 Dec 2019 19:21

HistoryGeek2019 wrote:
04 Dec 2019 19:08


Your entire post amounts to: "Here are some minor incidental German successes that tangentially relate to this topic. Therefore, the German navy would have successfully blockaded the UK and won the war if only it had dragged on a little longer."

Pie in the sky.
Reading up on the ordinary German soldiers views on how the war was going in 1944 you see that was something being drummed into them by every available means. Soon the new secret weapons' would destroy the Allies and they just have to keep fighting a little bit longer........and longer............ longer. Normandy soldiers were convinced London was being laid waste by the V Weapons and victory was just around the corner. It is a mark of how good Goebbels was that delusionist still await that victory some 80 years later!

User avatar
JAG13
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 23 Mar 2013 01:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by JAG13 » 04 Dec 2019 20:25

HistoryGeek2019 wrote:
04 Dec 2019 03:03
JAG13 wrote:
03 Dec 2019 22:52
HistoryGeek2019 wrote:
03 Dec 2019 21:07
Turkey was Germany's ally in WWI and it didn't get them anywhere, so I don't know why everyone thinks it would make such a difference in WW2.
Tukey destroyed its own army in WW2 in 1914, then scrapped by until the war was decided somewhere else.

In WW2 they were trying to stay out and, at the same time, were the only obstacle to Germany getting to the Brits in the ME, in an scenario were the Germans delay Barbarossa to end the UK, the Germans would get passage to Iraq and eventually kick the Brits out of the Med and, likely, the war.
A German-Turkish alliance wouldn't have kicked the British out of the Middle East. It didn't kick the British out in WW1, and there's nothing to suggest the result would have been any different in WW2.

And the Middle East wasn't all that important to the Brits in WW2 anyway. The British merchant fleet sailed the long way around Africa, and that wouldn't have changed. The Brits still would have had the backing of the United States, which is all that mattered. The UK and USA would still obliterate the U-boats in the Atlantic and the Luftewaffe over Europe, and landed in France to destroy the rest of the Werhmacht.
A couple panzer divisions would have sufficed to kick them out, the Brits really didnt have much left, and that would have been une failure too many for Churchill.

No Barbarossa means no Pearl Harbor, the Japanese cant attack south with the Soviets unengaged to the north...

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5613
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by glenn239 » 04 Dec 2019 22:05

Michael Kenny wrote:
04 Dec 2019 19:21

Reading up on the ordinary German soldiers views on how the war was going in 1944 you see that was something being drummed into them by every available means. Soon the new secret weapons' would destroy the Allies and they just have to keep fighting a little bit longer........and longer............ longer. Normandy soldiers were convinced London was being laid waste by the V Weapons and victory was just around the corner. It is a mark of how good Goebbels was that delusionist still await that victory some 80 years later!
The poster used the word obliterate when he meant "neutralize".

In terms of pressure mines, they were an extremely serious threat, happily neutralized by the fact that the overall momentum of the war was going against Germany by the time they were available.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3009
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by T. A. Gardner » 05 Dec 2019 00:22

JAG13 wrote:
04 Dec 2019 20:25
No Barbarossa means no Pearl Harbor, the Japanese cant attack south with the Soviets unengaged to the north...
I don't think this matters one iota. If the US cuts off Japanese imports of oil, rubber, and other critical materials they are left with little choice but to go to war on the Southern option or face economic collapse. The Japanese brought that on themselves by expanding their war in China which was a result of cultural and social expectations that forced the IJA into that position or they would lose face.

The Soviet issue was manageable so long as they stayed out of any conflict and the Japanese could help that happen by not antagonizing them.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13754
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by ljadw » 05 Dec 2019 12:44

JAG13 wrote:
04 Dec 2019 20:25
HistoryGeek2019 wrote:
04 Dec 2019 03:03
JAG13 wrote:
03 Dec 2019 22:52
HistoryGeek2019 wrote:
03 Dec 2019 21:07
Turkey was Germany's ally in WWI and it didn't get them anywhere, so I don't know why everyone thinks it would make such a difference in WW2.
Tukey destroyed its own army in WW2 in 1914, then scrapped by until the war was decided somewhere else.

In WW2 they were trying to stay out and, at the same time, were the only obstacle to Germany getting to the Brits in the ME, in an scenario were the Germans delay Barbarossa to end the UK, the Germans would get passage to Iraq and eventually kick the Brits out of the Med and, likely, the war.
A German-Turkish alliance wouldn't have kicked the British out of the Middle East. It didn't kick the British out in WW1, and there's nothing to suggest the result would have been any different in WW2.

And the Middle East wasn't all that important to the Brits in WW2 anyway. The British merchant fleet sailed the long way around Africa, and that wouldn't have changed. The Brits still would have had the backing of the United States, which is all that mattered. The UK and USA would still obliterate the U-boats in the Atlantic and the Luftewaffe over Europe, and landed in France to destroy the rest of the Werhmacht.
A couple panzer divisions would have sufficed to kick them out, the Brits really didnt have much left, and that would have been une failure too many for Churchill.

No Barbarossa means no Pearl Harbor, the Japanese cant attack south with the Soviets unengaged to the north...
There was a couple of PzD in 1941 and they did not kick the British out, but were themselves kicked out 2 years later .
Barbarossa and PH were not related : Japan and the SU had already a treaty BEFORE PH . And if Stalin remained neutral when Britain was at war with Germany, he would also remain neutral when US were at war with Germany .

pugsville
Member
Posts: 976
Joined: 17 Aug 2011 04:40

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by pugsville » 05 Dec 2019 13:13

JAG13 wrote:
04 Dec 2019 20:25

A couple panzer divisions would have sufficed to kick them out, the Brits really didnt have much left, and that would have been une failure too many for Churchill.

No Barbarossa means no Pearl Harbor, the Japanese cant attack south with the Soviets unengaged to the north...
It'ss not as simple what the actual plan.,

(1) How wil they be supplied.
(2) What date are they deployed,
(3) Where are they deployed
(4) what is their objective?

There is plenty the British can do and more forces they can deploy. They have unused forces the means to supply and deploy them. The british have a range of counter moves available.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5613
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by glenn239 » 05 Dec 2019 14:53

T. A. Gardner wrote:
05 Dec 2019 00:22
JAG13 wrote:
04 Dec 2019 20:25
No Barbarossa means no Pearl Harbor, the Japanese cant attack south with the Soviets unengaged to the north...
I don't think this matters one iota. If the US cuts off Japanese imports of oil, rubber, and other critical materials they are left with little choice but to go to war on the Southern option or face economic collapse. The Japanese brought that on themselves by expanding their war in China which was a result of cultural and social expectations that forced the IJA into that position or they would lose face.
Without Germany at war with the Soviet Union, any American move to cut Japan's oil off would advantage Stalin. What would he do with the opportunity?

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3009
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by T. A. Gardner » 05 Dec 2019 17:57

glenn239 wrote:
05 Dec 2019 14:53
T. A. Gardner wrote:
05 Dec 2019 00:22
JAG13 wrote:
04 Dec 2019 20:25
No Barbarossa means no Pearl Harbor, the Japanese cant attack south with the Soviets unengaged to the north...
I don't think this matters one iota. If the US cuts off Japanese imports of oil, rubber, and other critical materials they are left with little choice but to go to war on the Southern option or face economic collapse. The Japanese brought that on themselves by expanding their war in China which was a result of cultural and social expectations that forced the IJA into that position or they would lose face.
Without Germany at war with the Soviet Union, any American move to cut Japan's oil off would advantage Stalin. What would he do with the opportunity?
I doubt Stalin would do anything. Oil production in Siberia and on Sakhalin Island was scarcely begun at the time. Shipping oil to Asia buys the Soviets little and the amount they could ship would be pretty negligible. Given the poor Soviet-Japanese relations in any case, I doubt Stalin would have done much to encourage trade with Japan.

User avatar
JAG13
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 23 Mar 2013 01:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by JAG13 » 05 Dec 2019 18:24

T. A. Gardner wrote:
05 Dec 2019 00:22
JAG13 wrote:
04 Dec 2019 20:25
No Barbarossa means no Pearl Harbor, the Japanese cant attack south with the Soviets unengaged to the north...
I don't think this matters one iota. If the US cuts off Japanese imports of oil, rubber, and other critical materials they are left with little choice but to go to war on the Southern option or face economic collapse. The Japanese brought that on themselves by expanding their war in China which was a result of cultural and social expectations that forced the IJA into that position or they would lose face.

The Soviet issue was manageable so long as they stayed out of any conflict and the Japanese could help that happen by not antagonizing them.
The IJA wanted to attack the USSR, they lost the discussion but at least they could count on the Soviets being unable to attack them and crush them in Manchuria and, therefore, China. They would risk losing EVERYTHING, they knew they couldnt fight the Red Army AND the Chinese, they can risk and lie to themselves about fighting the US, but they already have first hand knowledge of fighting the RA and the IJA wanted nothing of that while already having most of its troops stuck in China.

In your scenario they would be in a war with China AND the US, with nothing but a piece of paper to stop Stalin from easily crushing them forever...
Last edited by JAG13 on 06 Dec 2019 01:21, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
JAG13
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 23 Mar 2013 01:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by JAG13 » 05 Dec 2019 18:28

pugsville wrote:
05 Dec 2019 13:13
JAG13 wrote:
04 Dec 2019 20:25

A couple panzer divisions would have sufficed to kick them out, the Brits really didnt have much left, and that would have been une failure too many for Churchill.

No Barbarossa means no Pearl Harbor, the Japanese cant attack south with the Soviets unengaged to the north...
It'ss not as simple what the actual plan.,

(1) How wil they be supplied.
(2) What date are they deployed,
(3) Where are they deployed
(4) what is their objective?

There is plenty the British can do and more forces they can deploy. They have unused forces the means to supply and deploy them. The british have a range of counter moves available.
Not really, after Crete UK forces were depleted and in a sorry state which is why Rommel brushed aside easily with a handful of troops, they had very little forces in and around Iraq, a single panzer division would have been FAR too much for them.

pugsville
Member
Posts: 976
Joined: 17 Aug 2011 04:40

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by pugsville » 06 Dec 2019 00:05

JAG13 wrote:
05 Dec 2019 18:28
pugsville wrote:
05 Dec 2019 13:13
JAG13 wrote:
04 Dec 2019 20:25

A couple panzer divisions would have sufficed to kick them out, the Brits really didnt have much left, and that would have been une failure too many for Churchill.

No Barbarossa means no Pearl Harbor, the Japanese cant attack south with the Soviets unengaged to the north...
It'ss not as simple what the actual plan.,

(1) How wil they be supplied.
(2) What date are they deployed,
(3) Where are they deployed
(4) what is their objective?

There is plenty the British can do and more forces they can deploy. They have unused forces the means to supply and deploy them. The british have a range of counter moves available.
Not really, after Crete UK forces were depleted and in a sorry state which is why Rommel brushed aside easily with a handful of troops, they had very little forces in and around Iraq, a single panzer division would have been FAR too much for them.
After Crete the British were attacking with opertaion Battleaxe, Rommel's advance had been stopped and the British had regrouped to Attack. They were invading Vichy Syria with significant forces (enough to stop a couple of panzer divisions) They were also attacked in Italain East Africa and would be winding up operations, freeing up those troops to redeploy in the middle east. More Indian army troops could have been deployed, and there were troops in England (Muddle East command had turned down troops at the start of 1941)

There are troops and counter moves available,

(1) How wil they be supplied.
(2) What date are they deployed,
(3) Where are they deployed
(4) what is their objective?

IF you ddn;t want to dicsuss any detail about how this could work. Then it;s just a day dream without substance.

Return to “What if”