(Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

JR -> (12/16/2000 5:12:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Alexandra: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Rhone: I am quite certain that if the Allies had to make a choice between 100,000 German civilians or 250,000 Allied troops, they would have dropped the bomb on Germany. Intersting reasoning, yet faulty in one significan regard. Politics. The bomb was not political trouble to drop on Japan. Why? Because then, and now really, there was no significant Japanese voting block. However, in the '40s, there were whole states, and some important ones, domninated by the German-American (to use a modern term) vote. Alex
I do not think that this argument is valid, simply because I do not think Truman regarded the nuclear bomb as fundamentaly different from other weapons. It was just a question of destroying a city in one big bang, instead of many smaller ones. Was the bombing of Hiroshima that bad, compared to e.g. Dredsen (sp?)? The american air force took part in that bombing. It is first later, when the effects of radiation has become evident, and the civilization has been on the brink of annihilation, that the nuclear bomb has been regarded as fundamentally different from other weapons. It is very dubious to interpret our experience and attitudes into the decisions taken in the past. I belive that Germany would have been nuked, if events had developed in a way that would make that seem necessary or desirable. I also belive that part of the reason for using the bomb was to force a quick decision of the Pacific War in order to prevent the Soviet Union from gaining unduly benefits in South East Asia from their war against Japan. Another reason was probably to show Stalin that the West possesed such a weapon, and was willing to use it. These kind of reasoning would have been even more important if the westerwn allied had demonstrated weakness by being defeated in France, and a situation where a prolonged war would result in a total Soviet dominance of Westeren Europe. Of course, one might fear that nukeing Germany would make it even easier for USSR to dominate Westeren Europe, but that is the only reason I can imagine that would make USA refraining from using the bomb againts Germany in this scenario. [This message has been edited by JR (edited December 15, 2000).]



JR -> (12/16/2000 5:30:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Rhone: BTW, My target would have been Frankfurt, so long as the atomic winds blew away from Wiesbaden. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]
As for the selection of targets, the main purpose of the nukes was to demostrate the destructive power, hence targets was choosen that was not severly damaged by bombing in advance. Thus any important target is excluded, because any important target was already more or less destroyed. Hence neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki was a important city. Probaly the same would ahve been done i Germany. Another reason not to destroy the capital city is that if you do that, then there is nobody left with the authority to surrender.



Wild Bill -> (12/16/2000 5:42:00 AM)

I seem to remember that two camera B-29s accompanied the Enola Gay and Bock's Car on their raids on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Naturally such a small group did not in the defender's eyes merit a strong response. How could they know what those bombers carried? And if they had shot them down, would the bomb have detonated anyway when it reached the correct altitude? Questions, questions. WB ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games



JR -> (12/16/2000 5:45:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Panzerjaeger Hortlund: Combine all this with the friction between the US and the UK (Never did like that Monty anyway), and the friction between the allies and russia. I think Germany would have surrendered (Probably after a succesful assasination of Hitler), but not unconditionally, and I dont think we would have had the kind of eastern-europe-communist-dictators we ended up with. Well, thats my two cents anyway Steve
On the friction between the USA and UK: Relationship between Roosvelt and Churchill was mostly very good. Then it does not really matter that Patton & co. did not like Monty. As for post-war Europe: USSR would probably have beaten Germany in any case, with or without american nukes, but if the Red Army had been the only one left standing on the battlefield it would be easier, nor more difficult, for Stalin to dominate Europe.



Don Doom -> (12/16/2000 5:56:00 AM)

Wild Bill the only why fat man or [I forgot the name of other bomb], could have gone off is if the engineer had armed the bomb before the plane went down. I.E. before the plane reach the outer fighter defence ring. Interesting thought though. Watch plane get shot down and expect normal bang when it hits the ground and BOOM, your talking to Saint Peter. Don



troopie -> (12/16/2000 7:53:00 AM)

I do not believe the war would have turned out much different if Normandy had been a fiasco. Germany would not have been able to make large numbers of jets, nor would she have been able to develop nuclear weapons. Reasons: Besides petroleum, Germany was critically short of two other strategic materials, tungsten and chromium. Tungsten was used for the core of APCR rounds, they managed to get along without that, but chrome. Chrome is used for lining weapon barrels, everything from rifles to heavy artillery. Without chrome linings, barrels wear out faster, and have to be replaced faster. Chrome is used to line jet engines. If you don't do so, they will burn out and be useless after 45 hours. No plane can function effectively with that short an engine flight life. Germany got its chromium from Turkey. The allies got theirs from the Soviet Union, Canada, Southern Rhodesia, and the Belgian Congo. Turkish production was barely sufficient for Germany's needs as it was. A greatly expanded jet construction production programme would have meant fewer tanks, guns, rifles. It's a hard choice, more jets means the Soviets would eat you alive on the ground. Next. Germany had a critical shortage of skilled workers. Greatly expanding one weapon type would have meant diverting workers from other weapon types. As far as the atom bomb is concerned. Dr. Wernher Heisenberg has described the Germans as being on the wrong theoretical track. There are thousands of possible options when you are beginning nuclear weapons research. Some seem to be correct, but lead to dead ends. Now that all the theoretical work has been done, researchers know what paths to take. But then, they did not. Germany did not have the scientific resources to investigate large numbers of the paths simultaneously. The US and UK, together did. German research led to a dead end. The Manhattan Project led to a bomb. The Allies had access to large deposits of uranium from Australia, Canada, and the American Southwest. If many bombs had been really needed, they could have been built. And, there seems to be excessive admiration for German 'wonder weapons'. Yes they invented an ATGM, but it was controlled by an operator with a stick. How long before he becomes a target. Research on infrared sensors began in the US in 1944. The first IR guided AAM came out in 1949. It was a rear aspect weapon, inaccurate and not effective against prop driven aircraft. But against jets it worked much better. Under the pressure of a shooting war it would have been say three years earlier. Helicopters: The Germans had a transpoet squadron of 2. The US deployed hundreds. The R-4, with a stronger frame, more powerful engines and targeting systems andweapons on board, would have made a rather effective gunship. more perhaps later. troopie ------------------ Pamwe Chete



Blackbird -> (12/16/2000 7:59:00 AM)

Originally posted by Panzerjaeger Hortlund: This would mean that Japan was still in the fight (No a-bombs to make them surrender) But Japan was already prepared to surrender, when the bombs were droped. Yanks just had to show their power and test new weapon. New German submarines having a second "glory days" period due to new equipment I've just watched Decisive Weapons (BBC's documentary) and they said that U-boats had "glory days" during two time periods. The second one was at begining of 1943, when americans started sending convoys, and were complety uncapable for fight against U-boats. It took them about three months to assign some protection to that ships.



PerryC -> (12/16/2000 8:29:00 AM)

Don Doom The other bomb was named Little Boy. Perry pro patria



Flashfyre -> (12/16/2000 10:28:00 AM)

[QUOTE]As for the German production. I seem to recall that the German production peaked in august 44, that is compared to the entire war. Low on oil and some minerals sure, but not out of them. Rumanian oil fields still in German hands, Luftwaffe with jets protecting the reich...I'm not so sure the allies would pull that one off.[/QOUTE] Maybe true, but the one thing you're forgetting is the heavy carpet bombing of German production by the Allies. Unless the Luftwaffe were to suddenly spring back to it's '41-'42 combat strength and experience, the Allies, having lost at Normandy, would continue the bombing of the Ruhr valley, along with railheads, bridges, and dams, in order to shut down German production. Sure, they had materials. But when you have no work force (other than conscripts and POWs), no transportation network, and no power to run the machines, you cannot produce complex machines. The Kriegsmarine was defeated, so Britain was secure from an invasion. The Luftwaffe decimated, so air power was firmly in Allied hands. What could Hitler do to stop Allied air attacks? Eventually, even the German people would turn on him, when he is unable to protect them from the bombs. A nuke probably wouldn't have been necessary...and with US production at an all-time high, more and more weapons would be made, ferried to Britain, and sent over the German lands. ------------------ The Motor Pool http://www.geocities.com/aurion_eq/index.html?976419304550 [email]kmcferren@cvn.net[/email]



troopie -> (12/16/2000 12:34:00 PM)

Re Truman and the atomic bomb and Germany: I read that he was asked if he would have used the A-bomb against Germany. He said something like "Damn right I would have." Germany did not use its chemical weapons for two possible reasons. 1: Hitler had been gassed in WW1. He may have had a strong inhibition against using gas. The Allies had large supplies of chemical weapons. Germany was open to a devastating chemical response. As for V-4s striking America. Any want to guess that the American people's response might not have been, "Nuke 'em 'til they glow"? troopie ------------------ Pamwe Chete



Hortlund -> (12/16/2000 3:41:00 PM)

OK, lets see. As for the nukes. I dont think Hitler would have surrendered even if the US had taken out 2 cities in Germany. Au contraire, I think this would have provoked germany into using their poison gas in some dreadful way. What would have happened if V-2:s would have started landing in London with nerve gas warheads instead of conventional warheads. Second. Public opinion. Let me first say that I think germany would have surrendered sooner or later. It was just a question of time. And Hitler would have died sooner or later. probably another attempt on his life by some German sick of the war. There would not have been an unconditional surrender though. If V-2:s were blasting London, and V-4:s were starting to drop down over US soil I think the public would have demanded peace in some way. And since this peace cound not be forced by invasion for at least another year, the demands of separate peace would have been high. Steve ------------------ Panzerjaeger Hortlund -=Fear is only a state of mind=-



Igor -> (12/16/2000 4:02:00 PM)

There were, besides tungsten and chromium, other more mundane strategic minerals the Reich would have run out of were the war to run into extra innings. Nickle, for instance. The last mission of the German forces in Finland was making off with the stocks of that metal; which Speer estimated to be a 6-9 months supply. Since Germany would have been in no position to keep the Red Army from Finland, we can more or less assume this would have happened even absent the Americans and Brits. So by late 45, possibly earlier, German steel production takes a serious hit. Aluminum. Bauxite could be acquired (barely); but where was the electricity going to come from? Once the Americans and Brits realized that Germany didn't have the TVA in reserve, they started targetting power plants and distribution points. Yes, there were a lot of them; but as they got flattened they really couldn't be replaced (turbine production isn't cheap or fast, and those facilities are otherwise occupied). As the total power supply went down, what do you shut down first; industrial machinery, electrified transport, or aluminum smelters? The same applied to most minerals; tin, copper, zinc, graphite, etc. Production of these materials couldn't begin to meet demand, and in many cases would plummet as the Red Army moved up and the mines got bombed. Speer's memoirs are full of this kind of problem; he lists a material the Reich would be completely out of in a year or less, explains how he got what stocks they had, and observes that it's a good thing the war ended anyway...so taking his word for it, it seems that the Reich industrial sector would have collapsed by 1946 due to simple lack of inputs. [This message has been edited by Igor (edited December 16, 2000).]



victorhauser -> (12/17/2000 1:45:00 PM)

Speer states pretty convincingly that when the Soviets cut Germany's rail link with Turkey in August 1944, the lack of chromium reserves was going to shut down the German war industry in a matter of months no matter what else happened. Only one nation has ever been attacked by nuclear weapons. It has been claimed that the Japanese militarists were still willing to fight even after Nagasaki, but that the invasion of Manchuria by the Soviets made it possible for them to "bear the unbearable" and surrender. I personally believe that being nuked would be politically unbearable for any nation, no matter what people who don't have to live through the experience might say to the contrary. It's easy to sit cozy and warm by our fireplaces with full holiday bellies (and the distance of 55 years) and say that "Being nuked isn't so bad, we are (or they were) tough enough to take it". But I don't believe it, not even for a second. No nation on earth besides the USA had the economic and industrial resources to build an A-bomb during WW2, even if they had the scientific and technical data to do so. And the Germans, Soviets, and Japanese didn't have the scientific and technical data (and weren't really close to having it in 1945). Nobody knew that the USA only had a few A-bombs in the late summer of 1945. And once production picked up, the USA did have a fair number (the number 22 seems to ring a bell) by the end of 1945. And even if a nation (and its government) could withstand a few A-bombs without collapsing, I don't think ANY nation (especially one like late-war Germany, which is smaller than the state of Texas) could've absorbed several dozen A-bombs within the span of a few months and still existed as a viable, or even recognizable, nation at all. The "skies darkened by Me 262s" is also a myth. The Germans actually built over 1200 Me 262s (most people don't know that). But they could never keep more than a handful operational at any given time due to a variety of reasons (unreliable engines and a lack of qualified pilots being the two biggest reasons). And even if they had more of them, the chances of them being able to successfully intercept a night A-bombing raid by B-29s were remote (the Me 262 was not a successful night fighter). No, by the summer of 1944 the Me 262 was not going to win Germany the war any more than Tigers and Panthers and Elefants were able win the battle of Kursk. I've never heard a convincing argument to make me believe that the Germans would not have surrendered before the end of 1945 whether the Normandy invasion had succeeded or not. (Also remember that most Germans thought that Normandy was merely a diversion, and so great masses of German troops would not necessarily have been sent to face the Soviets.) The good news is that the invasion succeeded, thereby saving the lives of millions of more people who would've died (not even counting those in concentration camps) had the war dragged on 6 months longer than it actually did. We in this country are fortunate in many ways. One of our good fortunes is that we get to celebrate Thanksgiving and Christmas within several weeks of each other. This serves to reinforce our thoughts and reflections regarding peace and what the spirit of goodwill towards others really means. I really enjoy playing SPWaW (whether playing "historically" or "hypothetically"). It's given me hundreds of hours of enjoyment. And the best part about it is that it's a GAME. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] Happy Gaming, Victor



Hortlund -> (12/17/2000 6:56:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by victorhauser: Speer states pretty convincingly that when the Soviets cut Germany's rail link with Turkey in August 1944, the lack of chromium reserves was going to shut down the German war industry in a matter of months no matter what else happened.
The starting point of this argument was that the Allies were thrown back from Normandy. This would let the Germans reinforce the eastern front with 11 Pz Divisions, and say 20 Infantry divisions ( this would still leave something like 40 divisions to garrison France). I think these reinforcemnets would have been alble to slow down or stop the soviet summer offensive of 1944 along some natural defence line. The Vistula river in Poland nad the Carpathian mountains in the Balkans perhaps. My point being, the rail road from Turkey would probably have been safe.
quote:

It's easy to sit cozy and warm by our fireplaces with full holiday bellies (and the distance of 55 years) and say that "Being nuked isn't so bad, we are (or they were) tough enough to take it". But I don't believe it, not even for a second.
When Hitler realized Germany was loosing the war, he wanted to destroy the entire German infrastructure. He wanted to turn Germany into some barren wasteland. When someone pointed out that this would put the surviving German population in severe hardships and practically put the country back to the level of civilisation of the 15th century, he simply replied "So what, the good are already dead". Do you *really* think he would have surrendered if 2 A-bombs were dropped on German cities?
quote:

No nation on earth besides the USA had the economic and industrial resources to build an A-bomb during WW2, even if they had the scientific and technical data to do so. And the Germans, Soviets, and Japanese didn't have the scientific and technical data (and weren't really close to having it in 1945).
I agree. There would have been no German A-bomb no matter how long the war progressed. She had other weapons of mass destruction though. The largest supply of Sarin Nerve Gas. And the means to carry that weapon to any place in Europe, with the V2 rockets. I dont think it would be too far fetched to see Germany reply to the A-Bombs with V2's armed with chemical warheads against London. The allies knew this, and I think that would perhaps have made them think twice about nuking Germany.
quote:

And even if a nation (and its government) could withstand a few A-bombs without collapsing, I don't think ANY nation (especially one like late-war Germany, which is smaller than the state of Texas) could've absorbed several dozen A-bombs within the span of a few months and still existed as a viable, or even recognizable, nation at all.
But a failed Normandy would not give a Texas sized Germany. She would still have France, half of Italy, the Benelux, Norway, most of the Balkans, and (probably) most of Poland and eastern Europe.
quote:

The "skies darkened by Me 262s" is also a myth. The Germans actually built over 1200 Me 262s (most people don't know that). But they could never keep more than a handful operational at any given time due to a variety of reasons (unreliable engines and a lack of qualified pilots being the two biggest reasons).
But these were not built all in one month. The Germans did not have 30 flying Me 262's and 1170 just standing around waiting for spare parts or pilots.
quote:

And even if they had more of them, the chances of them being able to successfully intercept a night A-bombing raid by B-29s were remote (the Me 262 was not a successful night fighter).
Perhaps correct, but Germany had other night fighters. And those B-29's would have to fly all the way across occupied France to reach Germany.
quote:

No, by the summer of 1944 the Me 262 was not going to win Germany the war any more than Tigers and Panthers and Elefants were able win the battle of Kursk.
Not win. But perhaps achieve a conditional surrender.
quote:

I've never heard a convincing argument to make me believe that the Germans would not have surrendered before the end of 1945 whether the Normandy invasion had succeeded or not. (Also remember that most Germans thought that Normandy was merely a diversion, and so great masses of German troops would not necessarily have been sent to face the Soviets.)
Problem is when we are speaking hypotheticals it is very hard to convince anyone, since people tend to have their minds set from the beginning. I think there are some interesting points that speaks clearly for a Germany being able to hold some defensive lines in the east if the allies failed. And albeit German intelligence were not as good as the allied one. The surely would have realised that Normandy was the big one after the allies had lost 5-7 divisons. And the allies themselves believed that Normandy was the only chance to win an unconditional surrender.
quote:

The good news is that the invasion succeeded, thereby saving the lives of millions of more people who would've died (not even counting those in concentration camps) had the war dragged on 6 months longer than it actually did.
I agree completely. Steve ------------------ Panzerjaeger Hortlund -=Fear is only a state of mind=-



AmmoSgt -> (12/17/2000 11:40:00 PM)

The stated policy of the allies was the unconditional surender of Germany . The original purpose and intent of the A-bomb was to bomb Germany. Had Overlord failed and had germany still been in the war come Aug45 the A-bomb would have been used. All data available for the Mk 3 warhead (the production weapon following the Fatman and Little Boy demostration devices indicates that with 20 or so available by the end of 1945 would have been used in direct support of assulting troops ( consider the weapons tests with early nukes in nevada). As to presumed target restrictions on targets in France and the low countries one only needs to consider the Nato Policy of using tactical nukes ( some , most actually, significantly larger that the nominal 10-20 kt available with the Mk 3 ) Nato given the ranges of Honest John, 8" even Corporal obviously intended to target Soviet Forces on Nato Territory . I do not think any of the mental rservations expressed in this thread as to special weapons ( nuclear) usage were a factor in the decision processes on national command authority in 1945 or for that matter 1955 1965 1975 or even 1985. True the use of the prototype weapons Fatman a pultoium impolsion test/demostration vechicle and Tall Boy a urainium gun assembly test /demostration device were tests to basically gather data for damage capabilites and used on virgin targets .. but do not misunderstand this.. Trinity was a impolsion device to prove the principles involved TallBoy was a totally untried concept that had a high level of theoritical confidence due to math and physics . All testing options of the prototypes that did not involve casulities were discarded. As to possible German Strategic capablilites ..any hint of such a possibility would have moved any identified assets to an imediate primary Target category ..ie Subs.. Sub pens/ports. I would emphasie that at no time is there any evidence to suggest that civilian targets either Axis or Occupied Allied in any operational way restricted the use of carpet bombing and colateral damage was a regretable but unaviodable conssquence. One only has to study the Combat philosophies of Bomber Harris or Curtis Lemay and post war proliferation, targeting, and production philosiphies concerning Nuclear weapons to understand that anything resembeling humanity or compasion is not a consideration in the use of Nuclear weapons . Only a conmensurate retalitory capablity has constrained their use . Likewise any first use of Chemical or Biological weapons by Germany would have resulted in massive retaliation . Please bear in mind all wartime production was rapidly stopped after Aug 17th 45 and we still managed a @20 weapon stockpile by December . Imagine if we had a percieved imediate need . Had Overlord intially failed Germany i think would have been reluctant to reduce much less bare the atlantic coast to the obviously much larger than antcipated Allied Naval and Assult capablity envinced on June 6th. U S production of aircraft was just hitting stride in 1944. US and British Jet fighters were also entering service, admitedly not on par with ME 262..But as Churchill was fond of saying quanity has it's own quality . Also upgraded and up gunned tanks and upgraded amphibious capablites ( see late 44 and 1945 amphibious capablities pacific ) would be in play. In short June 44 was the earliest possible invasion date with what was available ( see allied weapons available in july august 44 ) the allies were engaged on many fronts with no intention of quiting if defeated on any one front . Look at how long Allies continued given early defeats . Mother Russia was well and truely pissed at Germany in 1944 and beginning to taste revenge. The British were beginnning to see Victory as possible and the Americans were just beginning to feel equiped to enter a war American style with plenty of everything . I think any assesment of alternative outcomes needs to focus more on National Will at the time and less on the Important Nature of Victory at Normandy as it was spun given the outcome. Had it not been a Victory it would not have been seen as decisive . Hitlers evoultionary Wonderweapons would have evolved while Allied revoutionary Wonderweapons would have been empolyed with utter ruthlessness.



frank1970 -> (12/18/2000 12:33:00 PM)

This may have been the response of the people, but the US didnīt have any more bombs! BTW Germany developed guided bombs, stealthfighters (Go 229: 3 prototypes in1945, made of wood), planes flying with carbon dust, an SAM with radar guidance (Wasserfall). German industry was deep in mines with power plants deep in mines and on the way to construct nuclear powerplants. Germany had the manpower to work on the nuklearbomb, where do you think the "US" scientists came from? I think we all can be glad that D-Day was no fault and Allied Forces landed in Europe to destroy the Nazis. But (and I think this should not be forgotten) therefore they committed a lot of crimes German generals where executed or put in jail for after the war ended. [This message has been edited by Frank (edited December 18, 2000).]



Recon_slith -> (12/18/2000 3:03:00 PM)

If D Day ended in a disaster one thing that could be absolutely counted on was that Gen. Macarthur would have said he would have done it better if he were in charge. ------------------ Wait for Death. There's a choice? Recon



Charles22 -> (12/18/2000 10:30:00 PM)

victorhauser: I would like to remind you of what you must already know, and that is, that the main hypothetical behind the Me262s saving Germany, or at least delaying a probable Soviet conquering, was based on the premise of earlier introduction, which as we're told was delayed largely by Hitler's desire for it to be used as a fighter-bomber instead of an interceptor. The argument basically goes that if the 262s were built early enough, in enough numbers, the bombing could've been stopped. Given what I know of US reluctance to take 'too many losses' and Japan's operating from that viewpoint towards the US, and many of the US antagonists, since, doing the same, if the 262s did inflict quite heavy casualties, the US bombing would have stopped, or at least switched to the night as the Brits had done. As well, though this isn't usually part of the 262 argument, there was a jet fighter produced by Heinkel I believe which was available before the 262, but was turned down. If the bomb had become available before Germany surrendered, I don't think you would've seen us use it on Germany, but if you put an early successful 262 scenario in there, that might've given us more reason to then actually use the bomb, that is if we could be assured that the 262s wouldn't shoot it down. Though America wanted to route the Nazis, I don't think there was quite the motivation to nuke Germany as there was Japan, and given that there was a limited supply, should Germany have held out long enough, they probably would've saved them for Japan. If you can believe what we were told, the bomb was used specifically because of the huge civilian resistance we could've expected from the Japanese, and that's something which certainly noone expected much of from the Germans, though the German civilians doubtlessly gave the Russians a lot more hell than in the West (though still not comparable to expected Japanese resistance).



warhead -> (12/19/2000 5:45:00 AM)

I'm fairly sure it was Stalin who remarked that "quantity is a quality too" or "quantity is a quality in itself".



AmmoSgt -> (12/19/2000 7:24:00 AM)

Warhead yeah i agree it sure does sound like Stalin ....but....if ya check out www.chesco.com/~artman/main you willl find a giant collection of quotes and they got it listed as a Churchill .. i think Churchill was talkin about lend lease ..again the link don't work just type in the URL i know the web site is there i don't know why the link thingy don't work [This message has been edited by AmmoSgt (edited December 18, 2000).]



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.734375