www.ditl.org

Deepcrush wrote:That plus if the UK fell then the whole USN would be guarding the coast and not protecting English waters. Seeing that 3/4ths of the U-Boat fleet was lost with the USN protecting the world. Protection duty off the coast would have been near impossible. A few may get through, but more US bombers would have gotten through to Germany.

But it's not a comparable situation. The UBoat fleet was lost attacking convoys; in that situation they have to come to a small concentrated group of defenders. In the scenario we're talking about the UBoats only have to get within 50 or so miles of any city along a couple of thousand miles of coastline, whilst actively seeking to avoid any navy units. There's no way the USN would be able to stop them. Take a few out, perhaps, but if the Germans lost nine UBoats and the tenth gets through and costs the US a city, that's a massive victory for the Germans.

And with ports large and small as the top priorities for targets, how long until the USN had to withdraw from the Atlantic altogether? Not long I suspect.

Aye, if the U-Boat captain played it safe, it would take a feat of extreme luck for any US forces to intercept it before reaching firing range. And if New York were to go up in a big nuclear fireball.....well, I doubt the US would be too keen to continue the war.

Isn't it still reaching to say that the U-boats would survive for no reason?

GK says...

But it's not a comparable situation.

Why not? The only way that the convoys would have been removed was if Great Britain decided to not fight. Can anyone here see England rolling over for the Germans like that?

And with ports large and small as the top priorities for targets, how long until the USN had to withdraw from the Atlantic altogether? Not long I suspect.

The USN maintains are large number of ports inside the mainland. We have enough rivers and canals cutting through the country to allow easy replacement of lost ports.

All this requires the Germans raising their population by 10 fold, the US giving up its nuke program, England not bombing German heavy water plants and the US not launching an invasion straight into Germany and wipping out its population.

Rochey wrote:Aye, if the U-Boat captain played it safe, it would take a feat of extreme luck for any US forces to intercept it before reaching firing range. And if New York were to go up in a big nuclear fireball.....well, I doubt the US would be too keen to continue the war.

Horse shit. The coastline of NA as well as the ports and estuaries were heavily patrolled during the war and by Storm Front the U-Boat force had been decimated and had lost the bulk of it's experienced commanders.

Besides, the US went to war with Japan over an attack on a port which in the long-run had little lasting consequences. They would go ape shit over NYC being destroyed and would likely turn Nazi Germany into a giant pile of rubble.

Cpl Kendall wrote:Horse s**t. The coastline of NA as well as the ports and estuaries were heavily patrolled during the war and by Storm Front the U-Boat force had been decimated and had lost the bulk of it's experienced commanders.

It depends what stage of the war the attack occured. If it happened in late-41/early-42, you'd have to give the USN the benefit of the doubt to even call their anti-submarine efforts "marginally competent". A more accurate description would be "a complete fucking waste of time".

Besides, the US went to war with Japan over an attack on a port which in the long-run had little lasting consequences. They would go ape s**t over NYC being destroyed and would likely turn Nazi Germany into a giant pile of rubble.

They'd need bases to do so. If Vosk gave the Germans an ample supply of nuclear weapons and effect ballistic and cruise missiles (which, arguably, they had by the end of the war) they'd be able to effectively lay waste to southern England, and the bomber bases in East Anglia. Likewise, nukes would be highly effective against massed Soviet formations. None of this would even come close to giving them the ability to invade the UK, let alone the US, but it would allow them to draw the war out to a stalemate by allowing them to neutralise the UK as a base and hold off the Soviet Union.

Deepcrush wrote:Why not? The only way that the convoys would have been removed was if Great Britain decided to not fight. Can anyone here see England rolling over for the Germans like that?

If London, Portsmouth, and a few other cities went up in an atomic blast? Yes, absolutely.

The USN maintains are large number of ports inside the mainland. We have enough rivers and canals cutting through the country to allow easy replacement of lost ports.

All this requires the Germans raising their population by 10 fold, the US giving up its nuke program, England not bombing German heavy water plants and the US not launching an invasion straight into Germany and wipping out its population.

No, it doesn't at all.

We're talking about alien intervention in the early years of the war - 1941, say. The US nuke program is years away from accomplishing anything, so not a factor. With atom bombs the Germans would be able to force a surrender by England easily; a matter of days, weeks at the outside.

There's no reason to assume a large German population is needed since they are not invading anybody. Indeed the process actually frees up German military resources if anything.

As for reaching the US, hell in 1941 the U Boat all but ruled the Atlantic. The war there was still in their favour - the turnaround there didn't come until May 1943. Prior to that, even with U Boats having to sail directly into allied naval forces they were sinking five or ten ships for every U Boat lost. Now abandon convoys, because there's nowhere for them to go; instead the US has to disperse the navy along a thousand miles and more of coastline and defend it day and night, indefinitely, preventing every single attempt to approach the coast. It's an entirely impractical proposition.

So a couple of demonstration detonations one day and a request for surrender. Then a small city. Then a bigger one. Then New York. Then Washington.

The only hope the US would have would be to evacuate the coasts entirely and try to sit it out whilst accelerating the Manhattan project as much as possible to have something to fight back with. I find it highly unlikely that the nation could survive it, especially given that longer range rockets would be the number one priority of the German military, with no more war back home to stop the effort. A long range version of the V1 would certainly be child's play, if nothing else.

Nukes hitting England would mean fallout over Germany. Nukes hitting Russia would mean fallout over Germany. Nukes hitting the US would mean US bombers and troops landing straight into Germany with the intent of sending them the way of the native americans.

Deepcrush wrote:Nukes hitting England would mean fallout over Germany. Nukes hitting Russia would mean fallout over Germany.

This is 1941 - fallout wasn't something anyone was aware of until post-1945. Besides which it's grossly exagerated - certainly that from low-kT nukes would be no worse than Chernobyl.

Nukes hitting the US would mean US bombers and troops landing straight into Germany with the intent of sending them the way of the native americans.

From where? D-Day was only possible thanks to years of building up forces in the UK, along with extensive bombing of both Germany itself, and precision targetting of German forces in northern France and the French railways system. It would be impossible to mount such an invasion from an ocean away against a nuclear-armed Germany.

Captain Seafort wrote:
It depends what stage of the war the attack occured. If it happened in late-41/early-42, you'd have to give the USN the benefit of the doubt to even call their anti-submarine efforts "marginally competent". A more accurate description would be "a complete f***ing waste of time".

Except Storm Front happened in 1944, correct?

They'd need bases to do so. If Vosk gave the Germans an ample supply of nuclear weapons and effect ballistic and cruise missiles (which, arguably, they had by the end of the war) they'd be able to effectively lay waste to southern England, and the bomber bases in East Anglia. Likewise, nukes would be highly effective against massed Soviet formations. None of this would even come close to giving them the ability to invade the UK, let alone the US, but it would allow them to draw the war out to a stalemate by allowing them to neutralise the UK as a base and hold off the Soviet Union.

Could the V missiles even carry a warhead the size of a nuke?

Cpl Kendall wrote:Except Storm Front happened in 1944, correct?

Correct, and by the time of the episode the Germans had evidently been ashore in the US for quite some time. What the point of departure was is unclear, other than it would have had to have been much earlier than 1944. The fact that an invasion (as opposed to a simple nuclear strike) was impossible means that the debate seems to be focussing on the latter.

Could the V missiles even carry a warhead the size of a nuke?

The V-2's payload was a ton - less than a quarter the deployed weight of Fat Man or Little Boy (I don't know how much the warheads themselves weighed). Whether 40's technology could produce a lighter warhead, or a multi-stage rocket capable of carrying an FM or LB I'm not sure of either.

Deepcrush wrote:Nukes hitting England would mean fallout over Germany.

Airbursts create little to no fallout. Do more damage to a city, too.

Nukes hitting Russia would mean fallout over Germany.

Ditto.

Nukes hitting the US would mean US bombers and troops landing straight into Germany with the intent of sending them the way of the native americans.

Land an invasion force in Germany, launched from the US, in 1941/2?

Pure nonsensical fantasy.

Captain Seafort wrote:The V-2's payload was a ton - less than a quarter the deployed weight of Fat Man or Little Boy (I don't know how much the warheads themselves weighed). Whether 40's technology could produce a lighter warhead, or a multi-stage rocket capable of carrying an FM or LB I'm not sure of either.

The first few atom bombs were designed with huge error margins, all in favour of being as sure as possible that the bomb would work at the expense of making the bomb and warhead far bigger and heavier than needed. It's certain that an advanced alien race would be able to design something considerably smaller and lighter.

And even if not, how hard would it be to scale a V1 up? The V1 was a very simple weapon, after all. Scaling a V2 up would be a much more major undertaking, but once again - alien technical knowledge at work here.

Pure nonsensical fantasy.

You should of course remember that the US had troops in other place then just England right? Or is England as far as your globe reaches?

The Marines in the Pacific operated over similar distances and were supplied entirely from the sea. We called it the Pacific War. It was against Japan.

With the Pacific War already sapping a lot of the US's naval and amphibious assets, though, could the US really have mounted an effective invasion while fighting a two-front war almost entirely on its own hook? For that matter, a big part of why the US Navy was able to take and hold the initiative in the Pacific was that they started the party by turning the Japanese back at the Battle of the Coral Sea. Then, a month later, they more or less cripple the IJN at the Battle of Midway. Both of these were naval battles centred around a specific land-based objective, and it was that nature that allowed them - especially Midway - to be decisive. I'm not sure a crossing of the Atlantic would allow for that kind of engagement. To my mind, it would favour the kind of hit-and-run warfare that the German U-Boats excelled at.

An invasion of Europe conducted from across the ocean would require the United States - and Canada. Don't think we'd let you go it alone. - to force an Atlantic crossing against an otherwise unopposed Kriegsmarine. Without the Royal Navy or the combined forces of the Royal Air Force and United States Army Air Corps to threaten them or restrict the area in which they could operate, the German forces would have a much easier time hunting the amphibious forces than in the normal timeline. Also, any transatlantic amphibious landing wouldn't have the kind of air support the Normandy landings did, even if the USN withdrew some of its carriers from the Pacific to assist, while the Luftwaffe would definitely be out in force.

GrahamKennedy wrote:So if you were in Vosk's position, what could you do to help the Germans win WWII?

While the show focused on such things as plasma weapons, there are a number of things that Vosk could do to improve the Nazi forces that would require far less in the way of resources. For instance, by supplying an improved inertial guidance system as well as a half-decent radar seeker head, they could probably turn the V-1 flying bomb into a half-decent anti-shipping missile, which would truly make life miserable for any convoys trying to cross the Atlantic. Also, the Germans had been working on a wire-guided anti-tank rocket with a two-and-a-half kilo HEAT warhead. A little help with the rocket motor and the guidance system, and that turns into a poor man's TOW missile. Paveway-style guidance packages for their bombs, or Maverick-style Air-to-Ground missiles would probably be a snap too. Hell, just improving the reliability of the Tiger tank, or introducing the Panther early and in greater numbers would make a major difference.

An entirely transatlantic invasion seems to me like it would be pretty tough. They'd have air superiority, they'd be defending from prepared positions, since there are a limited number of beaches that one can perform a landing on, and only some of them have the necessary features to serve as a proper beach-head for such an endeavor. With a few helpful hints from Vosk, they could whittle away at the American and Canadian forces as they crossed the Atlantic, then fight the kind of ATGM-heavy combined-arms mobile defense NATO had planned for the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War. They could use constant air raids and hit-and-run tactics to chew up the Allied column as it advanced through France, and then once they had them sufficiently softened up and over-extended, they could turn around and lay a blitzkrieg on a technologically inferior, offensively-focused enemy and force the invasion back into the sea.

Even if the Allies managed a Dunkirk-style evacuation, they'd have to face the Kriegsmarine again all the way home. Then, with the American and Canadian forces ground up by the fighting in Europe, they'd be a lot more vulnerable to having their invasion repaid in kind. Again, Vosk's assistance could do the Germans a world of good here. Some intelligence on the locations of American air bases and a couple of ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads - or sub-launched V-1 flying bombs with similar payloads - could cut down on the air superiority margin, or else keep it from being too much of a deciding factor. Aerial refueling - the first experiments were conducted in the 1920s - could also help here. As for sealift capacity, they wouldn't necessarily have to build as much as we think, because they could concievably have captured a portion of England's available ships in port when they took the UK.

A failed invasion of Europe might be just the kind of thing that would make an invasion of North America that much easier for the Nazis. With the US and Canada going it alone - not to mention, the US dealing with Japan half a world away - life gets pretty miserable for the Allies. The Big Three are now just the Big One, the ANZACs are likely tied up by the Japanese, and if Vosk can talk Hitler into trusting Rommel a bit more, things only get worse.

I dunno... maybe I'm just being contrary, but that's my take on it.

You should of course remember that the US had troops in other place then just England right? Or is England as far as your globe reaches?

Okay then, just where are you going to stage this invasion of mainland Europe from?

With Britain defeated, the only real choice is Ireland. And good luck getting us on your side. We were on the verge of allying with Hitler as it was. If Britain fell we'd have run the swastika up the flagpole without a second thought. It was only the British forces stationed in the Northern parts of the island that convinced us not to team up with what then looked like the sure winner in the war. Take them away, maybe with Hitler allowing us to keep the North and creating a unified Republic, and we'd have had no problems at all about joining him.

In such a situation, the only real choice would be to invade Ireland and Britain first, and then using them as a staging point for an assault on mainland Europe. With the Russians in the east defeated, Hitler has a lot more troops to spare to defend against a D-Day style landing. Factor in the fact that invading the British Isles would give the Germans ample time to bolster their defences along the French coast, and Operation Overlord becomes a hell of a lot more bloody.
And then you have to deal with the fact that the Germans have nukes. Liberate London? Shit, there it goes again in a big atomic blast along with tens of thousands of US troops and their equipment.
Add in the fact that the Pacific War would still be eating up a lot of resources and manpower for the US, and I seriously begin to doubt the viability of a European invasion. And that's assuming that Hitler doesn't give the Japanese a few nukes to help out against the US.

I'm sure that with time the US could eventualy win out in such a war due to their greater industrial strength, but it'd involve the US troops wading through a sea of blood to get to Berlin. And just how long will the public support such a war if it involves places like New York getting leveled to a single bomb?