|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Oct 12, 2023 1:39:30 GMT
OK, I've thought about this alternative 1941 (first half, pre-Barbarossa). Most questions could be solved with some research and a random number generator (chaos of war and all that), but there remains one big question mark: Yugoslavia. It's pretty much a mess... the Croatians dislike how the Serbs dominate the armed forces and the economy, but despite the Ustasha being supported by the Axis, can't gain independence on their own. The Serbs are rather pro-Allies, but with the BEF having been lost at Dunkirk, the Empire's efforts in Africa and Greece are hampered. So a putsch like in OTL would be extremely risky. And yet again, many Serbs actually preferred death to Axis cooperation. And Hungary, Italy and Bulgaria still have their claims for its territory... For the moment, I have no putsch happen, even if they'll hate the situation. Neither will the Croatians rise up, or the Axis simply dismember the state. Also, Yugoslavia won't use the opportunity to gain Thessaloniki even if the "führer" offered it to them. (Prince Paul was married to a Greek after all.) Of course, after Barbarossa starts, the Serbs might think that since their Orthodox Slavic Russian brothers are in the war now, they can afford a putsch... now that'd be chaotic... and we have to remember that king Peter will officially take over in September when he'll become 18 years old.
Other events: - January 6th or so: FDR's speech about the Four Freedoms during the State of the Union address - January: Normalschrifterlass in Nazi Germany, abolishing the black letters, which are now declared that they were actually Jewish - January again: Uprising of the Iron Guard in Romania defeated by Antonescu. ITTL, Sima is locked up in Germany. - January again again: Yamamoto suggests his plan of an airstrike at Pearl Harbor, imitating the battle of Taranto (the government doesn't want a war with the USA yet, however) - January yet again: V campaign by Victor de Laveleye about the V sign; Churchill will start to use it in June of the same year - January yet again again: A certain Erwin Rommel arrives in Northern Africa - End of January: End of the Franco-Thai War - End of January: Death of Nazi Germany's minister of justice (...) Franz Gürtner (Franz Schlegelberger becomes his interim replacement) - Early February: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau try to break through into the Atlantic - but both of them are sunk by the HMS Hermes! As a consequence, Grand Admiral Erich Raeder is transferred on April 24th (his 65th birthday) to the "Führer"reserve - February: Gabon conquered by Free French after three Weeks of fighting - February 10th: Petain's trusted Darlan becomes deputy PM - under PM Laval - February again: Operation Compass started, after the arrival of the Australians has given Wavell a third Division to use; Wavell has to leave the situation in East Africa as it is, for lack of troops; after one Week, his troops have reached Sollum - then hoewever, Rommel has the troops to stop him - February yet again: Zhukov promoted to Chief of the General staff and deputy minister of defense - February again again: A certain chemical element named Plutonium identified (after being produced in December 1940 already) - End of February: Spain's ex-king Alfonso XIII dies, after having passed on his claim to crown prince Juan in January already - End of February again: Bulgaria joins Tripartite Pact, putting more pressure on Yugoslavia - March: Lend-Lease passes US Congress - March again: Free French conquer Kufra. A small victory, but it means a lot to de Gaulle and his followers. - March again again: Prince Paul of Yugoslavia signs the Tripartite Pact. He has insisted though to neither join the war nor even let Axis troops pass through Yugoslavian territory. No putsch... at least not yet. - March yet again: Unternehmen Sonnenschirm (Operation Parasol) by the Deutsches Afrika-Korps was a success, they've driven the Allies from Sollum back to El Alamein. Now however, logistics prove to be an insolvable problem for Rommel. - End of March: Golden Square putsches in Iraq. Regent Abd al-Ilah of Hejaz manages to flee, but his plane crashes, leading to his death (and the end of his branch of the Hashemites). New regent is Sharaf bin Rajeh. - End of March again: Wehrmacht coming from Bulgaria invades Greece. Since most of the Greek Army is still standing in Epirus/Albania instead of the Metaxas Line, the Germans break through pretty fast. - April: US troops stationed in Greenland, with the OK of the Danes - April again: Greece capitulates after fighting the Germans for 25 days. ITTL, Churchill wasn't able to send them more than two Divisions, and these have suffered losses of 8000 men, leaving only 18,000 for Crete - April yet again: British counterattack in Egypt fails - May: Jan Smuts promoted to Field Marshal - May again: Rudolf Hess does his flight to Scotland, breaks a leg when parachuting down, is caught by the Brits of course, still declared to be mad - May yet again: Konrad Zuse presents his Z3, the first working digital computer. IT uses relays instead of vacuum tubes, postfix notation ("reverse Polish notation"), the binary system, and floating point arithmetics ("Gleitkommaarithmetik") - May again again: After the Bismarck and Tirpitz went to the Atlantic together, they manage not only to both survive and sink the Hood, but the Prince of Wales as well. On June 12th, they're still active. - Late May: Unternehmen Mars (OTL Mercury): Crete conquered by Wehrmacht, taking them 12 days. Since Enigma uses better security (because of Heydrich breaking the "Black Orchestra" in 1940, making the Nazis more suspicious), the Allies couldn't prepare as well as in OTL. The Wehrmacht still loses 2000 men. Less than 10,000 men evacuated to Egypt. - End of May: British troops in Basra ready to strike against Iraqi putschists - June: German-Turkish treaty of friendship - June again: British counterattack in Egypt (think Op. Battleaxe) fails - June 8th: Death of ex-kaiser Wilhelm II - June 11th: A certain Richard Sorge warns "comrade" Stalin that a German invasion is imminent, but is dismissed - End of June: Putsch in Iraq defeated, Zeid bin Hussein becomes new regent for Faisal II Finally: For lack of Allied troops (already stretched to hold Egypt and Iraq), they don't manage to conquer territory in Syria or East Africa (back).
I could see a lot of this with things going bad for the allies but a couple of points. a) If Compass has been delayed that long and hence not having the dramatic successes in Oct/Nov 40 onward would Hitler be willing to send German forces to Libya - or Mussolini be happy with the idea of the Germans intruding into 'his' war? Also given how frantic Churchill was all the time to do something I suspect he would insist on doing something before then.
b) You would need quite some miraculous butterflies to have Tirpitz ready for operation in May 41. Plus if they were I could see the RN committing more ships, or simply combing their fast ships in one more powerful squadron preparing to intercept either route just south of Iceland. After this battle what happened to the two German ships. Did they raid the convoy route as planned or Bismarck suffer the historical damage prompting them to head for Brest. If they get there the bomber barons will be overruled and Brest will be the prime if not sole target for Bomber Command.
Related to that I can't see a small carrier like Hermes sinking both twins. Possibly crippling one enabling it to be caught by surface units with the other having to flee rather than die with its sister.
To a): Mussolini still got in trouble in Greece, and ITTL he lost his nerves and thus accepted help of Germany - regarding Malta and Egypt as well. And Churchill may be frantic, but if he has to think of the motherland first, he can't send troops to Egypt. Not that soon at least. The late consequences from the BEF's loss at Dunkirk, remember.
To b): I'm the first to admit that I am no expert for naval warfare. OTOH, you seem to be knowledgeable about it. Let's talk.
One thing is sure: Nazi Germany won't win this war at sea, certainly not with the Überwasserschiffe (surface vessels). Submarines would be a different question, hence I like the idea of Raeder having to make place for Dönitz. The loss of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau would be a good reason for that.
Since the Sea is more of a side theatre, and I'm no expert on the one hand, but OTOH a 100% rehash of OTL would be improbable, I let a random number generator decide about what'd happen. A war with no extremely odd events would be improbable after all, as paradoxically as it may sound...
As things happened, I rolled very low for S&G, but high for the Bismarck and Tirpitz. Natural 1/20, so to speak, for the RPGamers out there (I'm one as well).
You think this way it was unrealistic? Then I'd have to ask: How unrealistic? ASBish? Chance of one in a thousand? Or one in twenty? If I think about it: There are only some dozen encounters in world history between battleship of the Dreadnought class and stronger. Fewer than some people would think. Which means that "one in a thousand" doesn't really make sense.
Which leads me to the question: What do you think was the most surprising victory/defeat in history in a battle of big ships like that? Just so I'll have a benchmark to measure what's realistic.
In case of a hypothetical battle of Hermes vs. the twins: Would it be unrealistic if they were too far apart to support each other, so the Brits would be able to sink one first and the other one after it? Considered that Nazi Germany lacks 300 years of naval tradition...
Re: Tirpitz: It was commissioned in February after all, and its commander Karl Topp suggested IOTL she might join Rheinübung, which was declined. Maybe ITTL the earlier defeat would make the Nazis think "Now we have to put her to use, even if the training isn't complete" - lowered standards and all that - OTOH the "führer" shied away from naval risks in general, as some authors have commented; on the third hand, him being afraid for his ships might also mean that he'll insist that B&T will have to fight together, for safety reasons.
But in the case Tirpitz won't be used, back to probabilities: What'd be the biggest success the Bismarck alone might realistically achieve?
Or maybe I should ask the other way round: How well did G&S first and Bismarck later in early 1941, on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 would be the worst result without ASBs and 100 vice versa?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,853 
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Oct 12, 2023 13:57:58 GMT
I could see a lot of this with things going bad for the allies but a couple of points. a) If Compass has been delayed that long and hence not having the dramatic successes in Oct/Nov 40 onward would Hitler be willing to send German forces to Libya - or Mussolini be happy with the idea of the Germans intruding into 'his' war? Also given how frantic Churchill was all the time to do something I suspect he would insist on doing something before then.
b) You would need quite some miraculous butterflies to have Tirpitz ready for operation in May 41. Plus if they were I could see the RN committing more ships, or simply combing their fast ships in one more powerful squadron preparing to intercept either route just south of Iceland. After this battle what happened to the two German ships. Did they raid the convoy route as planned or Bismarck suffer the historical damage prompting them to head for Brest. If they get there the bomber barons will be overruled and Brest will be the prime if not sole target for Bomber Command.
Related to that I can't see a small carrier like Hermes sinking both twins. Possibly crippling one enabling it to be caught by surface units with the other having to flee rather than die with its sister.
To a): Mussolini still got in trouble in Greece, and ITTL he lost his nerves and thus accepted help of Germany - regarding Malta and Egypt as well. And Churchill may be frantic, but if he has to think of the motherland first, he can't send troops to Egypt. Not that soon at least. The late consequences from the BEF's loss at Dunkirk, remember.
To b): I'm the first to admit that I am no expert for naval warfare. OTOH, you seem to be knowledgeable about it. Let's talk.
One thing is sure: Nazi Germany won't win this war at sea, certainly not with the Überwasserschiffe (surface vessels). Submarines would be a different question, hence I like the idea of Raeder having to make place for Dönitz. The loss of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau would be a good reason for that.
Since the Sea is more of a side theatre, and I'm no expert on the one hand, but OTOH a 100% rehash of OTL would be improbable, I let a random number generator decide about what'd happen. A war with no extremely odd events would be improbable after all, as paradoxically as it may sound...
As things happened, I rolled very low for S&G, but high for the Bismarck and Tirpitz. Natural 1/20, so to speak, for the RPGamers out there (I'm one as well).
You think this way it was unrealistic? Then I'd have to ask: How unrealistic? ASBish? Chance of one in a thousand? Or one in twenty? If I think about it: There are only some dozen encounters in world history between battleship of the Dreadnought class and stronger. Fewer than some people would think. Which means that "one in a thousand" doesn't really make sense.
Which leads me to the question: What do you think was the most surprising victory/defeat in history in a battle of big ships like that? Just so I'll have a benchmark to measure what's realistic.
In case of a hypothetical battle of Hermes vs. the twins: Would it be unrealistic if they were too far apart to support each other, so the Brits would be able to sink one first and the other one after it? Considered that Nazi Germany lacks 300 years of naval tradition...
Re: Tirpitz: It was commissioned in February after all, and its commander Karl Topp suggested IOTL she might join Rheinübung, which was declined. Maybe ITTL the earlier defeat would make the Nazis think "Now we have to put her to use, even if the training isn't complete" - lowered standards and all that - OTOH the "führer" shied away from naval risks in general, as some authors have commented; on the third hand, him being afraid for his ships might also mean that he'll insist that B&T will have to fight together, for safety reasons.
But in the case Tirpitz won't be used, back to probabilities: What'd be the biggest success the Bismarck alone might realistically achieve?
Or maybe I should ask the other way round: How well did G&S first and Bismarck later in early 1941, on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 would be the worst result without ASBs and 100 vice versa?
OK thanks for the explanation.
a) I'm still doubtful about Mussolini, who like so many dictators depend on their prestige and having a big ego to boot calling in Germany until the evidence is clear he needs to. Good point about the losses of Dunkirk, coupled with the even greater fear of invasion that would result restraining Churchill.
b) Of the two battles I would say the most unlikely would be the Hermes sinking both twins. She's a small, slow carrier of limited means and I think only capable of carrying about 20 a/c so it would need a hell of a lot of luck to do more than damage one enough for other units to sink it and possibly the other if it hung about too long. I doubt the two German units would get too separate, other than to a limited degree say in hunting down escapes from a convoy they have attacked.
Yes Tirpitz had been commissioned but that is normally followed by a working up process that takes some time. I think its a bit like say a military unit receiving a new tank or a/c say. They wouldn't be ready for action with it for some time. That's why Topp's suggestion was refused. See its service history, early part here. Note that after a spell as the biggest ship in the Baltic fleet used to watch against an attempt by the Soviet Baltic fleet. I quote
As such while its involvement in the Baltic fleet may have delayed things the KM still thought the ship require training in late Sept 1941.
Its possibly it could be sent out if the Germans had been desperate or construction had been completed earlier. There was some delay due to BC attacking the shipyard while it was under construction although how much I don't know.
Another issue is that of having Dönitz replaced by Raeder so earlier is that the latter is very much a U-boat supporter. As such if there was a nasty disaster as occurred with the Twins and it prompted Donitz's replacement its more likely that Raeder would have pushed for more U-boats earlier and sought to avoid risks with the surface fleet. Both Bismarck's when Tirpitz was fully worked up based in Norway would be a serious concern for the UK especially with the losses elsewhere.
Furthermore if it was known that the German force contained 2 modern new BBs I suspect that the RN would have kept its battle fleet together rather than split them, relying on lighter units and air cover to enable then to either intercept to run down a force going through either exit each side of Iceland.
If you want a more realistic result that would still have your aims I would suggest downgrade both results to a degree. Hermes has a lucky strike against one of the twins which damages it and either it doesn't get away [or does but means the raid is called off and the ship is out of action for quite a while]. Then Bismarck goes out and is more successful - sinking Hood and damaging PoW fairly badly and making it to France. That would be a serious threat to the N Atlantic convoys as well as the clear primary target for BC.
The good old days. Decades since I've played a RPG but still have my collection of dice, D3 up to D20 somewhere. Too difficult to find enough people with enough common interests and time to get together plus spend so much time gaming on the PC nowadays.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Oct 14, 2023 17:45:20 GMT
To a): Mussolini still got in trouble in Greece, and ITTL he lost his nerves and thus accepted help of Germany - regarding Malta and Egypt as well. And Churchill may be frantic, but if he has to think of the motherland first, he can't send troops to Egypt. Not that soon at least. The late consequences from the BEF's loss at Dunkirk, remember.
To b): I'm the first to admit that I am no expert for naval warfare. OTOH, you seem to be knowledgeable about it. Let's talk.
One thing is sure: Nazi Germany won't win this war at sea, certainly not with the Überwasserschiffe (surface vessels). Submarines would be a different question, hence I like the idea of Raeder having to make place for Dönitz. The loss of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau would be a good reason for that.
Since the Sea is more of a side theatre, and I'm no expert on the one hand, but OTOH a 100% rehash of OTL would be improbable, I let a random number generator decide about what'd happen. A war with no extremely odd events would be improbable after all, as paradoxically as it may sound...
As things happened, I rolled very low for S&G, but high for the Bismarck and Tirpitz. Natural 1/20, so to speak, for the RPGamers out there (I'm one as well).
You think this way it was unrealistic? Then I'd have to ask: How unrealistic? ASBish? Chance of one in a thousand? Or one in twenty? If I think about it: There are only some dozen encounters in world history between battleship of the Dreadnought class and stronger. Fewer than some people would think. Which means that "one in a thousand" doesn't really make sense.
Which leads me to the question: What do you think was the most surprising victory/defeat in history in a battle of big ships like that? Just so I'll have a benchmark to measure what's realistic.
In case of a hypothetical battle of Hermes vs. the twins: Would it be unrealistic if they were too far apart to support each other, so the Brits would be able to sink one first and the other one after it? Considered that Nazi Germany lacks 300 years of naval tradition...
Re: Tirpitz: It was commissioned in February after all, and its commander Karl Topp suggested IOTL she might join Rheinübung, which was declined. Maybe ITTL the earlier defeat would make the Nazis think "Now we have to put her to use, even if the training isn't complete" - lowered standards and all that - OTOH the "führer" shied away from naval risks in general, as some authors have commented; on the third hand, him being afraid for his ships might also mean that he'll insist that B&T will have to fight together, for safety reasons.
But in the case Tirpitz won't be used, back to probabilities: What'd be the biggest success the Bismarck alone might realistically achieve?
Or maybe I should ask the other way round: How well did G&S first and Bismarck later in early 1941, on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 would be the worst result without ASBs and 100 vice versa?
OK thanks for the explanation.
a) I'm still doubtful about Mussolini, who like so many dictators depend on their prestige and having a big ego to boot calling in Germany until the evidence is clear he needs to. Good point about the losses of Dunkirk, coupled with the even greater fear of invasion that would result restraining Churchill.
b) Of the two battles I would say the most unlikely would be the Hermes sinking both twins. She's a small, slow carrier of limited means and I think only capable of carrying about 20 a/c so it would need a hell of a lot of luck to do more than damage one enough for other units to sink it and possibly the other if it hung about too long. I doubt the two German units would get too separate, other than to a limited degree say in hunting down escapes from a convoy they have attacked.
Yes Tirpitz had been commissioned but that is normally followed by a working up process that takes some time. I think its a bit like say a military unit receiving a new tank or a/c say. They wouldn't be ready for action with it for some time. That's why Topp's suggestion was refused. See its service history, early part here. Note that after a spell as the biggest ship in the Baltic fleet used to watch against an attempt by the Soviet Baltic fleet. I quote
As such while its involvement in the Baltic fleet may have delayed things the KM still thought the ship require training in late Sept 1941.
Its possibly it could be sent out if the Germans had been desperate or construction had been completed earlier. There was some delay due to BC attacking the shipyard while it was under construction although how much I don't know.
Another issue is that of having Dönitz replaced by Raeder so earlier is that the latter is very much a U-boat supporter. As such if there was a nasty disaster as occurred with the Twins and it prompted Donitz's replacement its more likely that Raeder would have pushed for more U-boats earlier and sought to avoid risks with the surface fleet. Both Bismarck's when Tirpitz was fully worked up based in Norway would be a serious concern for the UK especially with the losses elsewhere.
Furthermore if it was known that the German force contained 2 modern new BBs I suspect that the RN would have kept its battle fleet together rather than split them, relying on lighter units and air cover to enable then to either intercept to run down a force going through either exit each side of Iceland.
If you want a more realistic result that would still have your aims I would suggest downgrade both results to a degree. Hermes has a lucky strike against one of the twins which damages it and either it doesn't get away [or does but means the raid is called off and the ship is out of action for quite a while]. Then Bismarck goes out and is more successful - sinking Hood and damaging PoW fairly badly and making it to France. That would be a serious threat to the N Atlantic convoys as well as the clear primary target for BC.
The good old days. Decades since I've played a RPG but still have my collection of dice, D3 up to D20 somewhere. Too difficult to find enough people with enough common interests and time to get together plus spend so much time gaming on the PC nowadays.
About Mussolini: Even IOTL he thought about asking for help around the time he got into trouble in Greece. So ITTL circumstances pushed him over a line. Things may happen like that. At the end of the day, he had to ask for help too in OTL.
About "the twins" and Hermes: It doesn't have to be Hermes, or Hermes alone. I admit I chose it rather randomly. If it makes sense for the Brits to keep their ships together, let them do it. Maybe, if it makes sense to sink both under such circumstances, this may give birth to an Urban Legend that both the deciding strikes came from Hermes, although this doesn't have to be true if you gave it a closer look.
Same problem with playing RPGs...
PS: Are you active on the Axis History forums?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,853
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Oct 14, 2023 23:08:56 GMT
OK thanks for the explanation.
a) I'm still doubtful about Mussolini, who like so many dictators depend on their prestige and having a big ego to boot calling in Germany until the evidence is clear he needs to. Good point about the losses of Dunkirk, coupled with the even greater fear of invasion that would result restraining Churchill.
b) Of the two battles I would say the most unlikely would be the Hermes sinking both twins. She's a small, slow carrier of limited means and I think only capable of carrying about 20 a/c so it would need a hell of a lot of luck to do more than damage one enough for other units to sink it and possibly the other if it hung about too long. I doubt the two German units would get too separate, other than to a limited degree say in hunting down escapes from a convoy they have attacked.
Yes Tirpitz had been commissioned but that is normally followed by a working up process that takes some time. I think its a bit like say a military unit receiving a new tank or a/c say. They wouldn't be ready for action with it for some time. That's why Topp's suggestion was refused. See its service history, early part here. Note that after a spell as the biggest ship in the Baltic fleet used to watch against an attempt by the Soviet Baltic fleet. I quote
As such while its involvement in the Baltic fleet may have delayed things the KM still thought the ship require training in late Sept 1941.
Its possibly it could be sent out if the Germans had been desperate or construction had been completed earlier. There was some delay due to BC attacking the shipyard while it was under construction although how much I don't know.
Another issue is that of having Dönitz replaced by Raeder so earlier is that the latter is very much a U-boat supporter. As such if there was a nasty disaster as occurred with the Twins and it prompted Donitz's replacement its more likely that Raeder would have pushed for more U-boats earlier and sought to avoid risks with the surface fleet. Both Bismarck's when Tirpitz was fully worked up based in Norway would be a serious concern for the UK especially with the losses elsewhere.
Furthermore if it was known that the German force contained 2 modern new BBs I suspect that the RN would have kept its battle fleet together rather than split them, relying on lighter units and air cover to enable then to either intercept to run down a force going through either exit each side of Iceland.
If you want a more realistic result that would still have your aims I would suggest downgrade both results to a degree. Hermes has a lucky strike against one of the twins which damages it and either it doesn't get away [or does but means the raid is called off and the ship is out of action for quite a while]. Then Bismarck goes out and is more successful - sinking Hood and damaging PoW fairly badly and making it to France. That would be a serious threat to the N Atlantic convoys as well as the clear primary target for BC.
The good old days. Decades since I've played a RPG but still have my collection of dice, D3 up to D20 somewhere. Too difficult to find enough people with enough common interests and time to get together plus spend so much time gaming on the PC nowadays.
About Mussolini: Even IOTL he thought about asking for help around the time he got into trouble in Greece. So ITTL circumstances pushed him over a line. Things may happen like that. At the end of the day, he had to ask for help too in OTL.
About "the twins" and Hermes: It doesn't have to be Hermes, or Hermes alone. I admit I chose it rather randomly. If it makes sense for the Brits to keep their ships together, let them do it. Maybe, if it makes sense to sink both under such circumstances, this may give birth to an Urban Legend that both the deciding strikes came from Hermes, although this doesn't have to be true if you gave it a closer look.
Same problem with playing RPGs...
PS: Are you active on the Axis History forums?
My concern with Mussolini asking for help is that he only did that when it was clear he had real problems, i.e. stalled badly in Greece and a real crisis in Libya. Here while the former may have occurred the latter hasn't and I think that was the primary trigger.
Hermes was a fairly small and elderly CV with little capacity, basically little more than a CVE in most ways. Something like Ark Royal could be a lot more effective although sinking both twins would probably require a lot of luck. Crippling one and the other staying around too long or possibly a lucky hit on it as it tries to escape back to Germany with both being located and destroyed by surface units could be a possibility.
Not on any other forum that this, one on the USCW - for the AH section here and a could of naval ones related largely to the period ~1900-1950. Think I've come across the Axis History one via links to it at times but never really had the time for too many forums.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Oct 18, 2023 20:58:11 GMT
About Mussolini: Even IOTL he thought about asking for help around the time he got into trouble in Greece. So ITTL circumstances pushed him over a line. Things may happen like that. At the end of the day, he had to ask for help too in OTL.
About "the twins" and Hermes: It doesn't have to be Hermes, or Hermes alone. I admit I chose it rather randomly. If it makes sense for the Brits to keep their ships together, let them do it. Maybe, if it makes sense to sink both under such circumstances, this may give birth to an Urban Legend that both the deciding strikes came from Hermes, although this doesn't have to be true if you gave it a closer look.
Same problem with playing RPGs...
PS: Are you active on the Axis History forums?
My concern with Mussolini asking for help is that he only did that when it was clear he had real problems, i.e. stalled badly in Greece and a real crisis in Libya. Here while the former may have occurred the latter hasn't and I think that was the primary trigger.
Hermes was a fairly small and elderly CV with little capacity, basically little more than a CVE in most ways. Something like Ark Royal could be a lot more effective although sinking both twins would probably require a lot of luck. Crippling one and the other staying around too long or possibly a lucky hit on it as it tries to escape back to Germany with both being located and destroyed by surface units could be a possibility.
Not on any other forum that this, one on the USCW - for the AH section here and a could of naval ones related largely to the period ~1900-1950. Think I've come across the Axis History one via links to it at times but never really had the time for too many forums.
Steve
About Mussolini: ITTL, he had some (albeit small) successes during summer 1940 in East Africa and Egypt against the Brits (who were lacking troops which had to replace the BEF in Britain, for defense). Which means that the unexpected defeat in Greece would hit his morale pretty hard.
The possibility you suggested for the twins: I'm fine with that.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,853
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Oct 18, 2023 21:49:34 GMT
My concern with Mussolini asking for help is that he only did that when it was clear he had real problems, i.e. stalled badly in Greece and a real crisis in Libya. Here while the former may have occurred the latter hasn't and I think that was the primary trigger.
Hermes was a fairly small and elderly CV with little capacity, basically little more than a CVE in most ways. Something like Ark Royal could be a lot more effective although sinking both twins would probably require a lot of luck. Crippling one and the other staying around too long or possibly a lucky hit on it as it tries to escape back to Germany with both being located and destroyed by surface units could be a possibility.
Not on any other forum that this, one on the USCW - for the AH section here and a could of naval ones related largely to the period ~1900-1950. Think I've come across the Axis History one via links to it at times but never really had the time for too many forums.
Steve
About Mussolini: ITTL, he had some (albeit small) successes during summer 1940 in East Africa and Egypt against the Brits (who were lacking troops which had to replace the BEF in Britain, for defense). Which means that the unexpected defeat in Greece would hit his morale pretty hard.
The possibility you suggested for the twins: I'm fine with that.
a) As you say its a fairly common name but definitely not me. Unless I have a split personality I don't know about. 
b) true but while that prompted German intervention in the Balkans - further assisted by the anti-German coup in Yugoslavia - it was really Operation Compass and its expansion that prompted the Afrika Corp being sent. Hitler could easily have decided
i) correct the mess in the Balkans. - As OTL
ii) Everything else for Operation Barbarossa. iii) Once that is won then anything else can simply be mopped up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Oct 23, 2023 2:55:31 GMT
About Mussolini: ITTL, he had some (albeit small) successes during summer 1940 in East Africa and Egypt against the Brits (who were lacking troops which had to replace the BEF in Britain, for defense). Which means that the unexpected defeat in Greece would hit his morale pretty hard.
The possibility you suggested for the twins: I'm fine with that.
a) As you say its a fairly common name but definitely not me. Unless I have a split personality I don't know about.
b) true but while that prompted German intervention in the Balkans - further assisted by the anti-German coup in Yugoslavia - it was really Operation Compass and its expansion that prompted the Afrika Corp being sent. Hitler could easily have decided
i) correct the mess in the Balkans. - As OTL
ii) Everything else for Operation Barbarossa. iii) Once that is won then anything else can simply be mopped up.
I don't think that the Nazis had no plans for Egypt before Musso cried for help. So if opportunity knocks, they would use it.
Let's say that ITTL he had a really bad day when he decided to ask for help. Even if he didn't suffer horrible losses in North Africa.
Apropos Africa: Britain will still destroy the Italian ships in the Red Sea in the first half of 1941. Even if they lack troops to invade Ethiopia.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Dec 14, 2023 2:11:51 GMT
stevep, I've thought a bit about the Bismarck. Originally I had considered that two British battleships might sink instead of the Hood as in OTL. However, given that the Brits have at least three times as many surface ships as the nazis, that'd still improve the numerical proportion. Just like in chess... Maybe the optimal result for the nazis would be that neither side loses any battleship. Let's say that new Kriegsmarine boss Dönitz will send the Bismarck (like the Tirpitz later) to Norway, where it'll be able to attack convoys going to Murmansk later. What do you think?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,853
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Dec 14, 2023 11:21:40 GMT
stevep , I've thought a bit about the Bismarck. Originally I had considered that two British battleships might sink instead of the Hood as in OTL. However, given that the Brits have at least three times as many surface ships as the nazis, that'd still improve the numerical proportion. Just like in chess... Maybe the optimal result for the nazis would be that neither side loses any battleship. Let's say that new Kriegsmarine boss Dönitz will send the Bismarck (like the Tirpitz later) to Norway, where it'll be able to attack convoys going to Murmansk later. What do you think?
The best bet for the Germans is for Bismarck to survive and withdraw to Norway which when Tirpitz also becomes available would make it difficult providing reliable protection for the Murmansk convoys against a surface raid. The latter would still be a risk for the Germans as with very few light forces their vulnerable to some damage slowing one ship and hence leaving it vulnerable to being chased down and overwhelmed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Feb 26, 2024 3:03:18 GMT
OK, I've thought about this alternative 1941 (first half, pre-Barbarossa). Most questions could be solved with some research and a random number generator (chaos of war and all that), but there remains one big question mark: Yugoslavia. - March again again: Prince Regent Pavle/Paul of Yugoslavia signs the Tripartite Pact. He has insisted though to neither join the war nor even let Axis troops pass through Yugoslavian territory. No putsch... at least not yet. - End of March again: Wehrmacht coming from Bulgaria invades Greece. Since most of the Greek Army is still standing in Epirus/Albania instead of the Metaxas Line, the Germans break through pretty fast. - April again: Greece capitulates after fighting the Germans for 25 days. ITTL, Churchill wasn't able to send them more than two Divisions, and these have suffered losses of 8000 men, leaving only 18,000 for Crete - Late May: Unternehmen Mars (OTL Mercury): Crete conquered by Wehrmacht, taking them 12 days. Since Enigma uses better security (because of Heydrich breaking the "Black Orchestra" in 1940, making the Nazis more suspicious), the Allies couldn't prepare as well as in OTL. The Wehrmacht still loses 2000 men. Less than 10,000 men evacuated to Egypt. After thinking about it, I'll do a retcon: - March 13th: Prince Regent Pavle signs the Tripartite Pact. Same conditions as IOTL. There's still a putsch (in fact, it starts on the very same day), but because of SOE having fewer capable men available, it's somewhat disorganized. There's fighting in Belgrade, Pavle is killed. The Croatians use the opportunity to declare independence. The "führer" rages about the mess, decides to destroy Yugoslavia. His invasion troops (supposed to attack in Greece in late March) are redirected. - Late March: Yugoslavia defeated and divided by the Reich, Italy, Bulgaria, and Hungary. Churchill lets Eden tell Hungary that this means war. Minister president Pal Teleki still commits suicide as IOTL. - Early April: German invasion of Greece begins. - Late April: Greece defeated after 25 days... as above, except for the date. - Late May: Crete, as above, just somewhat later. Still May, but later.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Mar 7, 2024 1:56:19 GMT
stevep, I've pondered the twins again. Maybe it makes more sense if they were sunk by the big ships of the Home Fleet? By the Hood maybe? As said, I'm no expert for naval war, but it sounds good to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Mar 11, 2024 1:45:01 GMT
According to my info, when Barbarossa started, the Wehrmacht had 50 divisions in the west at that time - twelve in Norway, the rest in other western European states.
The big question is: If the Wehrmacht had won at Dunkirk - how many divisions of those would they move to the East, esp. the Finnish front?
Sure, the Empire is rearming and creating new divisions, but if they have lost 250-300,000 men at Dunkirk, moving one quarter of said Wehrmacht divisions to the East would still be enough.
One division more for Finland would be something, two would be good, three even better - but three's too much, I guess.
Your opinion?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,853
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Mar 11, 2024 16:20:08 GMT
According to my info, when Barbarossa started, the Wehrmacht had 50 divisions in the west at that time - twelve in Norway, the rest in other western European states. The big question is: If the Wehrmacht had won at Dunkirk - how many divisions of those would they move to the East, esp. the Finnish front? Sure, the Empire is rearming and creating new divisions, but if they have lost 250-300,000 men at Dunkirk, moving one quarter of said Wehrmacht divisions to the East would still be enough. One division more for Finland would be something, two would be good, three even better - but three's too much, I guess. Your opinion?
Well such a victory would boost German prestige further even if it was then blunted by British victory in the battle of Britain. As such it might make it more attractive for assorted powers such as Finland and Romania especially to join the 'eastern crusade' against the Soviets. However with Finland especially logistics could be an issue.
The other factor is what are you concluding about events in the Balkans and N Africa? Assuming Italy still goes for Greece and struggles and also launches its 'offensive' into Egypt what is the British response? Can/will it still be willing to aid Greece directly and will Operation Compass be possible. In turn this feeds into what Germany feels it needs to do in both areas. You could see Hitler not intervening in either - possibly both - areas which would free up more forces as well. Most I would expect to go into the main front against the Soviets. Plus likely a smaller German garrison in the west then Germany could have 12-15 additional divisions and possibly also more air power deployed eastwards.
Of course logistics would be an issue, especially after the initial attacks as the Soviets retreating eastwards means German supply lines are stretched. Here additional forces could be an handicap for a while although it could mean a reserve is available in the autumn or even winter to help hold the line.
One possibility here if British forces haven't been committed to Greece and possibly not to Egypt either is that Churchill might try an invasion of Norway sometime in autumn 41. Doubt this would succeed but its an idea he favoured a lot and it would if successful it would help tie down German forces, make it easier to send aid to the Soviets and also hopefully deny Germany Norwegian bases for their subs and surface units.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Mar 13, 2024 0:21:05 GMT
According to my info, when Barbarossa started, the Wehrmacht had 50 divisions in the west at that time - twelve in Norway, the rest in other western European states. The big question is: If the Wehrmacht had won at Dunkirk - how many divisions of those would they move to the East, esp. the Finnish front? Sure, the Empire is rearming and creating new divisions, but if they have lost 250-300,000 men at Dunkirk, moving one quarter of said Wehrmacht divisions to the East would still be enough. One division more for Finland would be something, two would be good, three even better - but three's too much, I guess. Your opinion?
Well such a victory would boost German prestige further even if it was then blunted by British victory in the battle of Britain. As such it might make it more attractive for assorted powers such as Finland and Romania especially to join the 'eastern crusade' against the Soviets. However with Finland especially logistics could be an issue.
The other factor is what are you concluding about events in the Balkans and N Africa? Assuming Italy still goes for Greece and struggles and also launches its 'offensive' into Egypt what is the British response? Can/will it still be willing to aid Greece directly and will Operation Compass be possible. In turn this feeds into what Germany feels it needs to do in both areas. You could see Hitler not intervening in either - possibly both - areas which would free up more forces as well. Most I would expect to go into the main front against the Soviets. Plus likely a smaller German garrison in the west then Germany could have 12-15 additional divisions and possibly also more air power deployed eastwards.
Of course logistics would be an issue, especially after the initial attacks as the Soviets retreating eastwards means German supply lines are stretched. Here additional forces could be an handicap for a while although it could mean a reserve is available in the autumn or even winter to help hold the line.
One possibility here if British forces haven't been committed to Greece and possibly not to Egypt either is that Churchill might try an invasion of Norway sometime in autumn 41. Doubt this would succeed but its an idea he favoured a lot and it would if successful it would help tie down German forces, make it easier to send aid to the Soviets and also hopefully deny Germany Norwegian bases for their subs and surface units.
Thanks for the answer, now one thing after another.
1. And Britain wins the Battle of Britain indeed. Hard to judge how the "führer" would react if he can't conquer it even after such a great victory. - Finland and Romania would have joined the "crusade" anyway, since they have territory to regain; more interesting will be the question whether Hungary will join without hesitation. IOTL, Barbarossa was delayed a few more days because of that, and even so, they only joined after one of their cities had been bombed, either by the Soviets or in a false-flag operation by either the Luftwaffe or the Romanians. 2. Italy already went for Greece as stated, did not well, so the Germans had to join. That much is sure. Churchill wants to help them, but has fewer troops available - let's say, two divisions. Something like Operation Compass will happen, as soon as the Empire can spare the divisions, and will have success. Maybe not in the first run - I imagine that Balbo might be somewhat more competent, which doesn't take much, and at the time it'd happen, there'll have been a kind of "phoney war" in Egypt - the Italians manage to advance as far as Mersa Matruh, but since logistics are hard, are stalled; while Britain can't attack too soon. Maybe their first counterattack will fail since Balbo would have used the time to build up his defense (if he is somewhat capable), so Wavell would have to think up something. Would he have tried to attack the (numerically superior) Italians frontally? That doesn't seem smart, but hindsight is 20/20. - Also, I still want Rommel in North Africa (and if the Nazis go there, he's the go-to candidate after all), because a "Nazis win" TL without this wouldn't be complete somehow. ;-)
3. And in Karelia logistics are even worse than in other theaters. 4. Invading Norway? That'd be the worst thing Churchill might do. As said, there are many German divisions there (because the "führer" was obsessed that it might happen), and the mountainous territory makes it great for defense. Besides, where'd take Churchill the invasion troops from after Dunkirk? It'd be a recipe for disaster. I don't want that. Just because I want to write this TL in which Churchill loses, I don't want to end him up a deluded madman. (Maybe some people would like this as the situation would be a mirror image of OTL - with Adolf Nazi as the winner and Churchill as the man who ruined his country. However, Britain isn't Nazi Germany, and I expect that the Brits have stopped him long before things would have become as bad as in Germany at the end.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Mar 13, 2024 12:43:14 GMT
OK, this really didn't go quickly, but now I'm finally ready for the next step. First part: The order of battle. The Wehrmacht has 160 divisions with over 3 million men. In addition, there are the minor Axis powers: * Finland: 500,000 men under commander Mannerheim, organized in eigtheen divisions/six corps * Romania: over 300,000 men, the so-called "army group Antonescu", organized in ten divisions and nine brigades * Italy: three divisions, over 60,000 men * Hungary: four brigades, over 40,000 men * Slovakia: two divisions, roughly 45,000 men * Croatia: one regiment, about 5,000 men Plus about 50,000 "foreign volunteers", among which two groups stick out (esp. compared to OTL): * Franco had sent the "Cuerpo Azul" (Blue Corps), Spanish volunteers organized in two divisions of 12,000 men each (yes, they don't have full strength) * The St. George Legion, recruited among British PoWs. Now while there were no more than 27 (yes, twenty-seven) men who wanted to join it IOTL - making it not just fringe, but fringe of the fringe - ITTL there are a) several times more British PoWs who b) spent more time being PoWs as well, and c) the Wehrmacht victory at Dunkirk made the "Reich" look more impressive. That makes two factors which might be good for a factor of three to ten - let's say that there are about 500 of them at the beginning of Barbarossa, and some hundred more after the German successes in it. This gives us, as IOTL, three Army Groups with ten independent armies and four panzer groups: * AG North under Leeb with two armies and one panzer group, 33 divisions altogether (two more than IOTL) * AG Center under Bock with two armies and two panzer groups, 52 divisions altogether (four more than IOTL) * AG South under Rundstedt with three armies and one panzer group, 53 divisions altogether (four more than IOTL) They have over 3,000 panzers, over 3,000 planes, and over 10,000 artillery pieces. (Short rant: I'd really like to tell exact numbers, but the historians disagree pretty much. They may have their reasons, but still.) The Red Army OTOH has about 220 divisions in the west, of which 50 are the reserve. 80 more divisions are further East. They're organized in five groups: - North (Leningrad and Karelia/Kola): About 20 Divisions.
- North-west (Baltic area): Bit above 20 Divisions.
- West (Byelorussia): Bit above 40 Divisions.
- Southwest (Northern Ukraine/Galicia): About 50 Divisions.
- South (Southern Ukraine/Bessarabia) - formed after the fights started. About 30 Divisions.
The Red Army has over 10,000 panzers, over 10,000 planes, and over 40,000 artillery pieces, albeit older and of lower quality than the German arms. Only some tanks, like the T-34s, are superior. Since its expansion in 1939, the Soviet Union has built new fortifications in the annexed areas, the Molotov line. In June 1941, it's not completely ready yet. The newly raised units have been hurried a bit (comes from a certain acceleration since Dunkirk), which lead to other problems.
Along the northernmost front at the Finnish border, there are 90,000 Germans organized in six divisions, plus the 6th SS Mountain Division Nord. They are opposed to twelve Soviet divisions north of Leningrad. Most of the Finnish army under Mannerheim is in the South, with only one German division having joined them. Seven Soviet divisions are standing in the Karelian parts annexed in 1940. The area north of the line Oulu-Belomorsk has a front of 550 km, plus 300 km coastline guarded by the Red Fleet. The German troops are commanded by General Eduard Dietl, who had joined the NSDAP very early and thus knows the "führer" so well he can dare to contradict him. Of the Finns, there's only the IIIrd Corps under General Hjalmar Fridolf Siilasvuo (formerly Strömberg). They're opposed by the 14th Army under General Valerian Alexandrovich Frolov with five divisions (not counting the Murmansk garrison and the Navy). Two of which are standing near Murmansk, two more near Salla, and the last one in Central Karelia. See also these maps: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Continuation_War_July_1941_English.jpg (corps level and higher) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Continuation-War-1941.png (division level) |
|
