|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Oct 3, 2024 1:45:43 GMT
Just something about d, stevep: I wanted Franco to take Gibraltar, but not involve him into a bigger war and a possible Allied invasion. That's why I thought up that he'd do secret diplomacy with Churchill, who'd prefer that Spain instead of Germany or Italy gets Gibraltar. Hence the solution: The Spaniards attack, and when they're victorious, in mid-1942 the preliminary peace of Cork is made, where Britain cedes the peninsula - "until a final peace will be made". Implying that if the WAllies managed to fight down the Axis, Gibraltar might return. Which doesn't happen ITTL though. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,896 
Likes: 13,274
|
Post by stevep on Oct 3, 2024 8:37:53 GMT
Just something about d, stevep : I wanted Franco to take Gibraltar, but not involve him into a bigger war and a possible Allied invasion. That's why I thought up that he'd do secret diplomacy with Churchill, who'd prefer that Spain instead of Germany or Italy gets Gibraltar. Hence the solution: The Spaniards attack, and when they're victorious, in mid-1942 the preliminary peace of Cork is made, where Britain cedes the peninsula - "until a final peace will be made". Implying that if the WAllies managed to fight down the Axis, Gibraltar might return. Which doesn't happen ITTL though.
I accept that idea on your part but I doubt that Churchill would or could accept such a deal. Gib is too important strategically and also it would send a bad sign diplomatically to other nations of a form of appeasement as well as the probable reaction inside Britain and the dominions especially. After all if Britain was willing to give up Gib how must trust could other areas put in its willingness to support the defence of other parts of the empire?
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Oct 5, 2024 12:24:30 GMT
Just something about d, stevep : I wanted Franco to take Gibraltar, but not involve him into a bigger war and a possible Allied invasion. That's why I thought up that he'd do secret diplomacy with Churchill, who'd prefer that Spain instead of Germany or Italy gets Gibraltar. Hence the solution: The Spaniards attack, and when they're victorious, in mid-1942 the preliminary peace of Cork is made, where Britain cedes the peninsula - "until a final peace will be made". Implying that if the WAllies managed to fight down the Axis, Gibraltar might return. Which doesn't happen ITTL though.
I accept that idea on your part but I doubt that Churchill would or could accept such a deal. Gib is too important strategically and also it would send a bad sign diplomatically to other nations of a form of appeasement as well as the probable reaction inside Britain and the dominions especially. After all if Britain was willing to give up Gib how must trust could other areas put in its willingness to support the defence of other parts of the empire?
OK, I have to clarify this. It'll be rather like this:
November 28th, 1941: Brest-Litovsk the second.
November 30th: Japan attacks Pearl Harbor. December 6th: Franco reluctantly agrees to join the war - only against Britain, not any other countries - to gain Gibraltar. December 7th: The "Reich" and Italy declare war on the US, Franco has second thoughts. December 16th: Canaris talks Franco into not stepping back, fearing a German invasion of Spain otherwise. He manages to convince Franco.
Spring 1942: Spain starts to attack Gibraltar, Churchill is defiant as expected, even after the British ships and planes there are destroyed. Gibraltar is still considered strongest fortress in Europe, like Singapore in the East... Few days later: Spaniards found out a way to destroy the Gibraltar guns. Now the Brits are caught inside the Rock. Three months later: Sir Clive Liddell ready to capitulate. Secret negotiations in Cork between Britain and Spain.
Soon after: "Preliminary peace" seems to be the wrong word, but Britain agrees that the troops in Gibraltar may capitulate and Spain will administrate the peninsula. Let's call it an armistice. After all, the Brits gave a good defense so they keep their honor, and nobody considers them "surrender monkeys". And Franco having Gibraltar is still preferable to Hitler or Mussolini having it. The secret agreement says that Britain doesn't actually cede Gibraltar, but only leaves it under Spanish administration until there'll be a final peace. So the Brits are glad to have a loophole, and Franco's glad he can effectively leave the war again.
And now for something completely different: In mid-July 1942, Germany and Italy will invade Vichy Syria, together with their new ally of Kurdistan. Not that the WAllies will really like this, but they have to think about the war in the Pacific, holding India down, keeping Egypt and the Suez Canal, deterring Stalin from attacking the Gulf oil, the planned invasion of Morocco... you have to understand that Syria doesn't exactly have high priority. After that, however...
Something else: I've given a thought about how South Africa will develop. In the elections of July 1943, Smuts' United Party will lose against Malan. South Africa will be a bit more on the right than IOTL: Not only apartheid, but also no pensions for Indians and blacks introduced during 1943-48. South Africa will declare the republic earlier, although it'll stay in the Commonwealth. But it'll be considered an oddball, if not outlaw, in it, for being rather "Reich"-friendly. If the relations between Anglos and German will be icy after the war (very probable), South Africa will be the first country to receive Ribbentrop's successor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Oct 5, 2024 18:39:17 GMT
But actually I wanted to deal with the submarine war against Britain. This really seems like a challenge: In OTL 1942, German subs sank more than 5 million BRTs - sounds like a lot, good for propaganda, but doesn't seem that impressive if you consider that Britain imported about 25 million tons of goods during the war (not counting arms, I guess). Which already was half the amount of their imports in peace times.
In other words: If ITTL German subs managed to sink 20% more (I mention this number because I saw it today in an AH challenge on another big AH forum), that'd be just 4% of Britain's imports. Not really impressive.
It's obvious the Germans would have to sink much more - just how much? And they'd have to do it consistently. In the case of Malta, which depended on fuel for its wells, one single tanker sunk might decide about everything. But not in the case of bigger Britain.
|
|
nomommsen
Chief petty officer
Posts: 130
Likes: 102
|
Post by nomommsen on Oct 5, 2024 22:26:37 GMT
... sank more than 5 million BRTs - sounds like a lot, good for propaganda, but doesn't seem that impressive if you consider that Britain imported about 25 million tons of goods during the war (not counting arms, I guess). ... ... correct me if I'm wrong ... but afair BRT are a measure of space - storage space on a ship - and NOT as 'tons' a measure of weight.
... and therefore NOT simply/easily be tranlated into each other ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Oct 7, 2024 18:28:45 GMT
... sank more than 5 million BRTs - sounds like a lot, good for propaganda, but doesn't seem that impressive if you consider that Britain imported about 25 million tons of goods during the war (not counting arms, I guess). ... ... correct me if I'm wrong ... but afair BRT are a measure of space - storage space on a ship - and NOT as 'tons' a measure of weight.
... and therefore NOT simply/easily be tranlated into each other ...
And you are right indeed. Damn. Curse that misleading unit. I already thought I was back to field one, but apparently I'm set back even further.
But it's true: The famous SS Ohio eg had around 9600 BRTs, but transported 27,000 cubic meters of petrol/gasoline, which would weigh around 20,000 tons. Theoretically, you could use that space for 200,000 tons of steel blocks or 2,000 tons of feathers, but I don't expect either in practice.
So or so: I'll have to do quite some research for this.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,896
Likes: 13,274
|
Post by stevep on Oct 9, 2024 18:48:54 GMT
I accept that idea on your part but I doubt that Churchill would or could accept such a deal. Gib is too important strategically and also it would send a bad sign diplomatically to other nations of a form of appeasement as well as the probable reaction inside Britain and the dominions especially. After all if Britain was willing to give up Gib how must trust could other areas put in its willingness to support the defence of other parts of the empire?
OK, I have to clarify this. It'll be rather like this:
November 28th, 1941: Brest-Litovsk the second.
November 30th: Japan attacks Pearl Harbor. December 6th: Franco reluctantly agrees to join the war - only against Britain, not any other countries - to gain Gibraltar. December 7th: The "Reich" and Italy declare war on the US, Franco has second thoughts. December 16th: Canaris talks Franco into not stepping back, fearing a German invasion of Spain otherwise. He manages to convince Franco.
Spring 1942: Spain starts to attack Gibraltar, Churchill is defiant as expected, even after the British ships and planes there are destroyed. Gibraltar is still considered strongest fortress in Europe, like Singapore in the East... Few days later: Spaniards found out a way to destroy the Gibraltar guns. Now the Brits are caught inside the Rock. Three months later: Sir Clive Liddell ready to capitulate. Secret negotiations in Cork between Britain and Spain.
Soon after: "Preliminary peace" seems to be the wrong word, but Britain agrees that the troops in Gibraltar may capitulate and Spain will administrate the peninsula. Let's call it an armistice. After all, the Brits gave a good defense so they keep their honor, and nobody considers them "surrender monkeys". And Franco having Gibraltar is still preferable to Hitler or Mussolini having it. The secret agreement says that Britain doesn't actually cede Gibraltar, but only leaves it under Spanish administration until there'll be a final peace. So the Brits are glad to have a loophole, and Franco's glad he can effectively leave the war again.
And now for something completely different: In mid-July 1942, Germany and Italy will invade Vichy Syria, together with their new ally of Kurdistan. Not that the WAllies will really like this, but they have to think about the war in the Pacific, holding India down, keeping Egypt and the Suez Canal, deterring Stalin from attacking the Gulf oil, the planned invasion of Morocco... you have to understand that Syria doesn't exactly have high priority. After that, however...
Something else: I've given a thought about how South Africa will develop. In the elections of July 1943, Smuts' United Party will lose against Malan. South Africa will be a bit more on the right than IOTL: Not only apartheid, but also no pensions for Indians and blacks introduced during 1943-48. South Africa will declare the republic earlier, although it'll stay in the Commonwealth. But it'll be considered an oddball, if not outlaw, in it, for being rather "Reich"-friendly. If the relations between Anglos and German will be icy after the war (very probable), South Africa will be the first country to receive Ribbentrop's successor.
Its a possible route. Perhaps Spain receives delivery of very heavy artillery from a 'friendly' power - after all they won't be needed at Sevastopol here. Albeit using and supporting them with the relatively weak and battered infrastructure of Spain could be an issue.
A German/Axis invasion of Vichy France will prompt an allied response as that puts them far too close to the canal and bordering allied controlled lands. It might be that forces in reserve for an offensive in Egypt or to watch a Soviet move into Iraq will be available but they will try something else the entire position in the ME will collapse and that would be another serious blow for the allies. Likely to fail and in turn might prompt a Soviet move into Iraq as they will want that territory and also some buffer against a German threat to their position in Iran.
The Boers might win in 43 but they could have issues maintaining dominance in this situation. After the defeat of Japan no matter what mad plans Hitler might have the allies are still going to have a much more powerful navy and S Africa is far too important strategically and economically to be allowed to drift into the Axis camp.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Oct 9, 2024 21:21:24 GMT
OK, I have to clarify this. It'll be rather like this:
November 28th, 1941: Brest-Litovsk the second.
November 30th: Japan attacks Pearl Harbor. December 6th: Franco reluctantly agrees to join the war - only against Britain, not any other countries - to gain Gibraltar. December 7th: The "Reich" and Italy declare war on the US, Franco has second thoughts. December 16th: Canaris talks Franco into not stepping back, fearing a German invasion of Spain otherwise. He manages to convince Franco.
Spring 1942: Spain starts to attack Gibraltar, Churchill is defiant as expected, even after the British ships and planes there are destroyed. Gibraltar is still considered strongest fortress in Europe, like Singapore in the East... Few days later: Spaniards found out a way to destroy the Gibraltar guns. Now the Brits are caught inside the Rock. Three months later: Sir Clive Liddell ready to capitulate. Secret negotiations in Cork between Britain and Spain.
Soon after: "Preliminary peace" seems to be the wrong word, but Britain agrees that the troops in Gibraltar may capitulate and Spain will administrate the peninsula. Let's call it an armistice. After all, the Brits gave a good defense so they keep their honor, and nobody considers them "surrender monkeys". And Franco having Gibraltar is still preferable to Hitler or Mussolini having it. The secret agreement says that Britain doesn't actually cede Gibraltar, but only leaves it under Spanish administration until there'll be a final peace. So the Brits are glad to have a loophole, and Franco's glad he can effectively leave the war again.
And now for something completely different: In mid-July 1942, Germany and Italy will invade Vichy Syria, together with their new ally of Kurdistan. Not that the WAllies will really like this, but they have to think about the war in the Pacific, holding India down, keeping Egypt and the Suez Canal, deterring Stalin from attacking the Gulf oil, the planned invasion of Morocco... you have to understand that Syria doesn't exactly have high priority. After that, however...
Something else: I've given a thought about how South Africa will develop. In the elections of July 1943, Smuts' United Party will lose against Malan. South Africa will be a bit more on the right than IOTL: Not only apartheid, but also no pensions for Indians and blacks introduced during 1943-48. South Africa will declare the republic earlier, although it'll stay in the Commonwealth. But it'll be considered an oddball, if not outlaw, in it, for being rather "Reich"-friendly. If the relations between Anglos and German will be icy after the war (very probable), South Africa will be the first country to receive Ribbentrop's successor.
Its a possible route. Perhaps Spain receives delivery of very heavy artillery from a 'friendly' power - after all they won't be needed at Sevastopol here. Albeit using and supporting them with the relatively weak and battered infrastructure of Spain could be an issue.
A German/Axis invasion of Vichy France will prompt an allied response as that puts them far too close to the canal and bordering allied controlled lands. It might be that forces in reserve for an offensive in Egypt or to watch a Soviet move into Iraq will be available but they will try something else the entire position in the ME will collapse and that would be another serious blow for the allies. Likely to fail and in turn might prompt a Soviet move into Iraq as they will want that territory and also some buffer against a German threat to their position in Iran.
The Boers might win in 43 but they could have issues maintaining dominance in this situation. After the defeat of Japan no matter what mad plans Hitler might have the allies are still going to have a much more powerful navy and S Africa is far too important strategically and economically to be allowed to drift into the Axis camp.
Yes, the infrastructure of Spain is a certain problem - not entirely sure on whether three months will be enough to transport them through half of Europe. Today they'd need a few days max, but at that time, everything went slower and was more expensive - recently I read that a long-distance call from Berlin to Madrid cost 15 Reichsmark per minute.
Yeah, the invasion of Vichy Syria will be a big problem... both sides will have problems projecting power. Indian troops are a definite possibility - or were if Japan wasn't attacking there. I want to move some US troops to the Near and Middle East. The question is, how quickly they'll be able to after Pearl Harbor.
Of course the Empire won't let SA join the Axis camp. The question will be: Will they be lenient, or rather try to suppress the Boers?
Re: Syria I think that Ribbentrop will meet Vichy on June 8th and demand that they'll let the Wehrmacht (and the Italians and Kurds) in. Petain will be able to push the date to after July 14th (doesn't want to spoil his national holiday). The Kurds will attack before that though, to liberate their people in the Syrian border areas. (As the Germans will put it: "Flöhe hüten ist leichter!" (Herding fleas is easier!)
Fun fact: Vichy had decided in November 1940 to make a certain rightwinger named Jean Chiappe new high commissioner, but his plane crashed after receiving friendly machine gun fire (from the Italians). ITTL he'll survive and still be in Syria in 1942.
But most of all I wanted to deal with the submarine war.
In 1942 of IOTL, the US built 8 million BRTs. In the first half of 1943, 5 million more. Let's say the numbers ITTL will be similar. Of course, I'll also have to consider what the Empire can build on its own. The subs will have to whittle that down. Even IOTL, the Kriegsmarine had calculated that they'd have to sink 1 million BRTs per month, better 1.3 millions. It doesn't seem completely impossible, but it won't be easy either.
Padfield writes that seven eighths of the crews of sunken merchant ships were saved - so the Germans will have to sink more ships, since they can't rely the WAllies running out of good sailors.
With a better Enigma, they'll keep Metox for longer (also, Darlan may give it to them earlier), since the Brits can't use the narrative that they had found a way to detect its rays. Yes, the Allies will have to use many planes to look for subs. An earlier FuMB 7 (Naxos) might still help the Germans. Even so, the allied planes will become more dangerous for German subs, simply because there are so many of them. Then again, the Allies will also lose more of them in the fights on German skies. Many Heer soldiers may man the anti-air crews now. Many factors to consider...
Germany will have more steel available (has to build no more panzers against Russia), and oil too, but of course there'll be a limit for their facilities to build new subs. IOTL, they had managed to build 40 subs per month in 1943 - still not enough. But with better crews and the subs built earlier, it should help.
The better Enigma will be deployed somewhen between summer 1940 and March 1941 - that way, Prien, Kretschmer, and Schepke may well survive and train better crews. Should also help.
One big question will be: How long can Britain survive with fewer imports? IOTL, Germany went through four years of a blockade. Impossible. Before the war, the Brits were fed better than the Germans. Now will that help them (well-fed better should be able to starve for a longer time), or will this damage their morale (because many of them never had to learn how it feels to starve)?
And another big question: What will the WAllies do as soon as the number of sunk ships rises too high? They may well think up the one or other thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Oct 12, 2024 21:45:39 GMT
Something about Enigma first. Since the "Black Orchestra" affair happened in mid-July 1940, Dönitz will send out the order to use M-4 on August 11th of that year, and in October, all of the German subs will have complied. Regarding ATL Drumbeat: IOTL it took the US four months to get their convoy system running. Since I don't see a way that makes sense to hobble them even more, I won't have it take even longer ITTL. Better Enigma has to suffice. We'll see. In some other forum I found this quote: "Due to convoying and military requirements, as well as losses, imports in the last quarter of 1942 fell to 4.6 m tons and to 4.4 m tons in the 1st quarter of 1943. These rates, if they continued, meant that stocks would reach dangerous levels by summer '43." Something to consider. I wonder: If the supplies in Britain really ran out - would they decide to lower the rations of the people, or produce less (esp. war material!), or both? Of course, the Allies will act as well. Besides Bletchley Park, they'll develop technical countermeasures and use more airplanes against subs. IOTL, regarding the numbers of sunk subs, since June 1942 the airplanes were as successful as the warships, and in October they left them way behind. Especially so since they had gained air supremacy over the Bay of Biscay. Originally I had thought that replacing Raeder by Dönitz would give him many resources to build more subs. However, in early 1941 the Germans had already stopped building surface ships. What are they supposed to do beyond that? Wrecking the old ones (instead of using them as a fleet-in-waiting) and melt them to produce more subs? Not sure whether this is efficient. So if this doesn't help, the number of German subs will rise not before mid-1942 (B-L 2 was in late 1941, and it does take six months building a sub). At least, they have the better Enigma and since B-L 2 more fuel. Some other thoughts: * The German subs will avoid the Channel until the end of the war. Too many mines there. * Theoretically they can use Soviet harbors again now - but those aren't really suited to attack WAllied ships from there. The SU's new coast in Persia also doesn't help much, since the Brits still control Masqat. * I think I will handle the submarine stuff by dividing this part into nine phases: - 1939
- 1940 until PoD (Dunkirk, May 25th) - these phases require no more work ;-)
- rest of 1940 (until August 11th, the Germans will lose seven subs though instead of five - bad luck)
- 1941 until Barbarossa starts (June 12th)
- 1941 until B-L 2/Pearl Harbor/German DoW on the US
- 1942 until Gibraltar capitulates
- 1942 until Operation Freedom ends (on Halloween)
- Until March 1943
- Rest of the war
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,896
Likes: 13,274
|
Post by stevep on Oct 12, 2024 23:33:10 GMT
Something about Enigma first. Since the "Black Orchestra" affair happened in mid-July 1940, Dönitz will send out the order to use M-4 on August 11th of that year, and in October, all of the German subs will have complied. Regarding ATL Drumbeat: IOTL it took the US four months to get their convoy system running. Since I don't see a way that makes sense to hobble them even more, I won't have it take even longer ITTL. Better Enigma has to suffice. We'll see. In some other forum I found this quote: "Due to convoying and military requirements, as well as losses, imports in the last quarter of 1942 fell to 4.6 m tons and to 4.4 m tons in the 1st quarter of 1943. These rates, if they continued, meant that stocks would reach dangerous levels by summer '43." Something to consider. I wonder: If the supplies in Britain really ran out - would they decide to lower the rations of the people, or produce less (esp. war material!), or both? Of course, the Allies will act as well. Besides Bletchley Park, they'll develop technical countermeasures and use more airplanes against subs. IOTL, regarding the numbers of sunk subs, since June 1942 the airplanes were as successful as the warships, and in October they left them way behind. Especially so since they had gained air supremacy over the Bay of Biscay. Originally I had thought that replacing Raeder by Dönitz would give him many resources to build more subs. However, in early 1941 the Germans had already stopped building surface ships. What are they supposed to do beyond that? Wrecking the old ones (instead of using them as a fleet-in-waiting ) and melt them to produce more subs? Not sure whether this is efficient. So if this doesn't help, the number of German subs will rise not before mid-1942 (B-L 2 was in late 1941, and it does take six months building a sub). At least, they have the better Enigma and since B-L 2 more fuel. Some other thoughts: * The German subs will avoid the Channel until the end of the war. Too many mines there. * Theoretically they can use Soviet harbors again now - but those aren't really suited to attack WAllied ships from there. The SU's new coast in Persia also doesn't help much, since the Brits still control Masqat. * I think I will handle the submarine stuff by dividing this part into nine phases: - 1939
- 1940 until PoD (Dunkirk, May 25th) - these phases require no more work ;-)
- rest of 1940 (until August 11th, the Germans will lose seven subs though instead of five - bad luck)
- 1941 until Barbarossa starts (June 12th)
- 1941 until B-L 2/Pearl Harbor/German DoW on the US
- 1942 until Gibraltar capitulates
- 1942 until Operation Freedom ends (on Halloween)
- Until March 1943
- Rest of the war
Max
Quick replies on a couple of points. a) With a worse BotA supplies to Britain are likely to be worse. However given the strength Germany will have in France after the defeat of the Soviets and then the latter effectively joining the Axis while some US forces would be welcomed and I would expect a lot of strategic bombers to still go to the UK I think even the US army would accept there's no point in sending masses of men to the UK for an invasion of N France. As such that could free up some resources for supplies to the UK so hopefully won't get too bad. Those US forces would be needed in the ME and possibly India if the Soviets head that way as well as against Japan although getting them there would be difficult.
b) No trying to melt down surface warships for increased sub production wouldn't be practical. Too many differences in the materials needed and the tasks they have to do. Another factor is that since Hitler has won in the east and is winning further in the Med and ME regions its likely he might look to further spending on large surface warships as well as more subs. The former probably clash more with production for the army than the sub arm.
Also thinking about it with Barbarossa over with success in late 41 you could well see the army maintaining a lot of its prestige, at least for the moment and much less emphasis on SS military units - instead of their murder squads which unfortunately will still be about. Which could reduce the influence of Himmler and some of the other more extreme elements, which would be better for the regime and possibly even the people under their rule in the longer term.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Oct 16, 2024 1:44:07 GMT
a. Given that IOTL the strategists thought that an invasion of France wouldn't make sense unless they controlled the Med, and they're far from it ITTL. Some US occupation troops in Britain to defend against a possible Sea Lion would make sense though, unless they're 100% sure it won't happen (we know it won't, but hindsight's 20/20). Also, I'm wondering about priorities... the Gulf oil is #1 in that theater, and the Suez canal #2, but is the Nile valley more important or Palestine? If the Nazis took Egypt, they'd gain many willing collaborators; but losing Palestine with its cultural importance would be a shock for FDR and Churchill, no matter how little they believe in Christianity anymore. b. Yes, it'd be impractical. So until mid-1942, only the better Enigma and the surviving submarine aces (if) will make a difference compared to OTL. A stronger Heer - that'd be good for the post-war area, for which I expect that army/technocracy will form one wing of the regime and the SS and everyone who's a member of it, hence has to obey Himmler (Bormann, Ribbentrop, Bürckel, Hanke, Henlein, Karl Kaufmann from Hamburg, Lammers, Sauckel!), will form the other one. Oh yes, this is gonna be interesting.
Edit: Decided meanwhile what to do about Bose. Turns out he was arrested a bit earlier (IOTL in July 1940), again threatens to fast until he dies, is released while they're watching his house - but during the fasting he got sick, so he can't possibly try a straining escape. In mid-1942 he should've recovered, though. He may try it again...
Edit 2: Here's another possible PoD, which doesn't mean I'll use it: Huff-Duff was invented by two Frenchmen, Maurice Deloraine and Henri G. Busignies. WP (even the French articles) is vague about when they went abroad, only says that the former arrived in October 1940 in the US. And a Wacław Struszyński who had gone from Warsaw to Britain had helped to improve it. If something had happened to them, or their devices at least... "An operational research report based on Ultra estimated that without shipborne high frequency direction finding, Allied convoy losses in early 1943 would have been 25 to 50 percent higher, with U-boat kills being reduced by one-third." (Ralph Erskine)
Edit 3: Dönitz replacing Raeder doesn't mean immediate resources for the subs magic'ed up, but he'll certainly improve research: Walter drive, electro subs, and of course the snorkel. This will take some time (he takes over in 4/41), but may have quite some impact.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,896
Likes: 13,274
|
Post by stevep on Oct 16, 2024 15:45:50 GMT
a. Given that IOTL the strategists thought that an invasion of France wouldn't make sense unless they controlled the Med, and they're far from it ITTL. Some US occupation troops in Britain to defend against a possible Sea Lion would make sense though, unless they're 100% sure it won't happen (we know it won't, but hindsight's 20/20). Also, I'm wondering about priorities... the Gulf oil is #1 in that theater, and the Suez canal #2, but is the Nile valley more important or Palestine? If the Nazis took Egypt, they'd gain many willing collaborators; but losing Palestine with its cultural importance would be a shock for FDR and Churchill, no matter how little they believe in Christianity anymore. b. Yes, it'd be impractical. So until mid-1942, only the better Enigma and the surviving submarine aces (if) will make a difference compared to OTL. A stronger Heer - that'd be good for the post-war area, for which I expect that army/technocracy will form one wing of the regime and the SS and everyone who's a member of it, hence has to obey Himmler (Bormann, Ribbentrop, Bürckel, Hanke, Henlein, Karl Kaufmann from Hamburg, Lammers, Sauckel!), will form the other one. Oh yes, this is gonna be interesting.
a) Agreed.
b) The oil is more important for Germany possibly although here it has some supplies from both Polesti and Baku, but won't trust the Soviets too much on the latter. Also if the Soviets joined in, which would be in their favour their likely to take Iraq before the Germans could get there as their right next door in Iran.
Also it depends on the allied and axis plans. Suez is important if you have both banks to make use of it or one to deny it to the other side. Egypt is a better base than Palestine and would be easier for the allies to supply but would be potentially vulnerable from both east and west and would as you say have a lot of unrest with the Axis on the borders. Palestine would have religious implications and also the plight of the Jews in Palestine but I doubt either would be that important for the allies so I think they would prefer to hold Egypt if it became one of the two.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Oct 19, 2024 22:34:03 GMT
a. Given that IOTL the strategists thought that an invasion of France wouldn't make sense unless they controlled the Med, and they're far from it ITTL. Some US occupation troops in Britain to defend against a possible Sea Lion would make sense though, unless they're 100% sure it won't happen (we know it won't, but hindsight's 20/20). Also, I'm wondering about priorities... the Gulf oil is #1 in that theater, and the Suez canal #2, but is the Nile valley more important or Palestine? If the Nazis took Egypt, they'd gain many willing collaborators; but losing Palestine with its cultural importance would be a shock for FDR and Churchill, no matter how little they believe in Christianity anymore. b. Yes, it'd be impractical. So until mid-1942, only the better Enigma and the surviving submarine aces (if) will make a difference compared to OTL. A stronger Heer - that'd be good for the post-war area, for which I expect that army/technocracy will form one wing of the regime and the SS and everyone who's a member of it, hence has to obey Himmler (Bormann, Ribbentrop, Bürckel, Hanke, Henlein, Karl Kaufmann from Hamburg, Lammers, Sauckel!), will form the other one. Oh yes, this is gonna be interesting.
a) Agreed.
b) The oil is more important for Germany possibly although here it has some supplies from both Polesti and Baku, but won't trust the Soviets too much on the latter. Also if the Soviets joined in, which would be in their favour their likely to take Iraq before the Germans could get there as their right next door in Iran.
Also it depends on the allied and axis plans. Suez is important if you have both banks to make use of it or one to deny it to the other side. Egypt is a better base than Palestine and would be easier for the allies to supply but would be potentially vulnerable from both east and west and would as you say have a lot of unrest with the Axis on the borders. Palestine would have religious implications and also the plight of the Jews in Palestine but I doubt either would be that important for the allies so I think they would prefer to hold Egypt if it became one of the two.
At that time, the states on the Arabian Peninsula just had started to look for oil. (Or rather, "the West" started to look on their territory.) The big oil sources already running there were rather around Baku (as you said), Mosul, and in Persia. (A good reason for the Nazis to keep Kurdistan.) The fights in the area will go back and forth, with the US holding the swamps in the South of Iraq, the Germans and Kurds the mountainous North, and the center around Baghdad changing hands maybe more than once.
Yes, I do think too that the WAllies would rather keep Egypt than Palestine. But if that happens, it will be very painful to write. IOTL, the Jews had decided that if Rommel made it there, the old folks should commit suicide, and the young ones go to the hills, to fight a guerilla war. In some old TL, I decided that they'd form a pocket that kept on fighting... not sue whether that makes sense... but I have to make a decision about that, and the Wehrmacht may well cross the Palestinian border. In Lebanon, the fascists (via the Italian secret service) had allies, the Phalange of Gemayel.
Also I wonder what Christian fundies would say if that happened. Personally, FDR and Churchill may not care too much - but their voters will do. We don't really have a comparison in OTL - when the Muslims took Jerusalem in the past, Protestantism wasn't even invented yet.
PS: Check out my edits for my last post here.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,896
Likes: 13,274
|
Post by stevep on Oct 19, 2024 23:09:38 GMT
a) Agreed.
b) The oil is more important for Germany possibly although here it has some supplies from both Polesti and Baku, but won't trust the Soviets too much on the latter. Also if the Soviets joined in, which would be in their favour their likely to take Iraq before the Germans could get there as their right next door in Iran.
Also it depends on the allied and axis plans. Suez is important if you have both banks to make use of it or one to deny it to the other side. Egypt is a better base than Palestine and would be easier for the allies to supply but would be potentially vulnerable from both east and west and would as you say have a lot of unrest with the Axis on the borders. Palestine would have religious implications and also the plight of the Jews in Palestine but I doubt either would be that important for the allies so I think they would prefer to hold Egypt if it became one of the two.
At that time, the states on the Arabian Peninsula just had started to look for oil. (Or rather, "the West" started to look on their territory.) The big oil sources already running there were rather around Baku (as you said), Mosul, and in Persia. (A good reason for the Nazis to keep Kurdistan.) The fights in the area will go back and forth, with the US holding the swamps in the South of Iraq, the Germans and Kurds the mountainous North, and the center around Baghdad changing hands maybe more than once.
Yes, I do think too that the WAllies would rather keep Egypt than Palestine. But if that happens, it will be very painful to write. IOTL, the Jews had decided that if Rommel made it there, the old folks should commit suicide, and the young ones go to the hills, to fight a guerilla war. In some old TL, I decided that they'd form a pocket that kept on fighting... not sue whether that makes sense... but I have to make a decision about that, and the Wehrmacht may well cross the Palestinian border. In Lebanon, the fascists (via the Italian secret service) had allies, the Phalange of Gemayel.
Also I wonder what Christian fundies would say if that happened. Personally, FDR and Churchill may not care too much - but their voters will do. We don't really have a comparison in OTL - when the Muslims took Jerusalem in the past, Protestantism wasn't even invented yet.
PS: Check out my edits for my last post here.
The only wise option for the Jews would be to retreat to Egypt with the retiring British/allied forces but I suspect too many will decide to stay and fight no matter how hopeless having finally gotten a foothold in their holy land again.
I don't think there were much in the way of Christian fundamentalists, at least in terms of the recent US necon type about there, although there were definitely some support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. However there's a desperate battle going on and not going well so I doubt they would have much influence.
If the Soviets are occupying all of Iran and at all assisting the Germans - although they may not given their being blocked from any share of the spoils - then I doubt the allies, especially relatively inexperienced US forces with no real knowledge of the region can stay in the southern marshes long, especially since they could probably be flanked by a German drive around the west flank to the Kuwait region and the US would have a great risk of being isolated and destroyed with an evacuation by sea being potentially very costly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Oct 20, 2024 1:07:32 GMT
At that time, the states on the Arabian Peninsula just had started to look for oil. (Or rather, "the West" started to look on their territory.) The big oil sources already running there were rather around Baku (as you said), Mosul, and in Persia. (A good reason for the Nazis to keep Kurdistan.) The fights in the area will go back and forth, with the US holding the swamps in the South of Iraq, the Germans and Kurds the mountainous North, and the center around Baghdad changing hands maybe more than once.
Yes, I do think too that the WAllies would rather keep Egypt than Palestine. But if that happens, it will be very painful to write. IOTL, the Jews had decided that if Rommel made it there, the old folks should commit suicide, and the young ones go to the hills, to fight a guerilla war. In some old TL, I decided that they'd form a pocket that kept on fighting... not sue whether that makes sense... but I have to make a decision about that, and the Wehrmacht may well cross the Palestinian border. In Lebanon, the fascists (via the Italian secret service) had allies, the Phalange of Gemayel.
Also I wonder what Christian fundies would say if that happened. Personally, FDR and Churchill may not care too much - but their voters will do. We don't really have a comparison in OTL - when the Muslims took Jerusalem in the past, Protestantism wasn't even invented yet.
PS: Check out my edits for my last post here.
The only wise option for the Jews would be to retreat to Egypt with the retiring British/allied forces but I suspect too many will decide to stay and fight no matter how hopeless having finally gotten a foothold in their holy land again.
I don't think there were much in the way of Christian fundamentalists, at least in terms of the recent US necon type about there, although there were definitely some support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. However there's a desperate battle going on and not going well so I doubt they would have much influence.
If the Soviets are occupying all of Iran and at all assisting the Germans - although they may not given their being blocked from any share of the spoils - then I doubt the allies, especially relatively inexperienced US forces with no real knowledge of the region can stay in the southern marshes long, especially since they could probably be flanked by a German drive around the west flank to the Kuwait region and the US would have a great risk of being isolated and destroyed with an evacuation by sea being potentially very costly.
Sure, the Jews would go to a safe place if there was one, but where? Egypt has many antisemitic natives, encouraged by the Axis propaganda. We're talking about over 400,000 people here. And immigrating to some other place is not easy, to put it mildly. And would they really want to give up the Holy Land, after having invested so much into it? If the Allies revived the Sitka idea... not sure yet.
Neocons weren't around yet of course, and I don't know much about Xtianity in the US at that time.
Stalin will deliver resources to the Germans (very important), but not actually join the war. He'll rather hope that the Axis and WAllies will wear each other down, so he may have the opportunity to strike somewhen in the future. If the Germans ask him about it, he can always claim that the Red Army suffered too many losses.
Also, I'm currently digging through uboat.net. Nice site. There are many new techs to consider - radar, sonar/ASDIC, HF/DF developed during the war, and may appear either faster or slower. If Bletchley Park isn't successful, the WAllies may well try something else. Also, instead of delivering airplanes (L&L) to the SU, they can use them by themselves - as long as they can man them... Or what about the Leigh Light? Something not to be underestimated.
And I'm still wondering what exactly killed the three Aces in March 1941. Sure looks like a strange coincidence. Enigma wasn't really broken yet, not even "Dolphin". Did Prien, Schepke, and Kretschmer simply become careless after things went so well for such a long time? It could happen - because the Japanese had a similar problem.
|
|
