WW II History Discussion

[McAvoy]

But the problem they found out is that 20mm guns are not quite effective against planes. 40mm seemed to be the bare minimum. In fact the USN planned on replacing the 40mm with a new 3"/50 cal. weapon.

Define effective. Something that would be perfectly adequate for merely shooting down an aircraft is going to have problems when the requirement suddenly jumps to disintegrating some bugger who's trying to crash into you. That, AFAIK, was why the 3"/50 was developed and deployed.

Great Britain would have their KGVs, Lion class and possibly a Vangaurd or two. The British board has said they could build multiple Vangaurds if they dearm the old R class and use their guns.

I doubt we'd have any Vanguards - she was specifically designed and built as a wartime expedient to get a new battleship ASAP when it became clear that the Lions would take too long to build. The more likely outcome would be to add another couple of Lions, possibly of an improved design, analogous to the Implacables.

That is true on both accounts.

I have to check, but i think the suggestion of building the Vanguard started as early as 1940. Not sure though.

Here is the problem with aircraft, the bigger and more powerful they become the harder they are to shoot down by the weapons of the day. One of the reasons why the .50 cal gun was replaced by the 20mm. 20mm guns were favored because they could be mounted anywhere on the ship without dedicated electrical lines etc. 40mm required much more and they weighed more, especially the quad version. Some of the older battleships, mounted the twin versions.

You are right that the 3"/50 cal. was developed because of the kamikazes. 20mm had a hard time bringing down an aircraft running at you fast enough. 40mm was starting to become too small as well.

Also something I forgot to add is that the massive naval program started because of the war in Europe and really got big when France fell. So perhaps the building program would not be as big.

GB also would have time to perhaps refit the HMS Hood so maybe she wouldn't be lost. There is also a document floating around on the internet about GB doing a massive rebuild on the Courageous class and their half sister. It involved lengthening the flight deck forward and a massive widening of the hull.

Germany would perhaps refit their S&G with 15" guns or not. They would have their O class battlecruisers, H-39 class, two Bismarks, P class. Russian would be working on their battleship and battlecruiser classes. Japan would have their four Yamatos built and presumably have their 6 18" versions being built. Carriers would be built as well.

[RK_Striker_JK_5]

I have always wondered... and I know the nigh-impossibility of it-but what if neither Germany nor Russia attacked each other?

Not just "nigh-impossible", the question is akin to asking "what if the Nazis weren't Nazis?".

Well, that's the definition of 'what if', isn't it? I know it wouldn't happen in RL... but I still wonder it. A chance in a gazillion happenstance.

[shran]

Discussing alternative history goes nowhere unless you've got some experts on board also willing to sit out the ride to consider the implications of the change. I noticed it some tie ago when I wanted to see what one little divergence would result in.

[Deepcrush]

The problem with "what ifs" is that more often then not it turns into everyone saying "what if" and rather then just being about history in shift... its about who can come up with the dumbest idea and then rage about it. Its a slope that can end up just as slick as religion or VS with this forum.

[BigJKU316]

The problem with "what ifs" is that more often then not it turns into everyone saying "what if" and rather then just being about history in shift... its about who can come up with the dumbest idea and then rage about it. Its a slope that can end up just as slick as religion or VS with this forum.

That is why the original question was very specific about if the Germans take Moscow and the rail system around it, which would effectively split the Northern and Southern portions of the Soviet Union in half all the way back to the Urals, does it change the outcome on the Eastern front.

I realize the standard answer is that Russia is just too big and there is too much industry for it to make a huge difference but I think this one is a bit different. I think the Germans avoid a lot of problems if they are in control of Moscow and impose a lot of burdens on the Soviets they otherwise do not have. It gets much harder to shift forces back and forth from the Northern to Southern fronts. The central front would be basically shattered and I am not sure from where they could concentrate supplies and troops to take the offensive there. Most of the major rail lines ran through or to Moscow in that area.

I think the immediate effect is that holding the southern area with all its resources gets much tougher for the Soviets in 1942. You can't use the Southern spur of the trans-siberian to run in supplies as it runs through Japanese controlled China (I am not sure it was even built yet by then) and the Northern spur runs direct to Moscow so most stuff would run into the Moscow area then South to the fronts there.

There is a map on this site.

http://mikes.railhistory.railfan.net/r097.html

I am not sure what the ultimate effect of such a move would be, had the Germans gone for Moscow rather than envelopments. But I just think it is very interesting that the primary reason they seem to have avoided it was the historical problems it caused Napoleon as I think you are looking at two very different situations.

[Atekimogus]

That is why the original question was very specific about if the Germans take Moscow and the rail system around it, which would effectively split the Northern and Southern portions of the Soviet Union in half all the way back to the Urals, does it change the outcome on the Eastern front.

I realize the standard answer is that Russia is just too big and there is too much industry for it to make a huge difference but I think this one is a bit different. I think the Germans avoid a lot of problems if they are in control of Moscow and impose a lot of burdens on the Soviets they otherwise do not have. It gets much harder to shift forces back and forth from the Northern to Southern fronts. The central front would be basically shattered and I am not sure from where they could concentrate supplies and troops to take the offensive there. Most of the major rail lines ran through or to Moscow in that area.

I would imagine that apart from splitting Russia in half the more important thing would be if they would have been able to capture Stalin in the process. Now I am not sure how to put this delicatly but imho Russia has shown the tendency to not give much shit if not lead by a "strong willed" leader and I pretty much sure they would have surrendered shortly after that, pretty much like in WW1 when they lost their leadership.

If Stalin would have managed to escape I imagine they would be back with a vengeance but I wouldn't venture to bet on an outcame there.


But here is an interesting scenary, suppose it plays out similar to WW1, Germany beats Russia but is then beaten by pretty much everyone else, so no Nazis AND no communism.......that would be interesting imho, not sure what would have happend.

[Captain Seafort]

I have to check, but i think the suggestion of building the Vanguard started as early as 1940. Not sure though.

It did - that's when she was laid down, although I also think it was after the fall of France, when the plan changed from "WW1 continued" to "oh shit, lets see if we can hold on until the Yanks wake up".

GB also would have time to perhaps refit the HMS Hood so maybe she wouldn't be lost.

No perhaps about it - Hood was next on the refit list before the war came along and put a stop to it. Refitted a la Renown and the QEs, she'd have come out a proper fast battleship, rather than the hybrid she actually was. Given how much of a fluke her loss was, however, I'm not sure how much of an effect a refit would have had.

There is also a document floating around on the internet about GB doing a massive rebuild on the Courageous class and their half sister. It involved lengthening the flight deck forward and a massive widening of the hull.

Interesting, have you got a link? I'm not sure about the idea of widening the hull, but giving them a full-length flight deck a la Furious sounds like a sound idea.

Germany would perhaps refit their S&G with 15" guns or not. They would have their O class battlecruisers, H-39 class, two Bismarks, P class. Russian would be working on their battleship and battlecruiser classes.

I can't see all that happening. What the Nazis wanted and what they were capable of were two entirely different things - they simply didn't have the steel production capacity to complete Plan Z, even if they'd thrown everything into it at the expense of the Panzer divisions.

[Tyyr]

I'm pretty much agreed with Seafort in that regard. German steel production was taxed just producing their army. For them it really was an either/or decision. They could build an army or they could build a navy, not both.

That is why the original question was very specific about if the Germans take Moscow and the rail system around it, which would effectively split the Northern and Southern portions of the Soviet Union in half all the way back to the Urals, does it change the outcome on the Eastern front.

I realize the standard answer is that Russia is just too big and there is too much industry for it to make a huge difference but I think this one is a bit different. I think the Germans avoid a lot of problems if they are in control of Moscow and impose a lot of burdens on the Soviets they otherwise do not have. It gets much harder to shift forces back and forth from the Northern to Southern fronts. The central front would be basically shattered and I am not sure from where they could concentrate supplies and troops to take the offensive there. Most of the major rail lines ran through or to Moscow in that area.

I think the immediate effect is that holding the southern area with all its resources gets much tougher for the Soviets in 1942. You can't use the Southern spur of the trans-siberian to run in supplies as it runs through Japanese controlled China (I am not sure it was even built yet by then) and the Northern spur runs direct to Moscow so most stuff would run into the Moscow area then South to the fronts there.

There is a map on this site.

http://mikes.railhistory.railfan.net/r097.html

I am not sure what the ultimate effect of such a move would be, had the Germans gone for Moscow rather than envelopments. But I just think it is very interesting that the primary reason they seem to have avoided it was the historical problems it caused Napoleon as I think you are looking at two very different situations.

I honestly think that the Russians biggest problem is just holding their country together. Without Stalin being able to exert his will over the whole country I don't see the parts he can't effect really doing much. Take Moscow and I don't think there IS a southern front. I think you see a combination of factional rivalries coming to the fore along with the rest of the Russian's traditional, "I don't give a shit," attitude leading to the Southern front being a lost cause. Also if they'd pumped enough men and material into the drive to Moscow they also don't have enough manpower to start splitting up the drive to the Caucus. While Hitler is riding his commanders to take Moscow and get Stalin the southern armies can focus on taking out the Russian's oil fields with no disastrous detour to Stalingrad for the 6th Army.

I think if they'd focused on taking Moscow out of the war they might have managed to take Russia. They might not have gotten the whole thing but with the rail lines and oilfields in German hands it gets real hard for the Russians to get that military machine rolling. Long term can the Germans hold I dunno but if they had focused their efforts and taken Russia in bite sized chunks instead of trying to swallow the whole thing at once they might have done it. At the very least capture some of Russia's critical resources and put them in a position to accept a truce.

[McAvoy]

I have to check, but i think the suggestion of building the Vanguard started as early as 1940. Not sure though.

It did - that's when she was laid down, although I also think it was after the fall of France, when the plan changed from "WW1 continued" to "oh s**t, lets see if we can hold on until the Yanks wake up".

Yeah you are right. They also suggested at the time they could have used the 15" guns from the old R class which they considered obsolete at the time. I was unde rthe impression it was as early as 1938 when they messed around with the idea.

GB also would have time to perhaps refit the HMS Hood so maybe she wouldn't be lost.

No perhaps about it - Hood was next on the refit list before the war came along and put a stop to it. Refitted a la Renown and the QEs, she'd have come out a proper fast battleship, rather than the hybrid she actually was. Given how much of a fluke her loss was, however, I'm not sure how much of an effect a refit would have had.[/quote]

The Hood was always next in line for a complete refit. Between the war and the her peacetime duties prevented it.http://www.hmshood.com/history/construct/repair42.htm.

There is also a document floating around on the internet about GB doing a massive rebuild on the Courageous class and their half sister. It involved lengthening the flight deck forward and a massive widening of the hull.

Interesting, have you got a link? I'm not sure about the idea of widening the hull, but giving them a full-length flight deck a la Furious sounds like a sound idea.[/quote]

I have to look it up. The idea was basically widening the hull by blistering hull and the blister would extend all the way up to the hull. The flight deck would be mainly a lightly built structure, sort of like the US carriers.

HMS Furious never had a full flight deck, she did have a second on her bow.

Germany would perhaps refit their S&G with 15" guns or not. They would have their O class battlecruisers, H-39 class, two Bismarks, P class. Russian would be working on their battleship and battlecruiser classes.

I can't see all that happening. What the Nazis wanted and what they were capable of were two entirely different things - they simply didn't have the steel production capacity to complete Plan Z, even if they'd thrown everything into it at the expense of the Panzer divisions.[/quote]

That is true, but even then many of her ship designs were outdated. The convoy raider concept using capital ships while a nice idea would be too costly. Stastically speaking they were not that successful overall. They did force the Allies to use battleships in convoy duties.

Many people deride the Bismark and by extension the H-39 class because of their outdated designs, it was well suited for what they were designed to do. Fight at moderate range based on the North Sea weather conditions. Though, German designers did recognize the need for more deck armor.

[Captain Seafort]

HMS Furious never had a full flight deck, she did have a second on her bow.

My understanding was that she was given a full-length flight deck during the 41-42 refit. Irritatingly, I can't find any photos of her after that refit.

Many people deride the Bismark and by extension the H-39 class because of their outdated designs, it was well suited for what they were designed to do. Fight at moderate range based on the North Sea weather conditions. Though, German designers did recognize the need for more deck armor.

It wasn't quantity that was the problem, it was the shit layout - any heavy shell descending steep enough to go through the upper deck was going to go through the lower deck. On top of that you had the poor stern arrangements - no other country's warships were as vulnerable as the German heavies to being disabled in the way Bismarck was, as the subsequent damage to Lutzow and Prinz Eugen demonstrated.

[McAvoy]

Yeah, the HMS Furious never had one. She did have her forecastle raised, so may be thinking of that.

Like I said before, the design was based on moderate range. In fact, the design was based more like a WW1 era battleship with the exception of the all or nothing US Battleships. Though the arrangement does have some flaws like having cables in front of armor and so forth. The secondary armament is not that good either but we are basing this off of US and British ships. Though the British did go through I believe four different caliber DP guns.

[Tyyr]

The Bismark's armor layout was shit. Sorry, but it was. The German's focused everything on protecting the magazines, engines, and flotation. As a result the Bismark was a burning wreck long before it ever sank. It was designed to fight Jutland all over again neglecting 20 years of naval development by everyone else in the world.

[McAvoy]

You are exactly right. I'm not saying that they made the correct decision, just explaining it.

The Bismark though is an example of what is called mission killed. Even better armored ships can be mission killed like the Bismark. The USS South Dakota for example. She is fortunate that the Washington was there.

[Captain Seafort]

The Bismark though is an example of what is called mission killed. Even better armored ships can be mission killed like the Bismark. The USS South Dakota for example. She is fortunate that the Washington was there.

SoDak was still manoeuvrable, even after all her damage. Bismarck was rendered no more than a target by one torpedo in the stern - a hit that would never half inflicted comparable damage to an allied battleship. The only comparable incidents I can think of of single torps doing so much harm are Audacious and Ark Royal III.

[McAvoy]

You forgot the Prince of Wales pretty much got the same exact hit. It caused the shaft to warp and pretty much destroy the whote area because of that warped shaft still turning.