Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

WW2 - 1943

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Tuesday, 14th March 2006

  Hi all,
  
  If I can put this poser to you and get some answers I'd be interested to see what you all think.
  
  We all know that Hitler planned the war to start in late 1942/43 - what do you think the impact would have been on the UK and the war as a whole if this had have been the case.
  
  If Japan was fighting the USA in the PAC and we were there already protecting our territory I think we would have struggled to protect our islands here. I also think Germany would never have been stupid enough to declare war on the USA knowing that their economy was two years advanced and beginning to produce rather advanced designs that even with the extra devleopment time allowed to the German aviation industries would have still be ahead of them e.g. B-29 Vs. He.177.
  
  However whether or not we'd have produced any specialist kit for the ETO I'm not sure - we'd have been fighting a war like nothing in the ETO and most of our fleet, army and airforce would have been in the far-east.
  
  I think Stalin's forces might have been more prepared to defend their frontiers but I reckong that of kit like the Me-262 had been more developed and say at least the Panther had been fully developed ready for the beginning of the Eastern campaign then the battles at the gates of Moscow might have been a lot different. Also the KMS Z-Plan might have developed a navy strong enough to either (a) support an invasion fleet to attack the UK, (b) support a Blatic invasion force which could have attacked Lenningrad or out flanked Russian Baltic Coastal defences instead of driving northeastwards.
  
  Any thoughts/comments?

  Link to this forum: WW2 - 1943

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Tuesday, 14th March 2006

  id hae thought that we'd still keep a signifaicant amount of our military werewithall within striking distance. we'd be able to tell that Hitler was beligerant anyway, and chaimberlain would all ready be outta no. 10. we (hopefully) would have a more bullish PM, who would have gotten the commons to permit increased military spending.

  Link to this forum: WW2 - 1943

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by lewisledgend101 (U3486219) on Tuesday, 14th March 2006

  id have thought that we'd still keep a signifaicant amount of our military were withall within striking distance. so no

  Link to this forum: WW2 - 1943

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Wednesday, 15th March 2006

  In a manner, this was the dilemma faced by Australia NZ and India in 1939 (aggressors reversed) - whether to send their forces out of the Asia Pacific region to fight Germany whilst Japan was already at war in China.
  
  India was a colony not a dominion, so I'm not sure they had much influence over the decision

  Link to this forum: WW2 - 1943

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Wednesday, 15th March 2006

  Just a quick question VERY loosely based on posts
  above
  
  In WWII - we were fighting in the Far East and the desert - and obviously had to keep substantial forces in the UK to hold against the German invasion threat - and to prepare for an invasion of europe
  
  if we were just in the Far east or just in the desert - would we have sent considerably more forces out there (if it was logistically possible of course?)
  
  what i am trying to say is - is there an "overload factor" involved in a theatre of war - where you just cant keep strengthening it ??
  
  ie we have 10 divisions in the desert - and 40 in the UK - would we commit another 20 - or would it be impossible tactically/strategically to do so ??
  
  hope this makes sense
  
  

  Link to this forum: WW2 - 1943

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 15th March 2006

  Just a thought, but if Germany hadn't had the experience of war between 39-43, would they have bothered to develop the Panther? The Germans were quite happy with their Pz II's, II's and IV's until they actually had to fight T34s. Even the later period German equipment was still being designed such that it was incapable of functioning effectively on the battlefield.
  
  My suspicion that a better prepared Germany in 1943 would meet a much better prepared USSR and a savage but inconclusive war would result.
  
  Would Japan have been able to expand so rapidly if British, Commonwealth and American forces weren't distracted by a European war?

  Link to this forum: WW2 - 1943

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by DocMike15 (U3167117) on Wednesday, 15th March 2006

  This is one the strange effects of assuming a war in 1942-3, and not just regarding the Russians or Germans. If there is no war, then there would be no need for a Panther (although the flow of information between Russia and Nazi Germany in the 20's and 30's may have carried on longer, so perhaps the T34 would have had some effect). But this goes wider, since much of the advances in military research which reach fruition in 1942-3 start because of the out-break of war in 1939. This does not mean that much of the line up of weapons would not have looked different, but it is the case than projects such as jets would have been seen as less important in a world which although preparing to rearm, is still suffering the effects of the depression. Would britain have begun to rearm so furiously in 1938, only to find that the situation does not become worse for another 2 years? Would the US have begun rearmarment in 1940, without the large orders for material from the British & French? This is a classic counter-factual, with endless questions over Japan's role (no fall of France, no invasion of Indo-China?), oil and economics. Personally, I think that Hitler's ambition would have outrun his timetable at some point, and Britain would have simply continued to rearm (albeit at a much slower rate due to appeasement) simply because of the threat of Germany. As to the French Republic, who knows? Italy may well have suffered sufficient defeats to invite Germnay to help them (which is what happened in Greece), which would have led to war anyway. The US might well have faced the Pacific, but without the weapons developed in the ETO. There are lots of possibilties....

  Link to this forum: WW2 - 1943

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by Mr Pedant (U2464726) on Wednesday, 15th March 2006

  I thought Hitler was gutted he didn't get a war in 1938. The British ANd French had done some catching up by the following year.

  Link to this forum: WW2 - 1943

  Report message8

Back to top