If Germany and Japan won World War 2 ...?

Originally posted by Utrigita
It's true they declared war against them, but it wouldn't have mattered since Roosevelt already before the declaration of war from Hitler was helping Britain with supplies and it would only have been a matter of time before US had joined a 100%, and no the German forces never sat foot on american soil they had enough to do in USSR.

That's correct.

No Japan launched a blitz war against USA, but they knew they would lose all sources from that point of time point to that if there was anything they wanted to avoid it was war with USA.

No there army wasn't twice as big else USA couldn't have afforded a war on two fronts on the scale that they waged it. Also the German war machine wasn't superior to any other army just organised in a more efficient way.

tell that to the producer of the show and the footage he somehow attained of down U.S. tankers and the hands of German sub. And i never said they set foot on US soil. He said they came to our shores and proved it.

Originally posted by Utrigita
No there army wasn't twice as big else USA couldn't have afforded a war on two fronts on the scale that they waged it. Also the German war machine wasn't superior to any other army just organised in a more efficient way.

Huh?

While I'm no history buff, this defies everything I've personally been told about WWII by the History channel, by teachers and professors, and by my own research. From everywhere else I've read, it's pretty much the unanimous conclusion that the German military, per capita, was superior to ours. Their technology was initially better, their training was better, and their tactics were better (prior to Hitler submitting to his lunacy). Hell, look at what they did to the Russians when they invaded. Initially, they stomped the hell out of them, despite the fact that it was winter, they were undersupplied, and they were outnumbered.

Realistically, there's no way that Germany could have done as well as it did against the Allies if it were not, in some way, superior on the field.

It all doesnt matter because we had the bomb in the end and we would of just dropped it on Berlin and all of Germany.

Boom. No more WW2.

Originally posted by Gideon
Huh?

While I'm no history buff, this defies everything I've personally been told about WWII by the History channel, by teachers and professors, and by my own research. From everywhere else I've read, it's pretty much the unanimous conclusion that the German military, per capita, was superior to ours. Their technology was initially better, their training was better, and their tactics were better (prior to Hitler submitting to his lunacy). Hell, look at what they did to the Russians when they invaded. Initially, they stomped the hell out of them, despite the fact that it was winter, they were undersupplied, and they were outnumbered.

Realistically, there's no way that Germany could have done as well as it did against the Allies if it were not, in some way, superior on the field.

Thats where you are wrong all analyses on the field shows that what really made the difference between the German army and the allies was the way it was organized. Hitler choosed to invest a large part of his funds in producing Tanks and was proud about them he also organized them into speciel groups. The allies on the other hand hated the tanks and the tanks was spread out through each company instead of being gathered into organized unites. Current research shows that Franch had 1. more tanks 2. better equipped tanks. But the real differene is that in germanny we have a new set of generals open for new ideas when the allies still have the good old dustbacks that won the first world war.

Of Cause they stomped the hell out of the Sovjets the red armywas still rebuilding why do you think Stalin made a deal with Hitler in the first place. Secondly there wasn't any intelligent Generals left in the red army they had been killed ore sent to the siberian workcamps prior to erruption of world war II by Stalin who feared a revolt. I believe only one got back, but that was a montgomery they got back, which stopped the Germans dead in there tracks at Stalingrad and planned there defeat at Kursk.

Ever heard of blitzkrieg, thats basically what the germans utilized against the allies, none expected the germans to roll straight through Holland and belgien all expected them to attack the magninot line which probably wouldn't have stopped them but would have decreased them enough for the allies to win. And I never said that they wasn't superior in some way I merely pointed out that the Germans war machine to me guns manpower tanks etc wasn't superior to the other nations.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
tell that to the producer of the show and the footage he somehow attained of down U.S. tankers and the hands of German sub. And i never said they set foot on US soil. He said they came to our shores and proved it.

I misunderstood you then, I was under the impression that the TV show that you where watching claimed that the Germans actually had groundbased war in the US with the americans.

Althought all of your points are correct except one Utrigita, I would have to disagree with you about the technology. I've seen it on history channel and I had some of my proffesors tell me, that during WW2 Germany had the most superior technology by a long shot. A few months ago I saw a program on history channel which talked about alot of the new inventions in WW2 that were cunning, but where never put into a final use. There were around 15, and only 1 of them was American while 14 was German. It showed the germans making a plan of making an enormous air carrier made completely of ice, using a huge glacier to make it. Since ice expands when freezes it would float on water no matter how big the ship is. They created half of the ship before they threw out the plan because they couldn't create a material suitable for the flight tracks on it. Another device they created was a supersonic wave emitter, which would have been put to use if they hadn't lost since it was created so close to their downfall. It was basicly a stationary 'turret' which emmited incredulous amounts of sound waves, which would render the targets deaf and screaming in agony. The device that the Americans made was a special rolling tank which could deploy and roll really fast, and upon hard impact it exploded. They wanted to use this on D-DAy as it could also roll upon the water. However this device was discarded as they could not find a way to direct where it goes efficiently.

The German's tanks had much more armor and weapons than all the other tanks, especially their Panzer's. However I will have to agree with you that Germany's main advantage was in it's Blitzkrieg. The tactic of how it deployed it's battalions of tanks swiftly over the battlefield followed by a sweep of infantry was new to everyone, and it was terryifing.

Originally posted by Spidervlad
Althought all of your points are correct except one Utrigita, I would have to disagree with you about the technology. I've seen it on history channel and I had some of my proffesors tell me, that during WW2 Germany had the most superior technology by a long shot. A few months ago I saw a program on history channel which talked about alot of the new inventions in WW2 that were cunning, but where never put into a final use. There were around 15, and only 1 of them was American while 14 was German. It showed the germans making a plan of making an enormous air carrier made completely of ice, using a huge glacier to make it. Since ice expands when freezes it would float on water no matter how big the ship is. They created half of the ship before they threw out the plan because they couldn't create a material suitable for the flight tracks on it. Another device they created was a supersonic wave emitter, which would have been put to use if they hadn't lost since it was created so close to their downfall. It was basicly a stationary 'turret' which emmited incredulous amounts of sound waves, which would render the targets deaf and screaming in agony. The device that the Americans made was a special rolling tank which could deploy and roll really fast, and upon hard impact it exploded. They wanted to use this on D-DAy as it could also roll upon the water. However this device was discarded as they could not find a way to direct where it goes efficiently.

I would like to specify that all my points are made from the beginning of the second world war, I know fully well that during the war the Germans technology grow and they produced numerous military Items that was far ahead of there time, like the V2 rockets for instance which actually worked like the numerous aircraft that was put into production in the late 1944. Also most of those 14 issues that you are listing was dropped mainly because of numerous things to name a few would be that the germans knew it would be impossible to accomplished, the ice carrier for instance would be extremely weak against attacks, the sound wave emitter only worked within a few meters today we have expanded it to roughly 10 meters I believe (not sure). But most importantly most of the scientific discoveries was simply to expensive to put into further production.

The German's tanks had much more armor and weapons than all the other tanks, especially their Panzer's. However I will have to agree with you that Germany's main advantage was in it's Blitzkrieg. The tactic of how it deployed it's battalions of tanks swiftly over the battlefield followed by a sweep of infantry was new to everyone, and it was terrifying. [/B]

Sorry spidervald but that simply isn't true that the germans armies tanks was better equipped this said by the material I have read and being told by my teachers that the germans Tanks main advantage in the WW2 was there number against the enemies tanks which normally was one per company and the way the germans utilized them.

I'm assuming that we are only talking about the beginning of the war???

This is a statement from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_VI_Ausf._B

The very heavy armor and powerful long-range gun gave the Tiger II the advantage against virtually all opposing tanks. This was especially true on the Western Front, where the British and U.S. forces had almost no heavy tanks with which to oppose it. In a defensive position it was difficult to destroy, but offensively it performed with less success.

The Tiger II performed very well against Allied and Soviet tanks being able to penetrate the front armour of the M4 Sherman, M26 Pershing and IS-2 at 2500 m, 1800 m and 1200 m respectively. Defensively, the M4 Sherman was unable to penetrate the front even at point blank and the M26 Pershing and IS-2 had to come within 1300 m and 200 m respectively. [1]

Shows that the tank had an advantage against almost all allied tanks.

The Allies won because they had superior production facilities than the Germans, and superior intelligence branch, and dont forget, the bomb.

Even though, the Tiger had its superior advantage, it didnt help that it took a massive amount of resources to build.

Same with the V2 rocket. Impratical. It was more of an propanda weapon than an offensive weapon. During the pre-invasion of the Normandy, Hitler and Co. sent V2 rockets to London on a daily basis. Completly ineffective. Didnt do anything.

Originally posted by Spidervlad
This is a statement from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_VI_Ausf._B

The very heavy armor and powerful long-range gun gave the Tiger II the advantage against virtually all opposing tanks. This was especially true on the Western Front, where the British and U.S. forces had almost no heavy tanks with which to oppose it. In a defensive position it was difficult to destroy, but offensively it performed with less success.

The Tiger II performed very well against Allied and Soviet tanks being able to penetrate the front armour of the M4 Sherman, M26 Pershing and IS-2 at 2500 m, 1800 m and 1200 m respectively. Defensively, the M4 Sherman was unable to penetrate the front even at point blank and the M26 Pershing and IS-2 had to come within 1300 m and 200 m respectively. [1]

Shows that the tank had an advantage against almost all allied tanks.

and it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about 😉

I'm refering to the beginning at the war. and the tank you illustrated was first built in 1943 I believe I would say in the middel of the war wouldn't you think 😉

Originally posted by Smasandian
The Allies won because they had superior production facilities than the Germans, and superior intelligence branch, and dont forget, the bomb.

USA had superior production facilities, and I don't know about the superior intelligence the Germans had enigma.

Even though, the Tiger had its superior advantage, it didnt help that it took a massive amount of resources to build.[/B]

👆

Same with the V2 rocket. Impratical. It was more of an propanda weapon than an offensive weapon. During the pre-invasion of the Normandy, Hitler and Co. sent V2 rockets to London on a daily basis. Completly ineffective. Didnt do anything. [/B]

anything that blowing the city to ruins 😬

Originally posted by Smasandian
The Allies won because they had superior production facilities than the Germans, and superior intelligence branch, and dont forget, the bomb.

More specifically, the US.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I'm asking cause yesterday I was watching a good WW2 doc on TV called "War" and found out that Germany actually attacked the U.S. during WW2..Damn I didn't know that...Like their forces literally came to the U.S. to strike it.

German subs attacked cargo carriers from the shores of Boston to oil tankers in the Gulf of Mexico. In 1944 they downed like 3-4 a week for like a half a year.

Thankfully they lost.

To your first point America would had declared war on Germany sooner or latter, Hitler was quick off the blocks so to speak.

Your second point about the U-Boats I find hard to believe as the U-Boats lost the war in July 1943.

Originally posted by Spidervlad
This is a statement from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_VI_Ausf._B

The very heavy armor and powerful long-range gun gave the Tiger II the advantage against virtually all opposing tanks. This was especially true on the Western Front, where the British and U.S. forces had almost no heavy tanks with which to oppose it. In a defensive position it was difficult to destroy, but offensively it performed with less success.

The Tiger II performed very well against Allied and Soviet tanks being able to penetrate the front armour of the M4 Sherman, M26 Pershing and IS-2 at 2500 m, 1800 m and 1200 m respectively. Defensively, the M4 Sherman was unable to penetrate the front even at point blank and the M26 Pershing and IS-2 had to come within 1300 m and 200 m respectively. [1]

Shows that the tank had an advantage against almost all allied tanks.

The Soviet ISU152 was known as the animal killer which could take on a Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf. B 😎

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
More specifically, the US.

Yes, true, but to think the US was the only reason that the Allies won is complete and utter shit.

The British intelligence division pretty much found and double crossed every German spy, they also broke the Enigma, which allowed them to find the spies by using Ultra.

Without that intelligence, D-Day might have not worked.

The States were good for production facilities (from car factories), manpower and the "brawn"

The British had in ingeniuty from the Double Cross Intelligence system, radar and sonar, alot of the basic work of the atomic bomb, special tanks like DD tanks, the crab that brought up mines and invention of the artificial ports that protected the boats after D-Day.

I'm not saying the US didnt do anything, but I'm just saying that the British and the US were both equally important to the Allies win.

The V-2 rocket was an terror weapon, which was ineffective. At the time, the British people already have been bombed countless times, so a few rockets wont make much difference. The Germans had the ME-262 which was the best fighter plane in the war, but they couldnt get any support because Hitler wanted bombers to bomb London. If they created those fighters instead of those V-2 Rockets, D-Day could of been completely different.

Lastly, all this doesnt matter because in an fictional setting, the Germans and Japan would of never won because in the end, the Alliees would of dropped A-bombs all over the place. Germany and Japan would of lost anyways, no matter what happens during the war.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Yes, true, but to think the US was the only reason that the Allies won is complete and utter shit.

That is true, but let's be honest, the US carried the Allies. All three major Allied Powers; UK, USA and USSR were all importnant and did their parts, but the US pulled its weight even more than the other two. Aside from taking Berlin in April of '45 can you name any German-Russian battle in which the Russians weren't just protecting their own asses?

One thing I really don't like is when the History Channel has a show about the Pacific War and they say Japanese vs Allied forces......🤨......um, can we be a little more specific there? I don't recall any South Pacific battles in which British or Soviet troops took an island from the Japanese.

When Americans say they carried the war when they FINALLY joined, they seem to forget we had been fighting a war for years and they hadn't. They were still strong.

Originally posted by B.A
When Americans say they carried the war when they FINALLY joined, they seem to forget we had been fighting a war for years and they hadn't. They were still strong.

Who's "we"?

Dec 1941 - Sep 1945 is nearly four years. It's not like we joined at the last minute. Say we joined in '39, ok, the only deifference is that an Allied victory would have occured faster.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Who's "we"?

Dec 1941 - Sep 1945 is nearly four years. It's not like we joined at the last minute. Say we joined in '39, ok, the only deifference is that an Allied victory would have occured faster.

That too.