Xenos wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 5:04 pmVery few things are certain in history... sure, if you mathematically compare all the factors, production, terrain, manpower... then the situation looks fairly grim for Germany. But a political collapse of the Soviet Union wasn't out of the picture. Let's just say you manage to take Moscow swiftly and capture the whole Politburo, the republics declare independence and rise up before German atrocities pushes them away. Or let's say that the kind of colossal victories you achieve in this game, even larger in magnitude than reality, convince the Japanese to purse a northern strategy instead of a southern one... there are possibilities.
All of these are either implausible or inconsequential.
A political collapse of the USSR was never anything but wishful thinking, as was taking Moscow fast enough to capture the entire Politburo. There was effectively no leadership or anything the like able TO declare independence in the republics, let alone to actually create a meaningful uprising, and it'd be pretty darn hard for German atrocities to not push them away before the Wehrmacht got anywhere close to Moscow. After all, said atrocities started virtually the moment the Germans set foot in those areas. And the Japanese invading Siberia? For what? Frozen wasteland that is ultimately completely expendable to the Soviets, with everything of actual value far beyond the limitations of the IJA's logistics? What's that supposed to achieve, other than potentially getting a japanese army wiped out by hunger and exposure alone if they're dumb enough to actually try to march all the way across Siberia to get somewhere the Soviets truly have to care about in the short term?
Retributarr wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 11:05 pm
The
"Normandy-Landings" very-nearly failed for several reasons... it was not a guarantee that the amphibious invasion effort was going to work out!.
This is a complete myth. Ultimately, the Normandy Landings were already palgued by severabl bouts of bad luck, and still handily succeeded anyways.
2. Many of the "Mulbury- Harbours" were dislocated from their moorings so as to render them useless for further off-loading from ships of 'Material and Troops'. Some of these 'Mulbury-Harbours'... were actually 'Wrecked' or 'Destroyed' by the stormy weather so that they were unusable!. So now!...the allies had to make a determined effort to capture another... but "less-capable coastal port" to maintain the momentum of continued offloading. I think that it was called... "St. Malo".
It's "Mulberry". And the port they took was Cherbourg. The only thing close to your "St. Malo" I can come up with would be St. Lo, which was an important traffic crossroads for the region - and not on the coast.
3.The worsening weather conditions hampered the 'Stuka Dive Bombers' and other German Aircraft from inflicting more damage on the 'Invasion-Fleet' than they originally did.
Weather did not ensure that the skies over the invasion fleet and the beaches were clear of german aircraft. The overwhelming presence of the RAF and USAAF holding virtually total air dominance over the region did. It was
the Germans who were consistently
praying for worse weather in Normandy. Because that would have lessened the relentless pressure allied airpower put on them throughout the entirety of the campaign, and they had no real recourse against that otherwise.
4. I'm quite sure that one entire 'American Infantry Division' landed in or on the wrong beach which in-fact was just pure 'Dumb-Luck'... as they landed where the German Defenses were near non-existent!.
That incident alone really helped in making of securing the 'Normandy Beach-head' a much more successful operation.
This, as far as I can tell, is entirely made up yarn.
5. One would have to check further on this but, I am reasonably sure that some German Armoured Units might have possibly been close enough to severely disrupt the invasion effort... but were diverted for some forgotten reason by myself... and so did not adversely affect the outcome of the landings.
German armored units, chiefly the 21st Panzer, tried. Their attempts were for the most part summarily beaten back by overwhelming allied airpower and naval artillery before even getting close to the beaches. Turns out that rolling panzer columns down a road gets a lot more exciting when there's hundreds upon hundreds of enemy aircraft patrolling all over the region and strafing anything that moves on the roads.
Retributarr wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 4:40 amHitlers 'Hermann Goerring' gave the authorization to implement the 'Amerika Bomber' programme. You can check this for yourself through various means, the internet and so on, but!... the easiest way is to go to 'UTUBE'. This 'Amerika-Bomber' was specked out to be able to go to the U.S.A. to drop 'Atomic-Bombs' at first on 'New York and Washington'.
Yes, and in true Goering fashion it was a trianwreck of a program right from the start. And made less than zero sense strategically, too. Strategic bombing is a strategy for rich countries, not for someone who wants to go to war against a nation that literally has more than half the entire world's GDP at its disposal.
Despite the 'Nay-Sayers' debunking the German efforts to develop a viable 'Nuclear Programme'... they had in-fact before wars-end,... did testing with small scale 'Atomic-Bombs' to gauge their effectiveness and viability. The 'Bombs' were successful working weapons during the tests.
If 'Atomic-Bombs' were successfully dropped on American Cities... very likely the willingness to carry on the war with Germany would change... with some kind of settlement or arrangement.
1. [citaiton needed] The german nuclear wepaons program was undersized, underfunded, going down a developmental dead end and by all actual evidence avaiable came never even close to a functioning weapon. In fact, givne they were going down a dead end, they would have never actually gotten a working weapon without all but scratching the whole program and starting over again.
2. Even if we are insanely optimistic about the german nuke program, by the time they'd be able to drop a bomb on the US, it would be promptly answered by the Americans dropping 20+ on Germany in returnwithin the month. And meanwhile, the eastern seaboard would turn into the greatest air defense zone in human history,while "unconditional surrender" would de facto turn into "we'll stop once the German nation is nothing but irradiated dust and ashes".
3. The above isn't going to happen anyway, because by that point there'll long since be a red flag flying over the Reichstag.
The Germans were developing 'Huge' quantities of heavy-water in 'Norway'... as well as in South America where they had constructed a large 'Hydro-Electric-Dam'... which was also producing huge quantities of heavy water for Atomic Bomb development. This Hydro-Electric-Dam was constructed in South America before the war in Europe even began. Just west of 'Bariloche' in Argentina...on an island... a major Atomic Testing Centre was constructed... to hasten the development of the Atomic Bomb.
Okay. Please provide actual evidence for the existence of this mythical heavy water plant in South America. And then explain how said plant was supposed to actually deliver even a single drop of said heavy water to Germany across the allied pond that was the Atlantic. PS: Your "Bariloche" would be San Carlos de Bariloche. Which is situated about a hundred kilometres away from the Alicurá Dam. Of course, the problem there is that a) the Alicurá Dam doesn't include a heavy water production facility and b) the dam was only inaugurated in
1985.
Retributarr wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 3:57 pm
Part 1. De-bunking the De-bunkers:
By Ray Furlong
BBC News, Berlin
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4348497.stm
Hitler 'tested small atom bomb'
The Germans had an atomic reactor near Berlin which was running for a short while, perhaps some days or weeks," he told the BBC.
"The second important finding was the atomic tests carried out in Thuringia and on the Baltic Sea."
Mr Karlsch describes what the Germans had as a "hybrid tactical nuclear weapon" much smaller than those dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
Having a tiny test reactor run for a couple days does not a functioning weapons program make. And "hybrid tactical nuclear weapons" is a pretty funny way to describe primitive dirty bombs (because that's what gets you a measily 500 square meters area of effect), if one that hypes them up massively.
Putting a 500 meter hole in an american city isn't going to bring the US to the negotiation table. They've done far, far, far worse to german cities with conventional firebombing alone on a regular basis, let alone what they could start to do once 1945 hits and they start receiving real nukes on a weekly basis. Your silver arrow Wunderwaffe is more of a nerf dart. At "best" what you'll achieve is the yanks mistaking the radiation poisoning for some sort of chemical attack and responding by mass-dropping poison gas on german cities in response.
Not to mention that your source is heavily disputed and rife with outright pseudo-science and/or outright failures to understand basic physics, and even the author himself admits that he is lacking actual definite proof for his claims.
I also love how you keep going on about Hitler declaring war on the US being such a mistake. When in reality the US was already waging an undeclared war against Germany for a while by that point and Hitlers declaration against them didn't actually change much of anything.
IMAGE-UNRETREVABLE Go to Website to see illustration.
Free-Falling Bomb
