OT: What if?

Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: The German-Soviet War 1941-1945 is a turn-based World War II strategy game stretching across the entire Eastern Front. Gamers can engage in an epic campaign, including division-sized battles with realistic and historical terrain, weather, orders of battle, logistics and combat results.

The critically and fan-acclaimed Eastern Front mega-game Gary Grigsby’s War in the East just got bigger and better with Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: Don to the Danube! This expansion to the award-winning War in the East comes with a wide array of later war scenarios ranging from short but intense 6 turn bouts like the Battle for Kharkov (1942) to immense 37-turn engagements taking place across multiple nations like Drama on the Danube (Summer 1944 – Spring 1945).

Moderators: Joel Billings, elmo3, Sabre21

User avatar
Footslogger
Posts: 1245
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:46 pm
Location: Washington USA

OT: What if?

Post by Footslogger »

I. Could the Germans have developed the Panther tank in 1939?
II. What if the FW190 was used instead of the Me109?
III. What if the Germans were ready for a winter battle?
IV. With 3 million men, could the Germans have made more Divisions prior to Barbarrosa?
V. Could the Germans have reworked thier supply system better prior to Barbarossa?

wulfgar
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:42 am

RE: OT: What if?

Post by wulfgar »

The rest is merely window dressing. This is what WW2 was motivated by!

Image
User avatar
parusski
Posts: 4789
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Jackson Tn
Contact:

RE: OT: What if?

Post by parusski »

All could well have changed the outcome of the War in the East. But you are left with one insurmountable problem-Hitler would have still been Hitler. So you would need to change how Hitler thought and controlled things(and general's)!
"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."- W.T. Sherman
Tentpeg
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 5:42 pm

RE: OT: What if?

Post by Tentpeg »

1. The Axis had nothing even close to a Panther design in 39 or 40 or 41. Hitler was not interested in anything long term. The only improvement he wanted was a long 50mm on the PZIII.
2. Nothing was wrong with ME-109 except they did not have enough of them. Hitler was interested in bombers and produced them at the expense of fighters.
3 & 4. Hitler disbanded units ( entire Divisions) after the fall of France. Those units could have proved useful if Hitler was willing to increase production to properly equip them, he wasn't because he thought the war would be over by October.
4. Hitler saw no problem with the supply system. The war would be a quick one. Why create winter stores and equipment for units returning to warm barracks and Xmas leave.

Remove Hitler and you remove the war. With Hitler in charge you lose the war.
wulfgar
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:42 am

RE: OT: What if?

Post by wulfgar »

Yeah, number 2 isn't a good one. The ME 109 was the single most outstanding fighter of the era for doing what it did before long before comparable fighters showed.. And nothing bested it in the European theater except for the Yak - 3. The 109 had a few deficiencies, they were more than balanced by what remained one of the wars most nimble fighter planes.
User avatar
Tarhunnas
Posts: 2900
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:19 am
Location: Hex X37, Y15

RE: OT: What if?

Post by Tarhunnas »

ORIGINAL: wulfgar

Yeah, number 2 isn't a good one. The ME 109 was the single most outstanding fighter of the era for doing what it did before long before comparable fighters showed.. And nothing bested it in the European theater except for the Yak - 3. The 109 had a few deficiencies, they were more than balanced by what remained one of the wars most nimble fighter planes.

Yep, it is a common misconception that the Fw 190 was a better fighter than the Me109, but they were really suited to different roles. Even late in the war, the Luftwaffe used the 109 to take on the escorts while the 190s concentrated on the bombers, that says something!

If the 109 had a weakness, I would say it was its limited range, especially in early models, but all designs are a compromise.
------------------------------
RTW3 Designer
glvaca
Posts: 1312
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:42 pm

RE: OT: What if?

Post by glvaca »

The 190 & 109's are both excellent planes, they just need to be used/flown differently.
The main advantage of the 190, was speed and firepower but it had reduced performance up high (5000+) and was as such not well suited in the high interceptor role for example against the Western Allied heavies and as such they needed to be protected by 109's who had excellent high altitude performance.
However, in Russia, the Russians hardly ever went above 3000m altitude in part because their performance above that altitude was bad. This was the main (but off course not only) reason the Germans could achieve till the end of the was such astounding exchange ratio's. They simple came in around 4000-5000m, swooped down, attacked, climbed up again. Repeat.
The LA5-FN, LA-7, Yak3 and others where excellent fighters below 3000m. They were fast, climbed very well, could turn well but could not compete in a dive (wooden construction). In a turn fight and climbing contest below 3000m, equal Energy,, the Germans did not have a chance in a 1v1 situation. Off course the trick is to make sure you don't get into that situation by staying high, or having a wingman. But anyway.

Anyway, in the right hands, the butcher bird (190) is deadly, 2x or 4x 20mm cannons, plenty of ammo, speed, dive, great elevator control, superb role but really bad sustained turn. It's not for nothing that when it was first introduced in the spring of 1941 on the Western front, the Spitfires good their butt kicked big time.
Schmart
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: Canada

RE: OT: What if?

Post by Schmart »

I think ultimately that all these what ifs are irrelevant. They might've extended the war a few months, maybe more than a year, even perhaps a stalemated eastern front but the cold hard reality was that Germany had no chance in a two front war.

The one factor that would've made any of the given what ifs remotely possible, would have been a total-war production setup in 1939, not 1943. Given that German war production was essentially half-hearted until Speer started turning things around in 1942, even having the Panther in 1939 probably wouldn't get you much more than 20 vehicles a month until 1942. Having 400 Panthers in June 1941 might have allowed the Germans to advance a little bit further (although they were limited by supply anyways) or inflict larger losses, but probably wouldn't have changed the overall outcome.
wulfgar
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:42 am

RE: OT: What if?

Post by wulfgar »

Yes, we scratch number 2. The 109 had the edge on everything it came across in the early phase of the war, including the overrated Spitfire. The Germans had the superior fighter until planes like the Mustang showed late in war. Fantastic at altitude and more nimble than most of the opposition at low level.
I. Could the Germans have developed the Panther tank in 1939?

Probably more the question is if somebody in Germany worked out that ballistic armor, high velocity gun and large road wheels was going to be the way to go. However the Mark 3 & 4 where superior concepts to the vast majority of soviet armor they initially faced.
III. What if the Germans were ready for a winter battle?

Well I don't know if street-fighting in Moscow would be a good thing at any time of year. I suspect the OKW wanted to avoid it and the hope was the Kiev encirclement would collapse the Russian will to fight. Certainly without hindsight I would have done the same thing as Hitler. Note they sensibly avoided storming Leningrad, then they go and make the mistake at Stalingrad.

Always head down the path of least resistance.

The Russians just weren't go to give up! That spoiled everything!




User avatar
barbarrossa
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 1:16 am
Location: Shangri-La

RE: OT: What if?

Post by barbarrossa »

Perhaps if the Germans had gotten a look at the T-34 prior to the opening of hostilities they might have thought twice. Maybe. That would be an interesting scenario for WiTE a 1943 Barbarrossa without a Western front. Panthers and Tigers oh my.

The Bf-109 had some flaws. Narrow landing gear caused many crack-ups, short-legged in fuel and an extremely thin wing that made the addition of wing-mounted cannon problematic in later mods.  The cannon changed flight dynamics mightily.
"It take a brave soldier to be a coward in the Red Army" -- Uncle Joe

"Is it you or I that commands 9th Army, My Fuhrer?" -- Model
Mehring
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:30 am

RE: OT: What if?

Post by Mehring »

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

I. Could the Germans have developed the Panther tank in 1939?
II. What if the FW190 was used instead of the Me109?
III. What if the Germans were ready for a winter battle?
IV. With 3 million men, could the Germans have made more Divisions prior to Barbarrosa?
V. Could the Germans have reworked thier supply system better prior to Barbarossa?


If the human will were everything Hitler made it out to be, surely the 'what if theorists' who substitute understanding of historical processes with their own fantasies, could rewind history with a result more to their liking. Only they might not like it so much when they get it.

At the very least, the desire to posit historically baseless scenarios as posible alternative histories or even food for thought, indicates a lack of interest in the real world. As for myself I find the truth much more incredible and marvelous, if laced with frequent tragedy, than any fiction.

Get a life.
“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.”
-Leon Trotsky
User avatar
barbarrossa
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 1:16 am
Location: Shangri-La

RE: OT: What if?

Post by barbarrossa »

ORIGINAL: Mehring

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

I. Could the Germans have developed the Panther tank in 1939?
II. What if the FW190 was used instead of the Me109?
III. What if the Germans were ready for a winter battle?
IV. With 3 million men, could the Germans have made more Divisions prior to Barbarrosa?
V. Could the Germans have reworked thier supply system better prior to Barbarossa?


If the human will were everything Hitler made it out to be, surely the 'what if theorists' who substitute understanding of historical processes with their own fantasies, could rewind history with a result more to their liking. Only they might not like it so much when they get it.

At the very least, the desire to posit historically baseless scenarios as posible alternative histories or even food for thought, indicates a lack of interest in the real world. As for myself I find the truth much more incredible and marvelous, if laced with frequent tragedy, than any fiction.

Get a life.

Troll, back under the bridge with you.
"It take a brave soldier to be a coward in the Red Army" -- Uncle Joe

"Is it you or I that commands 9th Army, My Fuhrer?" -- Model
randallw
Posts: 2060
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:28 pm

RE: OT: What if?

Post by randallw »

The existence of problem #5 created ( or made moot? ) problem #3.  The supply system was under strain, and moving winter clothing to forward positions would have sacrificed something else, such as food or ammo.
Mehring
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:30 am

RE: OT: What if?

Post by Mehring »

ORIGINAL: barbarrossa

ORIGINAL: Mehring

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

I. Could the Germans have developed the Panther tank in 1939?
II. What if the FW190 was used instead of the Me109?
III. What if the Germans were ready for a winter battle?
IV. With 3 million men, could the Germans have made more Divisions prior to Barbarrosa?
V. Could the Germans have reworked thier supply system better prior to Barbarossa?


So sorry to interrupt your fatuous musings.
So sorry to interrupt fatuous musings

If the human will were everything Hitler made it out to be, surely the 'what if theorists' who substitute understanding of historical processes with their own fantasies, could rewind history with a result more to their liking. Only they might not like it so much when they get it.

At the very least, the desire to posit historically baseless scenarios as posible alternative histories or even food for thought, indicates a lack of interest in the real world. As for myself I find the truth much more incredible and marvelous, if laced with frequent tragedy, than any fiction.

Get a life.

Troll, back under the bridge with you.
“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.”
-Leon Trotsky
Mehring
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:30 am

RE: OT: What if?

Post by Mehring »


ORIGINAL: barbarrossa



Troll, back under the bridge with you.

Forgive my interruption of your fatuous musings
“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.”
-Leon Trotsky
User avatar
barbarrossa
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 1:16 am
Location: Shangri-La

RE: OT: What if?

Post by barbarrossa »

You are forgiven. 
"It take a brave soldier to be a coward in the Red Army" -- Uncle Joe

"Is it you or I that commands 9th Army, My Fuhrer?" -- Model
Ron
Posts: 499
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 2:46 am

RE: OT: What if?

Post by Ron »

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

I. Could the Germans have developed the Panther tank in 1939?
II. What if the FW190 was used instead of the Me109?
III. What if the Germans were ready for a winter battle?
IV. With 3 million men, could the Germans have made more Divisions prior to Barbarrosa?
V. Could the Germans have reworked thier supply system better prior to Barbarossa?


All food for thought over a pint or two, and all points likely a considerable short-term advantage. :) However, I think any serious discussion cannot overlook the repeated trait of the Nazis to systematically rob Peter to pay Paul, rendering all null and void in the end, or overlook the self-destructive influence of a Hitler in power.
Ron
Posts: 499
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 2:46 am

RE: OT: What if?

Post by Ron »

ORIGINAL: Mehring


ORIGINAL: barbarrossa



Troll, back under the bridge with you.

Forgive my interruption of your fatuous musings


Pretentious, yet still a troll.
User avatar
AFV
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 2:12 pm
Location: Dallas, Texas

RE: OT: What if?

Post by AFV »

ORIGINAL: Mehring

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

I. Could the Germans have developed the Panther tank in 1939?
II. What if the FW190 was used instead of the Me109?
III. What if the Germans were ready for a winter battle?
IV. With 3 million men, could the Germans have made more Divisions prior to Barbarrosa?
V. Could the Germans have reworked thier supply system better prior to Barbarossa?


If the human will were everything Hitler made it out to be, surely the 'what if theorists' who substitute understanding of historical processes with their own fantasies, could rewind history with a result more to their liking. Only they might not like it so much when they get it.

At the very least, the desire to posit historically baseless scenarios as posible alternative histories or even food for thought, indicates a lack of interest in the real world. As for myself I find the truth much more incredible and marvelous, if laced with frequent tragedy, than any fiction.

Get a life.

How odd, on a forum dedicated to a wargame, which in itself by definition is a what-if of a historical scenario, someone would post this, which in effect says its foolish to even consider what-ifs.

If you can't wrap your mind around hypothetical situations, this likely is not the best forum for you. As has been pointed out, troll.
Mehring
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:30 am

RE: OT: What if?

Post by Mehring »

ORIGINAL: AFV


How odd, on a forum dedicated to a wargame, which in itself by definition is a what-if of a historical scenario, someone would post this, which in effect says its foolish to even consider what-ifs.

If you can't wrap your mind around hypothetical situations, this likely is not the best forum for you. As has been pointed out, troll.
Is it?

What if, in 1941, Germany had disappeared in a giant sinkhole?
What if the US had developed a giant lazer in 1943?
What if Hitler's coprophilia had been proven to the German people in 1938?

All may sound more fantastic perhaps, but in fact, none are more far fetched than the questions opening this thread. None of them have any basis in what was historically possible.

The only difference is that while all of the what if scenarios opening this thread muse scenarios more promising for the Nazis, none of mine do.

The question is, are the supporters of this thread neo nazis or just a bunch of neo Spinal Tap fans given to confused sexual fantasies of invasion and destruction so easily transferred onto the Nazi experience?

Pathetic, either way.
“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.”
-Leon Trotsky
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series”