OT: What if?

[AFV]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Actually, it was far more likely the Germans could have prepared for a winter battle than all of Germany had fallen into a giant sinkhole.

I guess if I play the German in the game, I am a Neo-nazi, because I am trying to win?
For that matter, if I play the Russian am I a Stalin supporter?
Or does it mean nothing since its just a game?

Again, since you cannot wrap your brain around hypotheticals without having a conniption fit, any wargame forum is really not for you.
And, for your information, I am quite glad that Germany was defeated (and Japan for that matter). However, that does not prevent me from engaging in intellectual thoughts on what-ifs, and that extends to any war, from Ancient Rome to Viet-Nam. Don't mistake such musings for any perceived allegiance to any side, because it simply does not exist.

[wulfgar]

When knowledge is pursued with purely practical aims it is termed "sophistry". However if one pursues knowledge for the sake of simply "knowing", this is termed "philosophy".

Actually the best scholarship was produced by the philosophers because their dedication to the refinement of knowledge is greater.

Of course if we reject philosophy, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.......we never would have got past the Bronze Age.

So yes, strangely there are Human Apes that indulge themselves in speculative thought purely for artistic motives.

[barbarrossa]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Seriously? Really?

You must be a barrel of laughs to hang out with.

[Flaviusx]

I would be nice to see some non Nazi Germany what ifs every once in a while. Most of these are neither very interesting nor plausible.

Here's a neat one: what if the Soviet Union had won the Battle for Warsaw in 1920?

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I would be nice to see some non Nazi Germany what ifs every once in a while. Most of these are neither very interesting nor plausible.

Here's a neat one: what if the Soviet Union had won the Battle for Warsaw in 1920?

Good point! Almost all what ifs have Nazi Germany doing this or that differently.

The Warsaw thing, that is an interesting one. But it poses several other wat ifs like would world revolution have spread to Germany, or would the Germans on the contrary have rallied to stop the Soviets? A Russo-german war in the 1920:s... Not that I suppose the Germans would have had the stomach for it after WW1, but OTOH the Russians went right on fighting, so why not the Germans...

Another intersting what if is what if Stalin had not purged his officer corps? How much would that have affected initial Soviet effectiveness?

[Wild]

delete

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Wild

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I would be nice to see some non Nazi Germany what ifs every once in a while. Most of these are neither very interesting nor plausible.

Here's a neat one: what if the Soviet Union had won the Battle for Warsaw in 1920?

Yet more evidence of the complete pro Soviet bias of the playtesters. It's not enough to give the Soviets every advantage and to deny the Germans anything fun like production, now people aren't even allowed to speculate on anything German.

What a joke.

Don't worry troll, the WhAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAmbulence is on the way.

Even if by some miracle Baku was taken. A: It would of been completely wrecked. B: Given their logistical constraints, just how would they have gotten the oil out if and when they ever repaired it.

[Aurelian]

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. Not as nimble as a Spit or Zero. I wouldn't call it very nimble by 43. And adding underwing cannon made it less so.

"In a meeting with Willy Messerschmitt, the head of the Technical Office of the Luftwaffe pointed out that while the speed of the Me 109 was perfectly within requirements, that the Luftwaffe needed was a fighter ‘with the same speed plus greater range and a better rate of climb’.

Willy Messerschmitt, it has been reliably reported, reacted with a flash of temper. ‘What do you want?’ he is said to have shouted, ‘A fast fighter or a barn door’?

… Two years later, these same individuals were forced to run for shelter in Augsburg, which had come under attack by a swarm of Thunderbolt Fighters of the Eigth Fighter Command. At the sight of the powerful fighters strafing deep within enemy terriroty, the official of the Technical Office turned to Willy Messerschmitt with this acid reply:

'Well, there are your barn doors!”

Source: Martin Caidin, Me 109: Willy Messerschmitt’s Peerless Fighter, (New York: Ballantine, 1968), pp. 113-14.

[Footslogger]

Now thats enough!! I am not a Neo-Nazi!! (slime of the earth)[:-]

[wulfgar]

Me 109: Willy Messerschmitt’s Peerless Fighter

The argument is.....

II. What if the FW190 was used instead of the Me109?

So we are talking about the war up until 1941.

Battle of France had the outnumbered 109's wiping all opposition....that's good enough for me. The battle of Britain has the 109 fighting at extreme range against the Splutterfire. Dowding very cleverly never deployed the Splutterfire on more even terms in France, he just let everything else the Brits had get shot down in droves.
The 109 was equaled later on but continued to give good account right to the end of the war.

[Wild]

delete

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: wulfgar

Me 109: Willy Messerschmitt’s Peerless Fighter

The argument is.....

II. What if the FW190 was used instead of the Me109?

So we are talking about the war up until 1941.

Battle of France had the outnumbered 109's wiping all opposition....that's good enough for me. The battle of Britain has the 109 fighting at extreme range against the Splutterfire. Dowding very cleverly never deployed the Splutterfire on more even terms in France, he just let everything else the Brits had get shot down in droves.
The 109 was equaled later on but continued to give good account right to the end of the war.

The 109 continued through the war due to the lack of anything better. Thanks to short sighted German planning. Galland himself preferred the 190 IIRC.

And whose fault was it that the 109 didn't have the range? Or drop tanks? Then 109F series was considered by many to be a step backwards due to the deletion of the wing guns.

You can call the Spit whatever you want. Doesn't excuse the fact that it won. Over Britian and later Dieppe.

[Flaviusx]

Wild (you are splendidly named, btw) it's not that I am pro Soviet. It's that nazi alternate history is just boring and overdone. I really don't think anything genuinely new or interesting on the subject has been thought up in decades. Nothing in this thread qualifies as either new or interesting, btw, it's the usual blend of implausible stuff and technological fetishism.

So how about that Soviet win at Warsaw? Does the revolution spread to Berlin and elsewhere? What do the Western Allies do?

[wulfgar]

Whatever the capabilities of the early Spitfires, the 109 out-ranged them on internal fuel and out performed them with fuel injection. As for drop tanks the 109 was using them long before the Spitfire.
In your mind you are putting later marks of the Spitfire against earlier 109's.

[Aurelian]

Later Spits against later 109s. Either way, they, (109s) came out second best.

Fuel injection. Sure. Slam it into a negative G dive, which airplanes with carbs, (except for the floatless carbs), couldn't do.

Great to get away. Not much use when escorting bombers.

BTW, the 109 and the Zero are my favorites.

[Wild]

delete

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Wild (you are splendidly named, btw) it's not that I am pro Soviet. It's that nazi alternate history is just boring and overdone. I really don't think anything genuinely new or interesting on the subject has been thought up in decades. Nothing in this thread qualifies as either new or interesting, btw, it's the usual blend of implausible stuff and technological fetishism.

So how about that Soviet win at Warsaw? Does the revolution spread to Berlin and elsewhere? What do the Western Allies do?

That's a good question. What would they do. What could they do? Having just gone through WW1 and getting out of the RCW, I don't think either was looking to get into another war.

And it certainly didn't help that they crippled the German military.

Maybe their own version of Lend Lease? Possibly of eased up on the Treaty vis a vis Germany so Germany could help the Poles while France/Britian re-armed?

I think GB would have to take the lead though, given how much France was hurt by the war.

[wulfgar]

That might be the case, but this is about comparative Spits vs 109's early in the war. Really back then the 109's owned everything else.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: wulfgar

That might be the case, but this is about comparative Spits vs 109's early in the war. Really back then the 109's owned everything else.

No, the question was, "What if the 190 was used instead of the 109."

And it really doesn't matter how well it did against obsolecent fighters. It came out second best against the Spit. Early in the war.

Ole Willie didn't think a plane like the P-47 was possible. That barn door proved him wrong.

Much like the Zero, it stayed in production since they really didn't have anything better. A problem with planning on a short war.

Would the 190 of made a difference? Probably not.

[wulfgar]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Much like the Zero, it stayed in production since they really didn't have anything better. A problem with planning on a short war.

Would the 190 of made a difference? Probably not.

I find it very strange somebody would make this claim about later Japanese fighter design?[:D]

And it really doesn't matter how well it did against obsolescent fighters. It came out second best against the Spit. Early in the war.

You gotta stop confusing phony wartime propaganda with fact. Britain was up against the wall in 1940 and needed some BS to make them feel good. It's pure wartime propaganda that the 109 was some type of inferior aircraft.

No, the question was, "What if the 190 was used instead of the 109."

Well, the 109 remained the one to beat according to the Soviets.