Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-29-2018, 02:46 PM   #31
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Reich-5: Battle of Britain question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Masters View Post
I seem to recall Ken admitting that he doesn't believe in Reich-5; it may actually be a hallucinatory fantasy passing through Hitler's dying brain in the bunker in 1945. It's there because at some point a Stupid Jetpack Hitler Nazi-victory timeline was considered mandatory. The other Reich timelines in Infinite Worlds probably make a lot more sense.

Yeah I agree, but ultimately it a great boogie man timeline, and it's not impossible, it just needs Germany to keep getting lucky and most everyone else to keep getting unlucky. So not impossible just v.unlikely.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pursuivant View Post
The only way that you can have War starts in 1939 and the Axis rules the Earth by 1945 is if you figure in "soft" political factors rather than just military forces, comparative GDP, etc.

Two factors which don't get as much play in alternate history are that the Depression of 1929 could have been much worse, which would have meant that more people would be desperate for radical change in the form of communism or fascism. Civil war is a great way to both neutralize a country's military and to make its leaders desperate enough for aid that they welcome foreign military intervention.

Additionally, until 1939 (even after), a lot of very influential people in the US, UK, and France supported Hitler. The Axis could have easily won a purely political victory if pro-Fascist elements in Western Europe were stronger, smarter, and better led, or if anti-fascist or pro-communist forces had been "different."

There's also the simple trick of changing history so that Roosevelt, Churchill, or any of the other political heroes of World War II ended up "playing for the other side." Imagine what would have happened if Churchill had admired Hitler? (After all, in many ways Churchill was an authoritarian bigot.) Or, imagine what would have happened if Roosevelt (a rich aristocrat who would have been right at home among the leaders of the Fascist party) had become enamored by Italian-style Fascism in the 1920s!

I agree I think political changes is the way to go. Another possibility is given that the rest of the west at times quite liked the idea of strong Germany against a Communist Russia and threat of international communism (and given your worse depression increases the perceived threat of communism) maybe a Germany/Hitler who's more overtly anti communist as a primary cause and keep the anti-Semitism a bit less overt. Maybe if Germany and the USSR go at it first Germany might end up seen as being the strong bulwark and sword of the west. Say the Soviets cross Polish Borders first, then Germany goes in to meet them. Germany obviously needs to gather it strength in that role so the Anschluss, Sudetanland, and in general 'correcting the imbalance of Versailles' is seen more positively by everyone else not losing autonomy or territory.

Germany beats the Soviets (well keeps them to a dull roar in Siberia) possibly with our economic support. Japan takes advantage in the far east with Soviet territory rather than going into the Pacific. Germany gets nice and consolidated, gets a working war economy, brings in those resources and only then looks west but in a stronger position.

A worse depression means Britain and France may be happy not rearming during this (sitting back letting Germany and the USSR fight). And then bobs your uncle. Germany still does the whole final solution and slavic slave labour thing as genocidal bigots don't change their spots, but it starts and generally stays in Russia were it can be hidden and passed off as dealing with "brainwashed communist population" with a mind to still trying to keep the west on side for as long as possible

Germany still needs the bomb to beat the US but well it has more time and more resources in this timeline (what's really important is the US not having a development programme because of their advantage in resources)



Quote:
Originally Posted by mlangsdorf View Post
From what I've read of Lindbergh, he wouldn't push for lend-lease or any of the favorable loans, so that already hurts Britain pretty badly. He certainly wouldn't sell the early production of Sherman tanks to Britain, either - he was definitely a big Fortress America guy and would have wanted them for himself.

I don't think he would have directly embargoed Britain, but he might decide that to respect Germany's blockade of Britain. The US goes back and forth on how much they want freedom of navigation versus respecting other people's blockades, but we generally respected the British blockade of Germany in WWI, so there's precedent for respecting a German blockade of Britain.

I don't see Lindbergh liking Germany so much as to give them favorable loans or interdicting commercial traffic. There is an outside chance that if the US continues shipping to Britain, US traffic would be mandated to be radio noisy, constantly alerting German submarines to their locations as a safety measure - and if they're loudly hailing every other ship they come across, they could serve as beacons for wolf packs. Seems like a dick move, but the USN intervened before our formal entry into the war against Germany in similar ways so it's possible.

The US, at least under Lindbergh, wouldn't get involved militarily in Europe. They might decide to clean European influence out of the Western hemisphere, though, and forcibly decolonize British possessions in central and south America. Even that seems like a stress.

Still, from the British perspective, no Lend-Lease, no DFBA, no USN support against the u-boats, and a soft embargo are pretty bad. Enough to get Halifax to take charge and throw in the towel early? Possibly.
I think you are right re Lindburg. Not sure about what it means for the UK, but do agree it really matters who's in charge as without lend lease etc it does get more uncomfortable for the UK and choices become more difficult and costly.
__________________
Grand High* Poobah of the Cult of Stat Normalisation.
*not too high of course

Last edited by Tomsdad; 05-30-2018 at 12:44 AM.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2018, 04:02 PM   #32
tanksoldier
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Default Re: Reich-5: Battle of Britain question

Quote:
It's hard to think of a situation where a hostile Mexico would have made that much difference.
German submarine access to ports in the Gulf of Mexico wouldn't have made a difference?

Cross border raids into Texas, Arizona and New Mexico would have tied down thousands of troops needed elswhere.
tanksoldier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2018, 05:57 PM   #33
Fred Brackin
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Default Re: Reich-5: Battle of Britain question

Quote:
Originally Posted by tanksoldier View Post
German submarine access to ports in the Gulf of Mexico wouldn't have made a difference?

Cross border raids into Texas, Arizona and New Mexico would have tied down thousands of troops needed elswhere.
Unless those ports had the bomb-proof submarine pens seen in Europe they're not very attractive. Something closer to out of air range of US planes would work out better.

On a WWII scale the National Guard troops required to deal with Mexican border raids are penny-ante stuff. Less than one division. Especially with Mexico not getting any external logistic support. _Invading_ Mexico would be a bigger matter.
__________________
Fred Brackin
Fred Brackin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2018, 12:46 AM   #34
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Reich-5: Battle of Britain question

Also you have the resource issue, Germany can only make so many subs and train so many sub teams.
__________________
Grand High* Poobah of the Cult of Stat Normalisation.
*not too high of course
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2018, 01:42 AM   #35
Pursuivant
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Default Re: Reich-5: Battle of Britain question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin View Post
Unless those ports had the bomb-proof submarine pens seen in Europe they're not very attractive. Something closer to out of air range of US planes would work out better.
Additionally, the Western Allies figured out pretty quickly that the place where submarines were most vulnerable was at sea, and that they're even more vulnerable in shallower, smaller island-filled bodies of water, like the Mediterranean or the Caribbean.

Unless Mexico is building U-Boats (unlikely given its utter lack of heavy industrial production at the time) every U-boat has to travel 5,500+ miles from Kiel or Brest, or wherever to the Mexican coast. To get there they have to travel around the Florida peninsula and past a whole bunch of Caribbean islands, as well as the US Gulf Coast. That's a LOT of ASW aircraft, mines, destroyer patrols, etc. to evade!

Finally, in the 1940s, the US had a huge military presence in the Panama Canal Zone, so it would have been easy for the US to use naval, air force, and marine corps assets from the Canal Zone to make raids on the Eastern Mexican coast. The entrances to the canal itself were very heavily defended, since it was critical for shifting US military assets from the Atlantic to the Pacific coasts. Given the military mindset at the time, THE one overseas base that the US wouldn't abandon under any circumstances was the PCZ.
Pursuivant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2018, 03:51 AM   #36
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Reich-5: Battle of Britain question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pursuivant View Post
Additionally, the Western Allies figured out pretty quickly that the place where submarines were most vulnerable was at sea, and that they're even more vulnerable in shallower, smaller island-filled bodies of water, like the Mediterranean or the Caribbean.

Unless Mexico is building U-Boats (unlikely given its utter lack of heavy industrial production at the time) every U-boat has to travel 5,500+ miles from Kiel or Brest, or wherever to the Mexican coast. To get there they have to travel around the Florida peninsula and past a whole bunch of Caribbean islands, as well as the US Gulf Coast. That's a LOT of ASW aircraft, mines, destroyer patrols, etc. to evade!

Finally, in the 1940s, the US had a huge military presence in the Panama Canal Zone, so it would have been easy for the US to use naval, air force, and marine corps assets from the Canal Zone to make raids on the Eastern Mexican coast. The entrances to the canal itself were very heavily defended, since it was critical for shifting US military assets from the Atlantic to the Pacific coasts. Given the military mindset at the time, THE one overseas base that the US wouldn't abandon under any circumstances was the PCZ.
Yep

I feel that subs kind of get given a bit too much credit at times (still Jürgen Prochnow is a dude!) as being some kind of invisible death to all surface ships.

They're do reasonably well when hunting and shooting at slow commercial shipping in large, deep bodies of water like the middle of the North Atlantic.

But are very vulnerable if they're in other than those ideal conditions, partly because even in those conditions they have tight operational parameters.

The VIIC (basically the standard 'das'-boat) had a submerged top speed of 7.6 knots and submerged range of 92 miles if it went slower, and a full complement of 14 torpedoes*.

The IX has a longer surface operational range and a few more torpedoes.


Just as a basic point even hitting 10 knot commercial shipping is not easy, this is quite a good link referencing some facts and figures of hitting but also touches on the issues going up against destroyers and other escorts. It mainly from the POV of US subs (so keep in mind issues with some US torpedoes at some points in the war).

However that said the Germans had their own torpedo problems, here's a slightly more in depth link regarding German performance

I think a lot of their impact is Sub fear, there is a big psychological impact from worrying about being hit by a surprise Torpedo from a u-boat potentially hidden under every wave. But as you say U-boats sank what 1% of allied tonnage?

*figs from wikipedia
__________________
Grand High* Poobah of the Cult of Stat Normalisation.
*not too high of course

Last edited by Tomsdad; 05-31-2018 at 12:49 AM.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2018, 08:01 AM   #37
mlangsdorf
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Default Re: Reich-5: Battle of Britain question

I went back and reread Alternate Earths and the Reich-5 timeline. It doesn't make much sense:

1933 - FDR assassinated, John Garner becomes President. Over the next 3 years, Garner fails to implement the New Deal and the US is politically paralyzed.*
1936 - Lindbergh wins the election on a pro-Fascist platform. The economy worsens.
1940 - Germany attacks and conquers France; Britain falls to Germany. Henry Wallace, running as a social democrat, defeats Lindbergh and proceeds to run the country into the ground. Japan attacks Britain's Far East possessions.
1941 - Germany and Japan attack Russia; Germans take Moscow. Rommel conquers the Middle East.
1942 - Germany and Japan finish conquering Russia; Japan also conquers the Chinese coastal provinces.
1943 - Japan conquers Australia and New Zealand.
1944 - Japan attacks the Philippines and Hawaii, sink the US Navy. Strongly pro-Fascist Union Party is elected to Presidency of the US.

I question where Japan is getting the manpower and transportation to do all this. In 3 years, they go from Siberia to Australia with a stop-over in the Philippines while conquering China.

I can propose various semi-plausible scenarios where a pro-Fascist America or an unprepared Britain give Germany a free enough hand in 1941 that they manage to take Moscow. And with the Communist menace contained and control over Europe, Germany eventually defeats the US and Britain. But this timeline is not plausible. The other alternate worlds of Reich-1 and Reich-2 are more plausible and I wish either they'd been expanded more or Reich-5 was given a more sensible timeline.
__________________
Read my GURPS blog: http://noschoolgrognard.blogspot.com
mlangsdorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2018, 01:02 PM   #38
ravenfish
 
Join Date: May 2007
Default Re: Reich-5: Battle of Britain question

Quote:
Originally Posted by mlangsdorf View Post
The US goes back and forth on how much they want freedom of navigation versus respecting other people's blockades, but we generally respected the British blockade of Germany in WWI, so there's precedent for respecting a German blockade of Britain.
Minor point: we respected the British "stay away from Germany or we will send our surface ships to escort you away" blockade in WWI. We distinctly did not respect the "stay away from Britain or we will sink your ships from below without warning" blockade that Germany was simultaneously trying to impose, and in fact treated its existence as something close to a casus belli. In WWII, the blockade situation was roughly the same, so, from the point of view of precedent, one would expect the response to be roughly the same. Obviously, there is no a priori reason to expect that the response will be similar, but it is true that it is much easier to whip up outrage over one's ships being torpedoed without warning (a submarine can in principle surface and attempt to persuade a merchant ship with its machine guns, but it is awfully vulnerable when doing so, and, in both world wars, this methodology was quickly abandoned) than in having them intimidated away by a destroyer in full accordance with the laws and customs of war.

[Edit: It will of course be observed that, in the Second World War, the United States Navy maintained a policy of submarine warfare against commercial shipping around Japan long before its surface ships could operate there. It was, after all, an American who pointed out that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.]
__________________
I predicted GURPS:Dungeon Fantasy several hours before it came out and all I got was this lousy sig.

Last edited by ravenfish; 05-30-2018 at 01:08 PM.
ravenfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2018, 02:25 PM   #39
RyanW
 
RyanW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
Default Re: Reich-5: Battle of Britain question

Quote:
Originally Posted by ravenfish View Post
[Edit: It will of course be observed that, in the Second World War, the United States Navy maintained a policy of submarine warfare against commercial shipping around Japan long before its surface ships could operate there. It was, after all, an American who pointed out that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.]
Interestingly, Dönitz was found guilty of waging unrestricted submarine warfare, but the tribunal declined to sentence him for it. Theoretically, Nimitz and Cunningham would have been up on the same charge: ordering the destruction without warning of all ships in designated zones.
__________________
RyanW
- Actually one normal sized guy in three tiny trenchcoats.
RyanW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2018, 02:40 PM   #40
mlangsdorf
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Default Re: Reich-5: Battle of Britain question

Quote:
Originally Posted by ravenfish View Post
Minor point: we respected the British "stay away from Germany or we will send our surface ships to escort you away" blockade in WWI. We distinctly did not respect the "stay away from Britain or we will sink your ships from below without warning" blockade that Germany was simultaneously trying to impose, and in fact treated its existence as something close to a casus belli. In WWII, the blockade situation was roughly the same, so, from the point of view of precedent, one would expect the response to be roughly the same.
Sure, that's all very true. My point was that a pro-Nazi POTUS could say "I intend to respect the German blockade of Britain and I forbid US flagged ships from entering into the declared exclusion zone" without causing a huge domestic political scene - or at least no more of a scene than FDR caused by playing it fast and loose with America's declared neutrality. There's no strong American imperative for breaking blockades. We respect them when we feel the cost of breaking them is too high, and we break them when we feel the cost of keeping them is too high.
__________________
Read my GURPS blog: http://noschoolgrognard.blogspot.com
mlangsdorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
infinite worlds, reich 5

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.