05-29-2018, 02:46 PM | #31 | |||
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Reich-5: Battle of Britain question
Quote:
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:
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:
__________________
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. |
|||
05-29-2018, 04:02 PM | #32 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
|
Re: Reich-5: Battle of Britain question
Quote:
Cross border raids into Texas, Arizona and New Mexico would have tied down thousands of troops needed elswhere. |
|
05-29-2018, 05:57 PM | #33 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: Reich-5: Battle of Britain question
Quote:
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 |
|
05-30-2018, 12:46 AM | #34 |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
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 |
05-30-2018, 01:42 AM | #35 | |
Join Date: Apr 2005
|
Re: Reich-5: Battle of Britain question
Quote:
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. |
|
05-30-2018, 03:51 AM | #36 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Reich-5: Battle of Britain question
Quote:
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. |
|
05-30-2018, 08:01 AM | #37 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
|
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 |
05-30-2018, 01:02 PM | #38 | |
Join Date: May 2007
|
Re: Reich-5: Battle of Britain question
Quote:
[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. |
|
05-30-2018, 02:25 PM | #39 | |
☣
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
|
Re: Reich-5: Battle of Britain question
Quote:
__________________
RyanW - Actually one normal sized guy in three tiny trenchcoats. |
|
05-30-2018, 02:40 PM | #40 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
|
Re: Reich-5: Battle of Britain question
Quote:
__________________
Read my GURPS blog: http://noschoolgrognard.blogspot.com |
|
Tags |
infinite worlds, reich 5 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|