• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

"What If?"

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
timur

timur

Grizzled Veteran
Jan 8, 2010
3,508
1,119
IN AMERICA (inside joke)
timur-amir.deviantart.com
#1
Now I know you guys probably will likely avoid this thread like the plague do to people's dislikes of the above phrase, but if not I have a forum game that is really worth playing, and fits this section. Its an excersize in creativity and analysis that will both allow you to show off, and be a fun mind puzzle as you thik things through.

Okay, here it is: basically trying to test yourself with how far you can follow history if you change a certain factor. This may seem easy, but as the change and its effects begin dominoe-ing throughout history, massive changes may occur. Its all perspective, of course, but it is fun and very interesting to see how you and others got similar or varying results, and what those results were.

So, to accomplish this, those who would like to see how a certain factor changes things will drop requests, and those brave souls who possess the creativity to tackle them will pick the ones they want to do.

This will hopefully be quite interesting, and if this gets even a little lift you can bet that this will be entertaining for all involved.
 
#5
Alexander Ostmann said:
That's kind of vague...
Click to expand...

Well Germany would likely have control of all of europe at the time, and if the attack on Pearl harbour happens still, the Americans would likely not land on the Normandy beaches due to the reduction in allied soldiers (no brits) and the increase of German control and the likelyhood of far, far higher American casualties. Hell, they may not attack the Germans in Europe at all, just Japan in retaliation.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#8
Alexander Ostmann said:
What if Britain accepted Germany's peace treaty early on in the war?
Click to expand...

Here's my take on it.

Assuming that "early on in the war" means before the invasion of France in 1940 and also assuming that England would afterwards do everything to avoid a war I'd say this would have a couple of very severe consequences. First of all the entire Commonwealth would be knocked out of the war.

Italy:
Italy would've likely pushed the Uk to cede Egypt, British Somalia and moft of East Africa, they'd have more and better troops available against Greece, and without UK help for Greece they would've probably been knocked out far faster and without needing German intervention, hence also avoiding the German invasion of Yugoslavia just before Operation Barbarossa.

Germany:
Germany would've taken less casualties during the invasion of Norway and the invasion of France, which also would've been completed a week or so faster. They would've avoided spending a great bulk of the Luftwaffe and would still retain it's prime pilots. Due to the invasion of Yugoslavia not happening they'd also be able to pull off Barbarossa a good month earlier, with a significantly stronger airforce and the divisions sent to the Afrika Korps would be available for Barbarossa too. This would've likely resulted in the capitulation of the Soviet Union. Germany also would've been completely spared of large scale strategic bombings (the Soviets conducted a few).

USA: The US would've never been able to pull off any kind of invasion, neither in Africa, nor Italy or France.


Now my question is:

Would the US keep up the trade embargo of Japan in 1940 if Britain and the Commonwealth would've been knocked out of the war?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#9
LemoN said:
Now my question is:

Would the US keep up the trade embargo of Japan in 1940 if Britain and the Commonwealth would've been knocked out of the war?
Click to expand...

Well, Commonwealth backing out of Europe doesn't mean no Commonwealth involvement at all; if anything, the Brits would focus even more on trying to hold back Japan, as they would be the last enemy chewing on the empire. Japan and Germany are hardly equivalent, and I doubt Australia would just roll over and die on command, so the Pacific Front would have remained similar.

It is safe to say that there would have been no Normandy, though, and that the Russians would have had a much tougher Eastern Front.

My question is if the Russians would have held, or not...seriously, I don't have the knowledge to properly assess what would have happened :p
 
Upvote 0
#10
timur said:
My question is if the Russians would have held, or not...seriously, I don't have the knowledge to properly assess what would have happened :p
Click to expand...

Well, many people argue that the Yugoslavian campaign alone cost the Germans the crucial weeks on their drive to Moscow. In addition the additional manpower, the Germans lost nearly 1900 aircraft over Britain. Also, there would've been at last two additional (although rather low on manpower) tank divisions which IRL went to Africa, with a couple of additional infantry and motorised divisions. I firmly believe that if Britain would've backed out before early 1941 then the Soviet Union would've lost Moscow.

And regarding the UK backing out, I can't see how the UK could in any way back out with the rest of the Commonwealth still at war. Either the entire Commonwealth would back out and do anything the Axis demand... or they're at war.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#11
LemoN said:
Well, many people argue that the Yugoslavian campaign alone cost the Germans the crucial weeks on their drive to Moscow. In addition the additional manpower, the Germans lost nearly 1900 aircraft over Britain. Also, there would've been at last two additional (although rather low on manpower) tank divisions which IRL went to Africa, with a couple of additional infantry and motorised divisions. I firmly believe that if Britain would've backed out before early 1941 then the Soviet Union would've lost Moscow.

And regarding the UK backing out, I can't see how the UK could in any way back out with the rest of the Commonwealth still at war. Either the entire Commonwealth would back out and do anything the Axis demand... or they're at war.
Click to expand...

yes, but was Japan on the same bargaining table? I mean, had those talks gone down, would Japan been shoved aside? The ties between Italy and Germany were much stronger than those with Japan, and it is possible that Japan would have split off from the European settlement, and a seperate war may have continued. Now, I may be entirely wrong, but from what I've heard its certainly worth taking a second to ponder how that whole thing would have occured.
 
Upvote 0
#12
What if Hitler had these earlier and in greater supply?

Spoiler!


Advanced stealth jet fighter, Horten HO 229.
 
Upvote 0
#13
LemoN said:
Well, many people argue that the Yugoslavian campaign alone cost the Germans the crucial weeks on their drive to Moscow.
Click to expand...

IIRC there's evidence that in 1941 rasputitsa fell early and had the germans attacked as they initially planned it would've been the worst spring-rasputitsa season which would beg few other questions. :p

CandleJack said:
What if Hitler had these earlier and in greater supply?

Spoiler!


Advanced stealth jet fighter, Horten HO 229.
Click to expand...

No significant impact, presuming with earlier you mean by 1943 - early 1944. Early jets always had logistical problems in a way that operating them required long runways and a lot of AA guns\fighter cover during takeoffs and landings in order to prevent them being shot down like turkeys. Also considering pilot replacement and fuel related issues that were already starting to show up in 1943 and the overall loss of offensive posture, most realistic "operations" that would involve Ho would be either some anti shipping, terror bombing or damaging important infastructure. Despite it's payload and speed the need to fly from Germany to France in any standard ground support effectivness would be questionable at best, even more so due lack of FACs. If it hits dead on, it's going to cause plenty of damage but if it's at the wrong place and bombing target that's just presumed to be the enemy it's not really doing any good other than make G.I. morale go down on the grounds of "Holy batwing Batman!"

[While not really the question itself I'll just answer this as well anyway: had Me 262 arrived earlier in active use it could've reduced bomber streams greatly in german air space and possibly make it closer to air parity than air superiority, but that would presume the Luftwaffe high command would've had some senses in their head about aerial strategies.]

But here's mine: What if Zitadelle didn't occur but instead they'd opt for backhand strategy, similiar to Manstein's exploitations around Kharkov early '43 ?
 
Upvote 0
#14
CandleJack said:
What if Hitler had these earlier and in greater supply?

Advanced stealth jet fighter, Horten HO 229.
Click to expand...

First of all, it's a fighter/bomber, and more suitable for a bomber role than anything else. Second, it wasn't stealth.

Other than that, what Oldih said.

Oldih said:
IIRC there's evidence that in 1941 rasputitsa fell early and had the germans attacked as they initially planned it would've been the worst spring-rasputitsa season which would beg few other questions. :p
Click to expand...

The Spring rain is dried already by 1st of June. Also, I'm quite certain that the Germans had enough intelligence concerning the weather in Russia. :p
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#18
YouTube - ‪Command and Conquer RED ALERT (Hell March 1)‬‏


What happens when Einstein tampers with time in an effort to stop WW2 and future disasters?










A war so freakin epik that we have double barreled tractors, robot dog sidekicks, crazy chicks with dual .45s, a freak that can take over your mind, and even weapons that shoot out lightning bolts . . . . it keeps going on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: husbert
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu