World War 2 General Discussion Thread

[Islamic Meritocratic Transoxiana]

Doubtful what-if scenario is doubtful.

If we'd done a better job of enforcing the Treaty of Versailles, maybe we could have stopped WWII in about 1920

If Britain hand't stopped Napoleon, the Confederation of the Rhine would have supplanted Prussia as the major German state, which would've meant the militarised Prussian regime never lead the German empire. As a result, Germany would've never played the role it had in WW1, thus meaning the treaty of Versailles wouldn't be signed.

Eventually, it's Britain's fault somehow. I'll get better in this any day now...

If the big bang never happened, then WW2 wouldn't have started

[Islamic Meritocratic Transoxiana]

so I take it you think diverting supplies and halting a successful attack to open up another theatre of war (not to mention actually make said theatre worst off then it was before) is a good idea even though that flies in the face of every major military school and piece of literature out there.

Let's go to June of 1940.
The BEF has just evacuated Dunkirk. The British are off the Continent ENTIRELY. There's no way to directly engage the German Army whatsoever at that point, given that the British are clearly years and years (and several superpower buddies) away from having the kind of strength needed to come back.
You now have a grand total of one land front actually facing the enemy - one avenue with which to go on the offensive and engage. That's in Egypt. Should the British have just sat at home for four years doing nothing and waiting for the Americans to come bail them out?
Fighting in Africa and Egypt made absolute sense. Italy is a more difficult call to make - some historians say it was a total waste because 250k Germans managed to tie down roughly 1 million Allied soldiers, but then again...the Allies could afford that kind of expenditure more easily than the Germans could. It's a difficult call to make.

I read Carlo d'Este's book on the war in the Med. It was a long time ago, so I can't remember specifically, but the allies lost several big chances to destroy the Germans in Italy. I believe one was something along the lines of 'Mark Clark's dash to Rome let the Germans escape.'

[Imperializt Russia]

Anzio was a failure as well, and a lesson that too much caution will doom an operation as badly as too little.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Let's go to June of 1940.
The BEF has just evacuated Dunkirk. The British are off the Continent ENTIRELY. There's no way to directly engage the German Army whatsoever at that point, given that the British are clearly years and years (and several superpower buddies) away from having the kind of strength needed to come back.
You now have a grand total of one land front actually facing the enemy - one avenue with which to go on the offensive and engage. That's in Egypt. Should the British have just sat at home for four years doing nothing and waiting for the Americans to come bail them out?
Fighting in Africa and Egypt made absolute sense. Italy is a more difficult call to make - some historians say it was a total waste because 250k Germans managed to tie down roughly 1 million Allied soldiers, but then again...the Allies could afford that kind of expenditure more easily than the Germans could. It's a difficult call to make.

I read Carlo d'Este's book on the war in the Med. It was a long time ago, so I can't remember specifically, but the allies lost several big chances to destroy the Germans in Italy. I believe one was something along the lines of 'Mark Clark's dash to Rome let the Germans escape.'

That's years down the line - and yes, Clark was probably not the greatest field commander in US history. I genuinely won't defend him, because the list of mistakes me made - getting slammed at Salerno, bombing Monte Cassino, and then insisting that there was a "race to Rome" that nobody else was running in - is just too much altogether. And any idea that it wasn't a plitical affair in Rome can be safely countered with the fact that US MPs in Rome were specifically ordered to keep British troops out of the city until Clark had left.

[United Kingdom of Poland]

I read Carlo d'Este's book on the war in the Med. It was a long time ago, so I can't remember specifically, but the allies lost several big chances to destroy the Germans in Italy. I believe one was something along the lines of 'Mark Clark's dash to Rome let the Germans escape.'

That's years down the line - and yes, Clark was probably not the greatest field commander in US history. I genuinely won't defend him, because the list of mistakes me made - getting slammed at Salerno, bombing Monte Cassino, and then insisting that there was a "race to Rome" that nobody else was running in - is just too much altogether. And any idea that it wasn't a plitical affair in Rome can be safely countered with the fact that US MPs in Rome were specifically ordered to keep British troops out of the city until Clark had left.

which is especially bad because had he followed orders (and I normally defend people who go against their HQ's wishes) he would have had Rome and trapped the majority of the forces protecting the Gothic line. At least Karma got him seeing as D-day happened the next day and stole his thunder.

no, but Britain failed to secure North Africa when it was easy and in turn had to spend two more years, thousands of lives, and millions of dollars in equipment to do so, not to mention almost losing Egypt in the process. My problem isn't that they went to Greece, its that they didn't finish what they had started (the complete removal of Italian and by extension axis forces in North Africa) and left their position criminally undermanned to do so. You don't go looking for more fires until after you put the one your dealing with out first.

Rommel got within a hundred miles of Suez, his objective.
He was then halted, pushed back, encircled and his forces destroyed.

That's less on him more on the German High command forgetting that anything existed outside the Eastern front. That being said I admit that Greece may have been done for the right reasons, but the campaigns poor execution did more harm then good.

[Helghast Imperial Republic]

Actually the Italian Regia Marina managed to get more than 80% of supplies to North Africa.
The Italians won that battle.

Not really since, you know, they lost.

The battle of convoys had two possible outcomes: either the Royal Navy stopped the flux towards North Africa or the Italians managed to get it through.
They succeeded, hence they won a battle.
Or, in your opinion, Germans have lost the battle of France because they lost the war?

And that only 80% made it though, if that number is accurate. Hardly good, seeing as your losing, on average, 20% of the force every time to try to push a convoy though. Not only does that deprive North Africa of 20% of the supplies they needed, but you lose one in every five ships sent out. That's not even close to sustainable for the Italians. The British with their massive merchant marine might have handled that level of loss for a while. Surely not the Italians. Definitely not a win, if you ask me.

The number is pretty accurate:
Between 1940 and 1943 Regia Marina carried out 189.162 men of Italian Army,Navy and Airforce and of Afrika Korps on 206.492 men who left(91,6 % of all)
Were carried out 476.703 tons of fuel on 599.337 (80 % of total)
243.633 tons of vehicles and repairing pieces on 275.310 (88 % of total)
149.462 tons of ammo and weapons on 170.060 (88 % of total)
1.060.157 tons of other supplies on 1.200.673 (86 % of total)
Source is Giorgio Giorgerini, "The Italian Navy between victory and defeats 1940-1943".
The statistics is high as well on average per Tunisia, surprising given the utter superiority in numbers of Allied forces.
Plus, that 20% statistics can't be interpreted as you did: not all ships loaded the same cargo capacity and not all supplies were lost (several convoys were sent home when Allied forces could effectively annihilate them).

[Rio Cana]

Seems a Japanese submarine actually got to California and attacked an oil storage facility with there submarines artillery. However, there aim was lousy.

Read this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_submarine_I-17

[Islamic Meritocratic Transoxiana]

Seems a Japanese submarine actually got to California and attacked an oil storage facility with there submarines artillery. However, there aim was lousy.

Read this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_submarine_I-17

I heard a german sub had a (short) artillery duel with a fort somewhere in Canada.

[Rio Cana]

Found out a Japanese submarine also attacked Western Canada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_submarine_I-26

[Alaskan Democratic Federative Republic]

Found out a Japanese submarine also attacked Western Canada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_submarine_I-26[/quote

Found out a Japanese submarine also attacked Western Canada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_submarine_I-26

Japan also attack the California coast.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Ellwood

[Alaskan Democratic Federative Republic]

OP Update: I added a new link to show people interesting facts about WW2 , your welcome to TG or ask any questions on the thread as well.

44 facts about ww2

[Baltenstein]

Nazi Science must have resurrected this thread.

[Alaskan Democratic Federative Republic]

Nazi Science must have resurrected this thread.

Lol

[Maemi]

Since this is a WW2 thread.So the Swiss mercenaries vs Wehrmacht...

[Implacable Death]

They may have silly clothes, but those sure can fight. There's a reason Switzerland has retained its independence.

[Imperializt Russia]

They may have silly clothes, but those sure can fight. There's a reason Switzerland has retained its independence.

Yeah, it's much more about "nothing to gain" than "everything to lose". Unless you want the Nazi gold that much, Switzerland is a waste of resources to take - even if you lost not a single man or fighting machine.

Just fight around it, they won't do shit.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

They may have silly clothes, but those sure can fight. There's a reason Switzerland has retained its independence.

Yeah, it's much more about "nothing to gain" than "everything to lose". Unless you want the Nazi gold that much, Switzerland is a waste of resources to take - even if you lost not a single man or fighting machine.

Just fight around it, they won't do shit.

The Swiss are great...

[The Blaatschapen]

Gravedig.

I lock.