Could Hitler Have Won WWII?

Discussion in 'General Military Arms & History Forum' started by Pistolenschutze, Jun 16, 2006.

  1. Bernie109

    Bernie109 Former Guest

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    274
    Location:
    Central CA
    In Guadalcanal, the Navy withdrew and sent the Marines a massage "You are authorised to surrender". The Marine Corps to this day has not forgiven the Navy for this act of cowardice.

    The Iowas are finished. New Jersey ans Missuri are now Musiems and Iowa and Wisconsin are now stricken from the Naval Register. They are gone for good.

    The first Island hopping offensive began in 1943. 10 CV's and 7 were CVE's
    The first Island to be taken in this new Island hopping offensive was the Makin Atoll. The CV's reamained off in a safe distance while the CVE anchored in the atoll in order to provide immediate air cover. The CVE Liscome Bay was lost in this battle.

    At Tarawa, only the Essex was a full blown CV, The Bunker Hill and Independence supporting the attack were CVE's.


    So, from the first Island hopping offensive operations, the CVE's were placed closest to the action in order to support the marines ashore. They took the risks where a CV would be considered too risky.

    As far as Germany was concerned, since both of my parents grew up in Nazi germany and my father was one of the few germans who came back from Stalingrad alive, I have some first hand knowlege they don't write in history books.
  2. Bernie109

    Bernie109 Former Guest

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    274
    Location:
    Central CA
    The ONLY reason navies after WWII did NOT use battleships was COST(Quote)

    Cost vs benifit. You can bet that the Battleship Admirals tried again and again to engage the Japanese in a classic battleship skirmish. By the time they arived, carrier planes finished the job. The death nell for the battleships occurred during Gulf war 1. A Silkworm missile was zigging its way through a naval formation and one of the destroyers CIWS units accidently hosed off the Wisconsin. The Depleted uranium rounds penatrated the battleships armor. The cost of operations combined with the fact that it's armor was no longer effective, plus the age of the ships all made them no longer practical. The Zumwalt class land attack destroyer comming on line will be using a new VLS shore bombartment rocket that will outclass the 16 inch guns of the old BB's and it's 155MM gun will be able to hit targets 100 miles inland. All with a 90 man crew. So, the BB's are done.
  3. polishshooter

    polishshooter Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,078
    Location:
    Indiana
    Wrong again, the "Battleship Admirals" SUCCEEDED in fighting Japanese battleships off Guadalcanal, and again off Surigao strait. And did quite well, incidentally.

    Throw in the battle against the Bismarck, British against the Scharnhorst, the British against the Italians many times, and the British, and later the Massachusetts against the French BBs in Africa, Battleships had a GREAT record in WWII, against Battleships. Again, there were more BB vs. BB engagements in WWII than Carrier vs. Carrier.

    We broke off Midway because of the THREAT of BBs Yamato had, and there is some argument that he SHOULD have kept coming, Midway was neutralized, our two carriers left had depleted crews, virtually no torpedoes or torpedo planes left, about 50% fighters missing or too damaged to fly, and few 1000 lb AP bombs left. Yamamotos BIGGEST mistake was putting the "Main Body" so far behind the "Striking force." Even with the crappy Jap AA, they would have provided better AA cover for the carriers, as well as caused a lot of attackers to divert to them, from the carriers, as well as possibly closing for the kill. And the British had already taught us what happened when a carrier got into gun range of a BB...a sitting duck.

    But in shore bombardment it excelled, on both sides. The reason Ching Lee raced to Guadalcanal, was that the night before Cactus was PULVERIZED by the Japanese battlewagons, ask ANY Marine survivor about "The Bombardment...." the next day was the FIRST day anyone on Cactus contemplated surrender...and the ONLY thing that we had to stop the Japs was a few remaining Dauntlesses, and those 16" naval guns.....

    No, the BB acquitted itself well in WWII, and was not a waste of resources, excepting the German "Pocket Battleships". You can BET if the Russians had BBs after WWII, or built them later, we would have finished the Kentucky, the Brits would have finished their last two as well.





    The use I foresee for the Battleship, is as an SOF offshore base, like we used the Nimitz in Afghanistan, crude though it was, it was effective, even if it could not defend itself. With few modifications, such as removing the after turret for a V/STOL deck; we have already upgraded the fire control systems and communications in the late 80s with an upgrade in the 90s, it would be a great floating advanced base to place anywhere. BESIDES giving a deterrent second to none, with just the SIGHT of it offshore. Gunboat diplomacy WORKS.

    Plus, its a floating supertanker, as well, virtually self-sufficient for extended operations.

    You also seem to forget, that our current asymmetrical wars are NOT against anyone firing DU rounds, and PROBABLY never will be, BUT those same 16" guns, AWED Hezbollah once, had Iraquis surrendering to the spotter DRONES in Kuwait after just one fire mission. The BEST A/Ship weapon available to any foreseable adversary is a Silkworm or Exocet, and we know it will FRY lightweight alloy armor. And those Frigates would not withstand DU rounds either, and would sink them, not like a battlewagon. Granted, a nuke would take it out, but would any other ship, probably the whole task force, as well. And we would not need 4000 sailors to man one any more either. THAT was the expense. We still have 16" barrels and projectiles in storage left over from WWII, it was WWII era GP and AP projectiles we were firing in 1991. They are MUCH cheaper for continued fire missions than any $1 million missile would be for a quite a while.

    You seem so mesmerized by the effect of the DU rounds, you forget that Battleship armor AT THE TIME was vulnerable to Battleship plunging fire as well, along with bomb and torpedoes. It just took a LOT more of them to sink one, than any other type of warship. It still would.

    But US BBs were INVULNERABLE to air attack of conventional means after computer assisted radar fire control coupled with proximity fuses for the 5"38s and the 40mms became standard in 1944, even against kamikazes. There is no reason to think with SAA missiles and CAWS they would not remain invulnerable to aircraft today, even WITHOUT the assurance of superior fighter cover, which no country or entity we are liable to fight can match.
  4. Bernie109

    Bernie109 Former Guest

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    274
    Location:
    Central CA
    The Kentucky was launched and set aside in 1943. It was scrapped after the war.
    The cost of operating these floating Harley Davidsons is too great compared to the benifit. Naval sex appeal is the main reason for them. They are all gone now. The Iowa was stricken from the naval register and is now available as a musiem.
  5. polishshooter

    polishshooter Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,078
    Location:
    Indiana
    Naw, Bernie, they were for much more than "Sex Appeal," they were the "Nuclear Weapons" of the pre-atomic age. The 75 or 80 years of naval history where they commanded the seas is a fascinating study. In fact, when the French in effect nullified 300 years of Royal Navy domination of the seas just by by launching the Gloire, it was a watershed.

    Granted, in MANY navies right up to WWII they were the ULTIMATE command, at the expense of everything else, such as the British, where only "has-been" or "Never coulds" commanded lowly CARRIERS, but one of the reasons the USN was so good in WWII was the fact we were the ONLY navy where aviators were NOT denied sea commands, and commanding a carrier was as prestigious as a BB. Only the Japanese came close, but STILL a "real" Jap Admiral commanded 'wagons.

    Now you are right in one sense, that Battleships rarely ever fought each other, not that they COULDN'T, but the fact that each grew to represent something far greater than naval power, National Prestige....sinking a BB or even a battlecruiser had a MUCH deeper affect on the national morale of any nation than even a carrier, even as late as WWII. The thousands of civilians weeping in public over the loss of the Hood, or POW, or the Bismarck was not just for the loss of life. Maybe it was a GOOD thing in at least that regard, that we had 5 sunk at one time at Pearl, America really never got THAT attached to any Battleship, except PERHAPS the Iowa Class AFTER WWII.

    It's easy to belittle the impact of the BBs on WWII, but much of THAT stems from the fact we had virtually NO "modern" Battleships available after Pearl, for a few years, and we HAD to assure the public we could still win without them, hence all the official and unofficial "obituaries" of the BB after Pearl, and two weeks later when the grossly inadequately AA armed POW and Repulse wandered into waters coincidentally in range of at the time two of the RARE (possibly ONLY) Japanese land based medium bomber squadrons extensively trained in the use of, and armed with, the BEST torpedoes in the world at the time...while the covering RAF fighters from Singapore circled vainly 50 miles away wondering where the ships they were to cover were....


    But the Obits WERE premature, the BBs played a MAJOR role in WWII, in both the European and Pacific Theaters, both ship to ship, and ship to shore, as well as AA protection for the fleet when we finally dumped the 1.1" trips and loaded 60+ 40mms on them, increased the 5"38s, AND gave them radar control and proximity fuses.

    I believe there were only TWO Battleships sunk at sea, by CARRIER planes alone, the Yamato and the Musashi....and it took almost more hits to sink them than we scored in TOTAL at Midway and Coral Sea combined. If the Japs had ever figured out shipborne AA fire control and had decent AA guns (thank God for our pilot's sake they never did) I maintain they would NEVER have been sunk by aircraft alone, but would have had to be sunk by 16 inchers, or torpedoes from lesser ships or subs. And most of the damage was done on both by torpedoes, they weathered even the 1000# bombs pretty well...if the SAME battles had occured a year earlier in '43 when ALL our torpedoes sucked, they would have survived AND done damage when they got there.

    No, Carriers were only effective in sinking old anchored Battleships, (OK, NEW Italian ones too...)surprised in the harbor, with no watertight integrity, and virtually no AA fire, until it was too late. And that is also EXACTLY only what Billy Mitchell had proved too..against stationary OLD battleships NOT firing back, with all watertight doors OPEN, aircraft WERE pretty effective.....(as long as there were scuttling charges in place, set off when the aircraft dropped, just in case....)


    This is one of the "Conventional Wisdoms" of World War II I love to argue...
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2006
  6. Back on a battleship rant again I see, Polish! :D Ok, what you say certainly contains some truth, but I think you oversimplify. Battleships had--and perhaps even still have--a valid place in the scheme of naval warfare, but you sound as if the carriers were, and are, a complete waste of steel and ballast. That's nonsense. The point you are missing, I think, is the ability to PROJECT power. Even an Iowa class with 16" rifled cannon can only range out around 20 miles or so. Aircraft from a carrier can attack targets hundreds of miles distant, and do so effectively. As bombardment and anti-aircraft platforms, they performed superbly in WWII. And granted, in that conflict they even served admirably, on a few occasions at least, against surface ships. Yet battleships are voratious users of both manpower and maintence cost. That's true of carriers too, of course, but carriers can bring a far higher return for the investment due to their power to project force, especially in the naval warfare of today.
  7. Bernie109

    Bernie109 Former Guest

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    274
    Location:
    Central CA
    Being a 26 year Navy Vet, I have some "Inside information". The battleships were quite effective as shore bombardment assets, their Cruise missiles made them even more efective and as long as they had service life left in them, it was not a bad idea to bring them back. They perfromed well but nobody would have ever considered building new ones today.
    Even in WW2, ther was a poem titeled "Battleships are title B". In it, it describes the awesome appearance and image they project but concludes that "They fill the Japs with fear and hate while moored inside the Golden Gate". It goes on to say that Carriers and Submarines are the real tools with which to win the war ending with "Sure you will have losses but what the hell! Young LT's fly the planes and LCDR's cammand the Subs"

    By the way, The South Dakota Class battleships were already in the water at the time of Pearl harbor and the Iowa was fitting out. There were two reasons we built the carriers:

    1) There was a 20 year moratorium on battleship construction but none on carriers.

    2) Because of the great Depression, they needed to create Jobs.
  8. Bernie109

    Bernie109 Former Guest

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    274
    Location:
    Central CA
    While the official reason for bringing back the battleships was shore bombardment, the real reason was that when Reagan became President, the navy embarked on what was called "Project Pride". it was to bring back a lot of old traditions for traditions sake. When the Soviets built the Kirov, we needed to counter it with our own "Show Boat". When the iowa was first commisioned, the ship could hardly function due to non funtional traditions being strickly enforced. There were parts of the ship where nobody was allowed unles they were in dress uniforms. Evening meal All hands had to attend in Dress blues. You had to change uniforms every time you rounded a corner. The real reaon for the iowa Turret explosion was, in a nutshell, the crew spent more time polishing the guns than they did maintaining them and learning how to operate them. Even on the sub I was on, the CO had hundreds of feet of stainless steel pipe ripped out and replaced with brass.
    Any failure to keep the brass polished resulted in severe punishment.

    An FFG-7 really went overboard with tradition for traditions sake. The FFG-7 was designed with new ship control concepts. The helmsman, messenger, and engine telegragh operator were combined into one watch station where the helmsman sat in a cockpit like enclosure. The engines were controlled directly from the helm by aircraft style throttles, the helm was a tiny dial on the computer console. The CO decided this was "Not traditional". he had the seat ripped out, Installed a traditional engine order telegraph and forced the engine room to operate in local control, had a brass wheel made to replce the dial, and had three men standing in a spot designed for one man sitting, each to operate his "Traditional" controls.
  9. Bernie109

    Bernie109 Former Guest

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    274
    Location:
    Central CA
    Since both of my parents grew up in Nazi Germany, I have an inside perspective. It is quite arrogant to say that Germany had a duty to abide by the treaty of Versales. Even Woodrow Wilson warned that it would lead to another war. As did Churchill. With 65% unemployment, 10,000% infaltion, and people litteraly starving in the streets the Germans had a choice. Continue starving or go back to war. The Wiemar Republic was dead. It was a battle between two choices...The Nazis or the Comunists.

    Actually, if you take the long view, Germany did win one thing.
    They shook off the Treaty of Versales for the Marshal plan. That in and of its self is a victory.
  10. LIKTOSHOOT

    LIKTOSHOOT Advanced Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    Messages:
    9,367
    I believe the question was "could Hitler have won WWII?"

    Not no.....but Hell no!

    Germany flew it`s first jet in what???1942 Hitler said No
    Build Long range bombers in 1943.....?? Hitler said no.

    If it wasn`t his idea, it was no and so the question is answered....NO!

    LTS
  11. Bernie109

    Bernie109 Former Guest

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    274
    Location:
    Central CA
    Actually, it was Goering who vetoed long range bombers because he did not believe in stategic bombing. Having descended from Von Richtovens flying circus, he was more into the tradition air to air combat and close air support of ground troops.
  12. RJay

    RJay Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    4,198
    Location:
    Goodyear, Arizona
    If Hitler had waited two years before starting the war, as his generals wanted, and if he had not invaded Russia untill he had taken England, then yes the world would have been forced to sue for peace. But also remember, if a frog had wings, then he wouldn't bump his butt every time he jumped.
  13. You could be right, RJ, but Britain, France, and Russia would also have had two years to prepare, assuming they had brains enough. The French were paranoid about Germany anyway, so it seems unlikely they would not have built up their military and strengthened their alliance ties with Britain. In the U.S., the mood was still pretty pacifistic, but Roosevelt was, by 1940, truly begininning to modernize and expand the military forces of the U.S., particularly the Navy. In my view, the greatest danger of delay lies with the time Germany would have had to build up its Atlantic submarine force, and possibly even modernize its U-boats.
  14. Bernie109

    Bernie109 Former Guest

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    274
    Location:
    Central CA
    Had the USA not entered WW1, those "Stupid Europeans" As we were calling them back then would have gotten tired of killing each other and been forced to make peace simply because they would have run out of manpower and resouces. There would have been no Treaty of Versales which bankrupted Germany and caused the gret Depression. And Adolph Hilter would have his name alongside Rembrant, Picasso, and other Artists.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
General Military Arms & History Forum Hitler's Nazis' personal weapons Nov 9, 2008
General Military Arms & History Forum What's Your Top 10 WWII Rifle List?? Feb 3, 2014
General Military Arms & History Forum WWII era next purchase??? Jan 2, 2014
General Military Arms & History Forum I'd like to introuce the WWII Museum in Eldred, PA Jun 19, 2013
General Military Arms & History Forum WWII and historys best sniper. Jul 15, 2012