How would you have made WW2 end quicker? What decisions would you have changed?

>>Focus on the landing on england
Not possible

You can't expect such thing to happen when the whole high command is filled with 80 year old officers that understand nothing but trench warfare with massive use of infantry and defensive lines

"Don't ally with Italy"
ftfy :^)

Always a given.

>How would you have made WW2 end quicker?
Have the USSR stab Germany in the back and invade it in 1940 as soon as it invaded France.

Italy didn't exist pre-1860 :^)

Just look at the state of the soviet army in 1940 and you'll understand why that's a retarded idea

For all nations:

Focus on only using one type of tank, panzer IV, T34 for each nation.

produce only one type of machine gun, one smg and one bolt/semi auto rifle. Instruct engineers to work on creating a AR like the STG 44, upon development it will be the only small arm produced.

this will increase production and aid logistics.

If i'm allowed meta knowledge I demote monty to major and leave him there, I discharge macarthur (he can't be trusted). I promote any good generals (rokkosovksy etc) asap. as britain don't build any navy and dont bother with the home guard

They might have made it quite far across Germany, even, but once the German army gets back from the East they will easily encircle and destroy the French. Defense was all they were good for, the problem was that the Germans went thru Belgium (again), and the French had few fortification along the Belgian border.

It isn't.

The entire reason Germany wanted a non-aggression pact was because it knew it stood no chance in hell of winning a two front war in 1940.

If anything they might even surrender,

You'd need them to completely change their military doctrines, shifting away from their total focus on fortifications. The French learned all the wrong lessons from WW1, idk how you'd go about correcting them without the lessons of WW2.

>Focus on only using one type of tank, panzer IV, T34 for each nation.

"I don't understand how tank tactics work : the post"

How does it feel to be a walking, talking version of the (present day) History channel?

these tanks can fufill any role on the battlefield and I will be able to produce enough of them to where its worth it, economy of scale. Germany had over 30 different tank designs at the very least it should be reduced to 5 or so

>these tanks can fufill any role on the battlefield

JUST

>these tanks can fufill any role on the battlefield
You're autistic and a memelord

> I will be able to produce enough of them
>I
Memelord

>Germany had over 30 different tank designs at the very least it should be reduced to 5 or so
You don't even understand what this thread is about you fucking memelord sperg.

Nope, friendly relations were always a given but the "Pact of Steel" was certainly not, in fact Mussolini only offered it because he was embarrassed by Hitler's rising star eclipsing his own (he saw himself as the "wise elder" of the Axis), and Hitler only accepted it because he was too naive to understand he was shackling himself to a corpse.

Depending on when we're starting, the best thing for Germany to do would be to not break the Treaty of Munich. This totally unnecessary act of treachery is what caused Britain and France to issue unconditional guarantees on Poland, and convinced them that Hitler simply HAD to be taken down. Without this, the Allies would probably not intervene in the invasion of Poland, and would have stayed out of the fight between Germany and the USSR. This doesn't mean Germany wins of course, but it would have a fair chance to beat the USSR without western intervention.

Kill Stalin in 1920something, Trotsky takes control when Lenin dies, exports the revolution to Germany, ww2 and who know what happens then.
t. not even a commie, this is probably a worse timeline than the one we have.

*ww2 prevented

How the fuck would any of that shorten the war? If anything an only Germany vs Soviet war would be longer and even more of an attrition filled shit show.

Stalin to pay more attention to British intelligence reports about how Wehrmacht units were gathering for an offensive in the East. Then the Soviets wouldn't have been taken by surprise and completely obliterated in the early stages of Barbarossa.

This

>these tanks can fufill any role on the battlefield
Sure but a specialist tank will outperform them! A fight is never across all possible spectra, so being "okay at everything" is actually the worst possible design, you want a bunch that are great at A and poor at B, and a group that are the other way round.

the STG 44 wasn't very good though, it was a proof of concept

yeah but 90% of tank combat was supporting infantry vs other infantry those were some of the best tank designs that were quick and easy to produce, i don't think its worth it to have one jagdtiger, one Tiger and 2 panthers when I can have 10 PzIV's that can be present on more battlefield and would win on the same battlefield. many of these speciliast tanks were produced in tiny numbers like less than 500 and weren't worth swapping around assembly lines for

citation needed

>supporting infantry vs other infantry
And for that kind of fighting a "general purpose" design is very useful. But building ONLY that design is retarded, you would be BTFO by the first heavy tank killer you meet.

tilting bolt obsolete

the germans only built heavy tanks because of the KV1 and tigers and panthers were destroyed by Medium tanks quite often, yeah I'd need around 5 tanks to match one heavy tank but I'll have plenty of tanks to go around.

That's not how it works but okay, you just keep assuming that LITERALLY every military planner and thinker since the invention of the tank is wrong and YOU are right.

is that why the USA only produce one type of tank?

We're talking about WW2, and they don't, they use a modular design that can be adapted to fill various roles.

that is why producing a single chassi works.

That is a retarded meme. niehorster.org/011_germany/39-oob/c/_ag_c.html

48 divisions, 32 of which are Welle 1-3 is not a weak defense by any means, and with the continuing mobilization occurring all throughout September to the end of the year, it's going to reinforce as you watch. France simply does not have the means to take the offensive in September.

The Germans themselves admitted they didn't believe the Western Front could hold out more than two weeks had the Allies fully committed to a push
Even if they did manage to resist for longer, the German army was already bogged down in Poland, allowing France and Britain to pour in reinforcements while the Germans pulled out of the East

>The Germans themselves admitted they didn't believe the Western Front could hold out more than two weeks had the Allies fully committed to a push
Because they underestimated how autistic the French really were. On paper France could win, but in practice it would have been impossible for them to do more than secure the Rhine.

>Britain
At the start of the war Britain had nothing to send, it took them months to raise enough troops even to secure Britain itself, much less consider sending them to fight. The BEF wasn't just "an army", it was Britain's ONLY European army at the start of war.

That depends on how far back I can make changes and how wide-ranging I can make them. Some ideas are included but not limited to (generally structured chronologically)

>Rewrite the entirety of French military doctrine post WW1 to not be so based around artillery and to recognize mobility has its own uses in operational level war.
>Slap the shit out of Bomber Command until they realize that yes, "flying artillery" is actually quite useful, much more so than having an air arm and a land army that won't talk to each other and each wanting to win the war without the other's interference.
>Get America more interested in what is going on in Europe and getting either large scale economic involvement or direct military involvement in before the end of 1941.
>Slap Hitler's shit in when he tries to remilitarize the Rhineland in 1936.
>Actually back up Czechoslovakia to the hilt in 1938, try to get Poland on board for a 3 front war.
>Use the Mechelen incident to diplomatically pressure Belgium and convince them an invasion is imminent. Move into Belgium in January, not after the Germans already attacked, and have about 4 months to dig in deep and fortify along the Maas and Dyle rivers.
>Have the USSR break their agreement with Hitler and invade all of Romania when they go for Bessarabia in 1940
>Have someone convince Stalin of the need for defense in depth and not this big rigid line right at the border so that when Barbarossa happens, you don't get 90% of the Red Army pocketed and destroyed within weeks.
>While you're at it, remind him that Tucachevsky's idea of entire front wide assaults is retarded; when you do that winter counteroffensive, focus on Army Group Center, don't attack everywhere at once. Punch through deeply somewhere and you'll be able to turn their flanks anyway.
1/2

>If you are still doing a massive strategic bombardment campaign, don't focus on terror bombing; it never wins total wars. Focus on economic stuff, re-target already struck sites (the Germans can fix things faster than you realize), and especially focus on tungsten and oil production, those are weak links in Germany's economic setup.
>Use some of those long range bombers to shoot at German and Swedish shipping in the Baltic.
>America, build more fucking landing craft and sea transport. It doesn't do you a damn bit of good to mobilize millions of infantry in 1942 and then demobilize them because you can't get them out of the country.
>China, get your fucking shit together. (Although this might be impossible)
>As much as it seemed like a good idea at the time, go for Roundup instead of the historical Husky; you probably can fend off likely German counterattacks at the landing site, and that gives you a foothold in the more easily movable part of Europe a year earlier if it works. (Note, this could backfire BADLY if that assessement is wrong)

"The Germans" did no such thing. Alfred Jodl said so in his trial and retards have parrotted it ever since. Given that Jodl also claimed they only had 23 divisions, which is blatantly false, I'm not inclined to believe what he said at Nuremberg.

This. Germans didn't have the naval capacity to supply the troops necessary to invade Britain. They furthermore, before you suggest "airbridge" didn't have the transport aircraft necessary to supply an invasion of Britain (look at Stalingrad post-Uranus). While the British army was in shambles post-Dunkirk, the Wehrmacht was incapable of performing an offensive such as Sealion.

>as britain don't build any navy
I don't understand how to win WWII as the UK the post

This except less retarded.

Tell France to listen closely to De Gaulles when he warns about modern tank warfare, modernize the army, calm the perfidious *nglo and their urge to defend the germans every time they break the Versailles treaty, and go on the offensive before Hitler even has time to mention remilitarizing the Rhine.

Alternatively pop up in 1918 and make the treaty of Versailles we have look like a fucking joke.

The frogs and bongs had to attack the Rhineland years before 1939, when the krauts remilitarized it contra to Versailles. They didn't, and that's when Shickelgruber figured out that they were beta cucks and he went full wehrazerg.

I would have had America join the League of Nations.

Order Monty to capture the Scheldt by the end of August and open up Antwerp by mid-September. Also task an American division to take Arnhem during Operation Market Garden (1st Airborne fought bravely, but was simply too inexperienced for a mission that critical).

And Rome

Imagine being this stupid and wrong.

tell the Soviets to invade while the Nazi's are focused on the west.

berlin by christmas, paris by april fools.

superb argument

>but it was wholly geared to defensive operations
This is such a retarded meme. The French army was equipped and mechanized to a similar extent as the German army, and organized in pretty much the same manner.

>he thinks AR is a firearms category, not a brand

If Romania had not accepted the Soviet ultimatum in 1940 and got invaded, would Germany have been forced into war against the Soviet Union earlier in order to save the oil fields?

Was Romanian oil even that important to the German war effort?

Rude.

>Germany had over 30 different tank designs at the very least
If we are counting tanks that were actually put into production, Germany had 4 tank designs at the outset each with specific roles that could not be duplicated.
Pz 1 - training tank
Pz 2 - recon tank
Pz 3 - AT tank
Pz 4 - Exploitation tank
When the tech advanced enough to allow one tank to be both AT and exploitation, Pz IV was thus upgraded and Pz V was put into production. Meanwhile, Pz VI was created to fill the role of breakthrough tank, which the technology of the time could not be trusted to exploitation/AT tank. There was no proliferation of tank types in Germany, only the bare essentials and at one point Pz V and IV co-existing solely due to necessity of maximizing Pz IV production lines.

drop legendary Soviet rubber bomb on Berlin in 1939

I guess the stug, hetzer, ferdinand etc etc didn't exist?

Those aren't tanks though.

What if France goes through Belgium and attacks through the low-countries into the Ruhr Valley? The Germans did not fortify the Dutch border.

Destroy the British at Dunkirk, tell Mussolini to fuck off and fight his own wars. Done, war is over, whatever happens from their is a separate war.

1942
>14 different models of Panzer III
>10 models of PzIV
>8 models of Stug III
>14 types of additional AFV's

Pic related for tiger in 42-43

And there were ~20 different models of M4 Sherman, not counting small-run modifications like amphibious tanks, bridge tanks, or engineer tanks. I guess the Sherman was a manufacturing nightmare.

Invaded Japan through the Kuril Islands after Pearl Harbor
I've never found an explanation why the US Navy took the much longer route
island-hopping through the Pacific

>I've never found an explanation why the US Navy took the much longer route
>island-hopping through the Pacific
You never found one because you never cracked open a book, any book.

Rush past Moscow and link up with the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbour

Stop right here bully

...

The second Hitler starts remilitarizing the Rhine and violating the treaty, send in the troops, don't give him any more time to build up his forces.

Best way to end the conflict is to nip it in the bud

The dumd-as-rock response

US wanted to invade France right away.
Churchill delayed, opened the North Africa/Italian front.Why?
To let Russia take the brunt of the casualties.

It was vital before they got their synthetic fuel plants going.
It remained important even afterwards, since the Germans needed every drop of gas they could get.
Romania refusing the ultimatum and fighting was one of HItler's greatest fears at the time, thus all the elaborate bluffs the Nazis pulled on Romanians. Hitler was well aware that Soviets might push a little bit too far down, meaning that the 'border' (read, frontline) would be too close to their precious refineries.

they wanted to have experience before mounting a naval invasion numbnuts
this is what happens if you mount a naval invasion without any knowledge

Convincing the British to rise up and overthrow their Jewish overlords.

This.
When Hitler sends troops to Saarland in '36, send your own in response.
The frogs wanted to do this, but the bongs chimped out ("REEE, muh poor suffering Germs, REEE") and eventually they relented.

That a single factory produced? I doubt that's true. Here you go nigger you might learn something.

youtube.com/watch?v=N6xLMUifbxQ&feature=youtu.be&t=1564

>Why?
Because Roundup was far from certain, and while if it worked it would be more effective than Husky, there was no way of knowing that. Furthermore, there was a low degree of institutional experience among the British and American armies, the mistakes that they made in the Italian campaign mostly costed them the chance to pocket and eliminate relatively small German forces in Italy. Similar mistakes in Northern France would have correspondingly huger effects.

Read this. amazon.com/Path-Victory-Mediterranean-Theater-World/dp/0374529760

as stupid questions, don't expect people to waste their time giving you well thought-out answers.

...

In fact, the German troops marching on the Rhineland had orders to retreat if the French resisted. It was one of the most daring gambles in history.

In Hitler's own words: "The forty-eight hours after the march into the Rhineland were the most nerve-racking in my life. If the French had then marched into the Rhineland we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs, for the military resources at our disposal would have been wholly inadequate for even a moderate resistance."

Bait

If hitler would of called it good after reclaiming the lands lost in ww1 he would hsve gone down as one of the greatest leaders in human history.

Question then becomes if stalin tries taking on all of europe.

A better question would have been would hitler have succeeded if the united states had never supplied the allies, would russia have been able to mobilize without american lend lease?

There were no goal posts. Your post above seemed to imply that Germany's mess of production models did not impede their ability to produce tanks effectively. You also implied that they did not have a completely unnecessary array of production models. Pashall's point is that you are pants on head retarded and their method of producing small (sometimes as low as 16 tanks) blocks of different models of AFV's severely impeded their chance at reaching some level of efficient production.

America did not have the same production problems as Germany. America had an infinite amount of more resources and capital they could throw into "tinkering" with production models. Tons of money was wasted on tanks that never reached the front. America could afford to tinker given their relative position of safety in the war and superior economic situation. Germany's prejudice against mass production of tanks hindered their ability to effectively produce them. The Soviets perpetually simplified and reduced tooling/manufacturing requirements throughout 1942 and beyond.

Look at my first reply to you. During a 2 year, 1347, run of Tigers in 1942 there were 250 modifications. This means that for every 6 tanks made the next 6 would be different somehow. Of the 14 models of the Panzer 3 that were manufactured in 1942 the largest single block production run was 2,000 units.

Watch the presentation, retard.

If this man had been given all the resources he asked for UK would have capitulated by 1942 and the war would have ended, atleast on the western front.

Don't be stupid. Doenitz never came up with a way to actually attack a well defended convoy; his strategy when given more u-boats invariably was to attack over a wider area. What if the British react to a bigger U-boat presence by building fewer Lancasters and more Sunderlands to provide more convoys with further air cover? Air cover, by the way, that you cannot match, since you don't have the bases to project anywhere except near the coast of France.

Then there's the little problem that if you want to mobilize the resources to build a bunch of u-boats quickly, you'll need to take that away from other areas, like building planes and stuff for the Heer. Such resource diversion makes it far more chancey that you'll actually knock over France, and if you don't take out France, all those extra u-boats won't mean a damn, what with the increased operating distances and the ability to use the French cruisers and destroyers as extra heft against your subs.

Stalin dying in 1920 wouldn't have affected the fate of German revolution. Trotsky coming to power five years after a failed revolt would hardly be appropriately followed by invasion of Weimar Germany.

>Doenitz never came up with a way to actually attack a well defended convoy

What are wolfpacks?

They could have literally bled the britain dry of supplies if they had had enough u-boats.

AFAIK Sunderlands dont run on fish & chips, you cut the oil supply and those big bad birds dont fly no more.

>Then there's the little problem that if you want to mobilize the resources to build a bunch of u-boats quickly.

Simple, dont build the battleships that were pretty much useless in the war, yes they diverted enemy resources but was it ultimately worth the cost in resources? How many more u-boats could have been built with the price of Bismarck? And how many tonnages would have they sunk in their lifetime?

>A better question would have been would hitler have succeeded if the united states had never supplied the allies, would russia have been able to mobilize without american lend lease?

Boi. Thoses two questions are extremely vague and retarded at the same time.
> Would hitler have "suceeded" if...
What do you mean? In such a complex conflict you must define precisely your terms. In such a case, you could mean annexing USA or simply not dying in 1945. But whatever, he had any chance of winning whatsoever, and thinking that the USA was essential to bring the 3rd Reich down shows us how retarded you are.

> would russia have been able to do shit without american lend lease
I dont know what trigger me the most between the utter stupidity of this question or calling Russia the Soviet Union

>What are wolfpacks?
A way of coordinating attacks against lightly defended convoys, not ones with air escorts and flotillas of destroyers and smaller craft. SC 130 pretty clearly demonstrated the lack of ability to keep scaling up the u-boat force to keep pace with the convoy defenses indefinitely.

>AFAIK Sunderlands dont run on fish & chips, you cut the oil supply and those big bad birds dont fly no more.
Which the Germans never even came close to doing so, and quadrupling the u-boat force size wouldn't impact. Hell, most of the British oil came from the new world, from Venezuela and Port of Spain, which meant that you could base those planes on the Atlantic side of things and make them completely untouchable.

>Simple, dont build the battleships that were pretty much useless in the war
Yeah because battleships are made by stacking little uboats together, by not building them you end up with a bunch of uboats instead.

Not him but are you seriously relying on Pashall as a historian?
L O L
O
L