1944 -You are in charge!

[RE2005]

I would focus on the destruction of facilities to reduce the output of new weapons, especially tanks and aircraft factories. I would also try to support the plot to kill Hitler creating a cantact with the german officers that planned it; so Germany would had surrended and many lives could had been saved.
Nick

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I would attack POL and weapons factories, and just did the invasion as planned.

[delcyros]

What about R&D? Would anybody take ressources to improve one or another field or do You all put ressources in proven concepts to get the tools where they are needed most?

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

I think I would leave a couple cities standing. The Lanc would have had less to do. And maybe not trusted Stalin so much. But I guess they had no choice on the last one, did they?

[ndicki]

Originally Posted by Smokey

It was'nt a lack of guts, it was because some of the Allied leaders in 1940 failed to understand the effectivemess of aircraft, tanks and infantry working in combination, and failed to invest in large numbers of high quality air superiority fighters, ground attack aircraft and tanks with a good balance of firepower, armour, agility and reliabity.

The military of Germany did have such tactics and equipment, so made enormous advances in 1940, which then set the stage for 5 more years of war.

Got nothing to do with that; if the French, being the first concerned, had reacted in 1936 when Germany re-militarized the Saarland, then it most probably would not have reached that point. The German troops had been ordered to turn round and not resist if the French Army confronted them.

Furthermore, do not make the classic mistake of over-rating the German Army, and under-rating the Allies in 1939-40; aircraft apart, the French and British had equipment which by-and-large was just as good as what the Germans had. The British Army of 1939-40 was the ONLY army in Europe to be entirely motorised, for example. The German Army NEVER achieved this.

German tanks were largely Czech-built Pz35 and Pz38 types; the majority of German-built types at the time were PzIIs. There were nowhere near as many PzIIIs and PzIVs (actually used as a support tank) as people like to think. Faced with Matilda IIs, for example, they were relatively powerless. The French also had some not bad stuff, such as the R-35 series of tanks; overall, they compare reasonably well with the German AFVs of the time.

You are right about tactics; although the British Army had come to see the sense in Basil Liddell-Hart's theories, it took the Germans to prove the point.

But as I said above, if the Allies had shown more political willpower during the late 30s, it would probably not have reached that point.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I have to agree. Appeasment is what led to WW2 but then again who are we kidding. WW2 was just a continuation of WW1 after a 20 year cease fire.

[Gnomey]

But with the state of disarmament that in particular Britain was in, the appeasement bought some time to rearm (bringing online the Hurricane and Spitfire for one). If the war had gone ahead in say 1936 the German's (if the French were willing) would of been defeated but in the air it would of been BF-109A/B's against Hawker Fury's, Gladiators and such like rather than Hurricane's and Spitfire's. Whilst I also believe it did lead to WW2 it was also as you said a continuation WW1 with a break for rearmament (and disarmament) and a chance to replace the losses of the Great War.

As for 1944 I would continue the plans to attack the oil refineries and other key industries (ball bearings, tank and aircraft production etc) as well as done the Transportation plan for the D-day invasion which would of gone ahead as it did, after the troops are a ashore focus the heavies on targets inside Germany - oil, ball bearing, tanks, aircraft, AA and as the armies get closer to Germany send in the medium bombers as well to back up the heavies (before this they would of been supporting the troops in France).

[Twitch]

I think I'd nuke France.....

[timshatz]

Think I would start by going after Germany Electric Plants. SBS after the war realized that with as little as 200 tons of bombs, 50% (or more) of German electric generation would be lost (I think I have my facts right on that one-been a while). No power, no output. A lot easier than bombing trains, refineries, ect. Easy to spot and almost impossible to hide. Since WW2, electric generation has always been at the top of the list for bombers.

But that is all looking back. At the time, nobody really had it figured out. A lot of theories on aircraft useage (Mitchell, Douhet, ect) but they were working their way through it. It took time, aircrew and a lot of mistakes.

[ndicki]

Gnomey, the Luftwaffe in 1936-37 was not about Bf109s but He51s, Hs123s and suchlike. Nothing to get too excited about, as they were on a similar basis to the Furies and Gladiators you mention. Possibly, the Gladiators would have proven better; the He51 failed to make much impression in Spain.

The Ju87 was not in real squadron service, and Germany's bomber force was limited to Ju52s, He111As and Do17Es - again, converted civilian stuff that, while fast, was not up to RAF standards, as it went on to provein the Battle of Britain. Guernica apart...

And if you'd timed it right, all their best kit would have been in Spain.

[ndicki]

Originally Posted by Twitch

I think I'd nuke France.....

Could you warn me first?

[Gnomey]

The BF-109's were just coming online in 1937 so if it was timed around then before the Hurricane and Spitfire came online it would of been Furies etc against 109's but still the bulk of the Luftwaffe would of been as you said He-51 and other similar performance wise aircraft. I would aslo agree on the bombers the German bombers were not great in 1936 to ~1939 and the British ones were better. It would of been in an interesting contest if it had happened a year or two earlier but again it all depends on the French willingness to fight (which as shown in 1940 they didn't have) so it would be hard to call and may of ended up in a stalemate.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

If the allies had stood up in 1936 they could have stopped Germany right there and then. The Germans were in no position to fight a war in 1936, hell many of the top German commanders advised Hitler that the Germans were not ready in 1939 so 1936 would have been a quick war for the allies and it would have been over.

However polotics of the time would have rendered Germany into a similiar situation as 1918/1919 and that would have just lead to worsened tentions in 1936/1937 had the allies stood up and fought that early.

[ndicki]

Don't forget that while we were rearming, the Germans were not just standing around waiting for us to finish; they needed trained pilots, aircrew, groundcrew, soldiers, and so on. They were moving from tiny, un-equipped but excellently trained professional armed forces to a huge conscript army, and changing all their equipment at the same time. Appeasement gave them the time to do that. It is all very well having a few Bf109s if you do not have enough qualified people to maintain and fly them.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yeap appeasement gave Hilter only more time to prepare plus it fueled his mind on things he could do. It made him feel invincible and gave him the feeling the allies would let him do as he pleases to avoid another war on the continent.