It's important that even the F4F and P-40, when used properly, were able to decisively defeat the Zeroes even with that plane's advantages. Matter of fact, the F4F held an overwhelming positive K/D ratio throughout the Pacific War (Something like two or three Japanese planes to every F4F) while the P-40 was more manueverable when in downward spirals already. 

Interesting. Thanks for the info. Your so erudite and knowledgeable. 

Thank you for the compliment; you are as well.

...Quit quoting people when responding. You're cluttering up the page.

I have told you several times, GB, by now what "gaps" meant, among other things. You're not bloody reading what others are writing, and it is obvious.

Gaps - as in openings and/or weak spots between armies, units, or soldiers. You know, the ones left when they pulled the two armies west for the Battle of the Bulge? Sheesh.

As noted: the US was the only one with their divisions at even optimal strength by the end. By the end of the war, the US only had a single division of recruits/draftees left to send out. That's it. Anything past that would be green troops filling in spots, or from divisions disbanded to fill out the others. There is a reason why their planners only aimed for an army of a certain number of divisions. War lasted any longer, they'd have had to start doing it too.

Soviets never bothered reinforcing their divisions all that much until later on, preferring to make new ones instead. Many divisions, imo, were never at full strength either. That is why they had so many divisions that were disturbingly understrength - not manpower issues, but continually making new ones rather than reinforcing what they had.

Sources supporting you? None of those do, lol. First two just say that their divisions were understrength - common knowledge, and not reflective of manpower levels - and the third is misleading at best. As noted, they were never at full strength, and you kind of have to use draconian measures to get recruits in areas where you are hated.

Those "sources" confirm the opposite of your argument.

Wrong - the passes, imo, have plains leading to them. Allies did get into Austria from Italy, eventually (west got the resources, Italian front did not). Interesting how you ignore that there is two directions to go from Northern Italy, too. Next to the sea = naval support. Very helpful.

Anzio, as the others noted, was not a bloodbath at all. In fact, it was the result of moving too slowly, and needing another division. Whole thing as a surprise - was just not treated like it should have been by those in charge, and the Germans forted up.

"Hills" in southern France had nothing to do with it, as any research would have told you. The problem, imo, was one of landing craft. They had to land the troops in Overlord, and then transfer said craft (while making replacements) to the Med. Needless to say, that does not happen fast. Has they had the craft, both would have been done at the same time, or nearly so.

Not bizarre, lol. The hedgerows - not small, either - were a major problem, and a better defensive scheme than any hilly areas. "Hills" also do not mean defensible, not even close.

Newer things...

Without the Kursk salient - and your pullback to that river - the Soviets aren't going to attack there. Every reason to have done so otl, from a strategic perspective, is gone. They aren't going to attack there. Rather, the blows will fall at the north and south areas of the eastern front, and it will work well.

You vastly overstate the losses such a move would give them, and give the Germans too much credit - Soviets would have pushed them back, though, as noted, they would not have even tried at that point. That you actually buy that armistice and peace part is disturbing as well. Husky cannot be reinforced - question of location, if nothing else.

Yeah, armor on the Zeros would basically negate every single advantage they had.

(Stupid Wiki formating, sorry for this cluttered mess of a response! I tried to edit it multiple times to fix it, and couldn't get the desired result. Lesson learned, typing a response into Google Docs and then pasting it simply doesn't work. My apologies)

I use the quote function so as to prevent confusion in this thread.

No, you never did and I’ve made it clearly I’ve read what you posted by quoting it in my responses. It is very clear, however, that you refuse to read what I post. Even when I cite sources, you seem to think your own historical bias are more correct.

Which has nothing to do with the point you originally raised (German-Western fighting within Italy).

I want to see you cite a resource to back that claim, as there were multiple US divisions still arriving in Europe at the end of the conflict (106th, IIRC, arrived in May for example). I also want to see proof that American divisions were broken up for manpower reasons.

Except my own links disprove this claim, in that they were seeking to at least partially reform some units prior to Bagration. My links also note the reason they had to breakdown units and combine them was due to a lack of manpower; they couldn’t maintain both the infantry, artillery, and mechanized units at proper strength. I haven’t posted another source yet, but it was also from Osprey and mentioned how 10% of Soviet frontline strength by the time of Berlin was conscripted Poles.

Then you haven’t bloody well read them, or refuse to accept your own preconceived notions are wrong. As a matter of fact, the third one SPECIFICALLY SAYS IT WAS BECAUSE OF MANPOWER DEFICIENCIES. Just because it disagrees with what you think doesn’t matter, it’s a researched book that relies on official sources. Afterall, if the situation wasn't so bad for the Soviets, why in the world would they need to start conscription of 17 year olds? And before you even try it, no, there is a very major difference between allowing volunteers from that age group as most powers allowed for at this time, and starting a mass draft as the Soviets did.

Again, have you ever looked at a topographic map of Italy? The Alps separate the Lombardy Plains (The closest one) from Austria by quite a bit. As to your suggestion that the Western Allies pushed into Austria from Italy, that is a complete and utterly wrong statement and shows you haven’t researched this area as any situational map of the time of VE-Day would show that Austria was not breeched by Western forces from Italy.

Bringing up landing craft does not disprove my point. Southern France is hilly terrain-which is easily defensible terrain. The Western Allies are not dumb enough to invade solely in Southern France, simply because they know the Germans can concentrate forces in an optimal area for defensive.

By the time April had arrived, both sides had already focused their forces upon the general area around Kursk. Both sides had already invested too much into the strategic area to simply give up. Holding/Taking Ukraine is a very strategic objective, after all. As to attacking North or South, that still engenders a Soviet defeat; Manstein was in prepared fortifications with Panzer forces to the South while German lines to the North were also fortified and could be reinforced with the mobile reserve created in this ATL.

Actually, one fifth of the Red Army was in the general area (See above paragraph on how both sides were too committed to give up on the area for the campaign season). Dealing a vast blow to that much of the Soviet military, combined with their declining conscription amounts (See up thread OTL Soviet data before you attempt to dispute) lays the seeds for disaster.

As to the armistice, as I noted multiple times previously in this thread and even cited a link for with primary sources, Stalin was floating the idea of a peace along Brest-Litovsk before Kursk.

Again, I think you need to study the Italian theater. In OTL, several German divisions were diverted to face Husky and arrived successfully.  

I think I've got a real 'corker' here! Germany did not ATL invade the Netherlands in World War 2, like they did not do in OTL Wold War 1! The German troops could fight the USSR and not go to the Netherlands to hold down the Dutch Resistance.

Germans Invade Eastward, Japanese Invade Westward, Germans take USSR, and Japanese Annex China, and Eastern territories in USSR. They meet heads in India, and exchange war information. now with a very much sustainable fuel source, and modern enough metallurgy for the Japs. The axis declare war on Brittain. Overwhelming it with massive force. Then attack America from both sides of the globe. America does not join the war until too late, and do not have advanced technology they traded from the British with ships. America is by now outnumbered in terms of aircraft carriers produced in vast numbers, and succumb to getting zerg rushed by the Axis. German spies figure out that americans have a limited number of nukes. Planes carrying nukes are shot down over american soil, and Washington, DC, becomes a nuclear wasteland

& GBA-

Possibly the assassinating either Ike, George S. Patton, Monty or General De Galle helps Germany.

If Spain, Peronist Argentina and the IRA enters the war on the Nazi's side. Sweden could also join the Nazis if they are doing well. A Nazi coup meant Swiss Germans could join Hitler's forces to and Mousselinie conquers the rest.

To be fair Portugal also join the Alies and helps them to.