What if Russian K-129 had managed to get all 3 codes to fire a nuclear missile on March 7, 1968
instead of only 2 codes and nuked pearl harbor?
This gets out of WW2 sorry.
What if K-129 went through a time portal and nuked Berlin in 1940? Washington in 1940? Washington and Berlin in 1940?
What if the USA had not gone through a period of pacifism during the great depression, leaving FDR free to launch a military buildup and modernization as a Keynesian stimulus free from constitutional restrictions, and also allowing the US to declare war and military alliances with the Allies?
What if the US had joined Germany during 1940?
what if mexico joined the Axis?
Truly, it would have been a rape of Epic proportions. We raped them pretty thoroughly back in the Mexican-American war, and we had gotten a lot better since then. U-boats would have been more effective with a base of operations in the gulf, but the invasion of mexico from the north would have been quick.
Think Operation Bagration vs. Das Afrika Corps quick, but faster and sandier.
what if EU wasn't such a buzzkill?
I wanted to see epic airborn-esque present.
Interesting, actually. Not terribly practical in terms of bombing any country when you are talking about hydrogen airships, but for naval reconnaissance not bad.
On the other hand, the USA had ample supplies of helium (which is extracted from natural gas iirc), so our airships might have stood a good chance vs. airplanes, as non-explodey airships tend to undergo graceful degradation, where you can pump them full of holes and they will survive.
An american-vs. German airship battle would have been very onesided, because the american one could soak up any number of incendiaries with little damage. Accepting that you only have to armor the crew compartments and engines, you can make a tough airship. It would have culminated in German airships trying to evade allied airships, and possible allied airship attacks on german cities, as long as they could fly higher than flak guns. German attacks on british cities would also have relied on altitude, and if a significant investment in high altitude zeppelins had been made we would have seen a similar investment in very high altitude airplanes and other high altitude gear. Personal oxygen delivery systems would have been a must, so scuba might have been invented, and pressurization would be more widespread.
Zeppelins that were fire-resistant and helium filled would finally have been rendered obsolete by the surface to air missile or the very high altitude AA gun. Anything capable of punching really large holes can kill a zeppelin with ease.
Helium german zeppelins might have been made into gunships, actually, as I don't recall the allies having any mobile heavy AA during the battle of france. The zeppelins, going by late pre-war designs, would have been capable of carrying one or two (at most) flak 18s, which would have given them quite a punch indeed, especially given the large quantity of ammunition which could be carried-several hundred rounds of 88mm ammunition at 1 88mm gun. 5-7 50mm at guns could be carried; assuming 3 were carried, that would leave mass for 800 shells and enough armor penetration to punch through the roof of any french tank. However, the accuracy would have made tank plinking wasteful. The real prize would have been attacking infantry and artillery; tanks on their own are weak, so without infantry and arty they would have made easier targets. For that AT guns are less useful. Lets say 2 leFH 105 cannons and 1 50mm cannon. That makes for the same mass as 3 50mm cannons, with 200 rounds for the 50mm and 100 rounds for each 105mm gun. We would also do 1 105mm gun and 500 rounds. The 75mm leIG had an extremely low muzzle velocity but an extremely low mass, as well. We can afford to carry 5 for only 2000kg; this allows us to carry 250 rounds per gun. However, range would have been limited and accuracy atrocious; you would be up a creek when attacking tanks, and forget the maginot line. Infantry would be in trouble though.
What if sweden joined the war on
1. the axis side
2. the allied side
Sadly, sweden was never really a military powerhouse compared to UK, Russia, germany, etc. Yes, they would have been able to control the northern fjords, but their expeditionary capability would have been lacking. Their contribution might have extended the war a month either way.
They also might have been able to intercept or provide a base for the germans to intercept the arctic convoys, or would have provided a base for the allies to defend the arctic convoys. That would have made Russia hurt real bad or a bit less, and might even have resulted in Russia losing the battle of moscow.
What if the USSR lost the Battle of Moscow?
See what I did there?
Yeah somebody else answer that. I'm just about out.