Remove ads

Changing Destiny (Kancolle)

Reader mode
With two possible other Admirals serving nations gone mad with sleeping Abyssals waiting in the wings with no clue if the event that brought them here will awaken them.
 
Perhaps... Perhaps Thompson's not the only one who's been moved back in time. Perhaps his counterparts from other navies have also been displaced and now they're all trying to save their beloved ships... which brings them further into conflict, as of course, they're all fighting the same war, but perhaps on different sides (depends if Goto/Takeda came back).

I swear, it all makes sense in my head. I swear!
 
Nope the World War takes precedence You fight the war you are in not the one that might be.
Also do your damnedest not to get carted off by the secret police and disappeared.
 
Skywalker_T-65 said:
Actually, not.

Captain Lindemann of KM Bismarck is noted as considering her male as 'no ship that powerful could be a female'.

Yeah.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Huh. I would like to see his reaction to Bismarck being female...
themoreyouknow.png

I find it rather unlikely that butterflies from Thompson's arrival could have affected the survival of the Blücher, so I guess the only probable cause for her survival is her captain is from the future.
Or something.
 
IntoLight said:
I find it rather unlikely that butterflies from Thompson's arrival could have affected the survival of the Blücher, so I guess the only probable cause for her survival is her captain is from the future.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

True. A lot of people tend to overestimate the butterfly effect in situations like this. Small actions can cause big reactions, over time. For the actions of an American Admiral at Pearl Harbor to effect the survival of a German ship on this short of a scale, his actions would have needed to be massive. Like calling down lightning, shooting fire from his eyes massive.

The forces that shape history are huge, if you study history it's possible to see those forces at work. Harder to see them when you're in the midst of it.

In this situation, the US will enter World War II, it will fight Germany and Japan, the only question is when and how it starts. WWII was inevitable since the end of WWI, it was really just a matter of how it got started. Time travel to kill Hitler would not have averted that war in the slightest, the underlying causes ran too deep.

Hell, the forces that created the Pearl Harbor attack were in motion before Thompson showed up, even for an Admiral on the IJN side it would take truly massive effort to avert that event.
 
Skywalker_T-65 said:
Fighting the English, nothing they have can match the power of Bismarck.

She will become the most powerful battleship in the world.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Man, the sheer hubris here is hilarious. Bismarck was decent, perhaps even good by Atlantic standards. But by Pacific standards? Not even remotely close. A pitiful AA suite is just the most glaring flaw. And compared to the likes of Washington and South Dakota--which were around less than two years later--Bismarck would be loltastically outmatched. To say nothing of the Yamato- and Iowa-classes.

I wonder how the Kriegsmarine expected to take on the Royal Navy with just a pair of battleships and a tiny number of cruisers. Well, that, and one low-quality aircraft carrier.
 
Last edited:
SaltyWaffles said:
Huh?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

An old AH story where a Brit and German are sent back in time to 1940 and both try to influence the war for their own aims (the Brit is trying to end the war as quickly as possible to preserve the British Empire and the German is trying to prevent the bloodbath in the Eastern Front). Not only do they wind up tripping each other up, but also wind up tripping over the personalities and ideologies of the people their trying to influence.

MadGreenSon said:
. Time travel to kill Hitler would not have averted that war in the slightest, the underlying causes ran too deep.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Incorrect. Killing Hitler It would have massively impacted both how likely Workd War 2 would occur and how it unfolds even if it occurs. To quoth the almighty IXjac:

WWII doesn't happen without Hitler. At least not remotely in the same fashion that it did. Yes, it's likely that there'll be a rise of right wing sentiment in Germany, and a re-militarization of the country, but without Hitler the German leadership won't be nearly so dedicated to starting a war. This is particularly the case since the French and British were willing to make some pretty extreme concessions to Germany in the interests of avoiding another conflict. Virtually any other German leader would have taken Munich as a triumph and cashed in at that point, as indeed most in the Nazi Hierarchy and the Wehrmacht leadership wanted. It's not that other German leaders of the day were peacenicks or anything, but none of them were willing to take the gambles Hitler was.

You might get a different war years later, when France, Britain, and Russia have reformed and rebuilt their militaries, and Germany is on the downswing of disappointment after the early bloom of fascist glories has worn off and does something rash that the Allies now feel strong enough to punish, but by then the odds would be so strongly and obviously against Germany that its unlikely the Wehrmacht would go for it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
SaltyWaffles said:
I wonder how the Kriegsmarine expected to take on the Royal Navy with just a pair of battleships and a tiny number of cruisers. Well, that, and one low-quality aircraft carrier.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You forget that Germany didn't plan to go to war in '39. They wanted to build up a fleet (Z Plan), army and airforce and then go all out in '48.
 
SaltyWaffles said:
I wonder how the Kriegsmarine expected to take on the Royal Navy with just a pair of battleships and a tiny number of cruisers. Well, that, and one low-quality aircraft carrier.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It never intended to — they learned during WW1 that trying to beat the RN in a stand-up fight in its own backyard was a mug's game. German strategic planning in the mid-to-late '30s centred on the possibility of a short, limited war with France, with no British involvement, and Kreigsmarine designs and procurement were built around stalemating or beating the French Navy in isolation.

EDIT: also, what @still_guns said.
 
still_guns said:
You forget that Germany didn't plan to go to war in '39. They wanted to build up a fleet (Z Plan), army and airforce and then go all out in '48.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You're right. They were hoping for '48 at best, but I believe the Kriegsmarine was preferring they at least wait until 1945, minimum before Hitler launched his invasions.
 
SaltyWaffles said:
Man, the sheer hubris here is hilarious. Bismarck was decent, perhaps even good by Atlantic standards. But by Pacific standards? Not even remotely close. A pitiful AA suite is just the most glaring flaw. And compared to the likes of Washington and South Dakota--which were around less than two years later--Bismarck would be loltastically outmatched. To say nothing of the Yamato- and Iowa-classes.

I wonder how the Kriegsmarine expected to take on the Royal Navy with just a pair of battleships and a tiny number of cruisers. Well, that, and one low-quality aircraft carrier.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's kinda unfair to compare future ships, some which weren't even built yet, to Bismarck. It like saying that the CV-6 USS Enterprise is overhyped because she smaller, slower and carry less planes then say a Midway.
At the time Bismarck was launched and built nothing could take her. The British ships with guns that could hurt her (the Nelsons) were too slow at 24 knots max to catch her and the ones that had a chance of catching her had shitty guns that couldn't pen her armor or would be murdered because they didn't have armor. The Hood had the best chance but... Yeah. As for her AA look up the early North Carolina fit, Hoods, the King George Vs, the French and Italy battleships ... Bismarck had better then all of them at the time.

Hilter told the head of the German Navy he had until at least 1946 before war happen, we know how that happened. The plan was to have eight modern Battleships, several dozen modern cruiser, a lot of destroyers and a metric shit ton of submarines.
 
still_guns said:
You forget that Germany didn't plan to go to war in '39. They wanted to build up a fleet (Z Plan), army and airforce and then go all out in '48.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Which would have been military-economic suicide and Hitler knew it. The German economy would have imploded in the early 40s without any of the loot the war brought them and taken the German armament plan with it. Meanwhile, the French, British, and Soviets programs would have already sailed past the Germans and kept going.

Some people assume Hitler didn't know the risks he was taking in declaring war on the West and Russia. The evidence is that he did, he just realized that Germany would never be stronger vis a vis her rivals than she was in the late 30's/early 40's. His decision to wage a genocidal war came at the point where Germany had the greatest chance of winning it, something he identified yet surprisingly few others in the German military establishment did (and of those who did, they drew the opposite conclusion from Hitler - that war should be avoided - since they weren't amoral megalomaniacs). Part of Hitler's disdain for so many around him was due to the fact that very often he was right, when so many others who surrounded him were wrong.
 
obssesednuker said:
Part of Hitler's disdain for so many around him was due to the fact that very often he was right, when so many others who surrounded him were wrong.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Wut.

No, Hitler was very often wrong, and his direct interference often fucked things up. Sure, he made some good calls in the beginning of the war, but from the very beginning, Hitler's plans always lacked any viable "and then what?" aspect. Sure, he may have identified the best time to conquer France was, but he made no effort to avoid war with Britain, and he never gave sufficient consideration to the massive undertaking of an ideological throwdown with fucking Russia that he could see being around the corner the whole time. As it turns out, invading almost all of Europe in rapid succession (not counting Italy) stretches one's military quite thin and has no long-term outcome in your favor. Who knew?

EDIT: The rest of your post is spot-on, though.

Firefinder12-B said:
It's kinda unfair to compare future ships, some which weren't even built yet, to Bismarck. It like saying that the CV-6 USS Enterprise is overhyped because she smaller, slower and carry less planes then say a Midway.
At the time Bismarck was launched and built nothing could take her. The British ships with guns that could hurt her (the Nelsons) were too slow at 24 knots max to catch her and the ones that had a chance of catching her had shitty guns that couldn't pen her armor or would be murdered because they didn't have armor. The Hood had the best chance but... Yeah. As for her AA look up the early North Carolina fit, Hoods, the King George Vs, the French and Italy battleships ... Bismarck had better then all of them at the time.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What about the Nagato-class? Bigger guns, roughly comparable armor, and 27 knots to Bismarck's 30.
Or the North Carolina-class. North Carolina was commissioned less than a year after Bismarck was. She had more armor, bigger guns, radar, was almost as fast (28 knots compared to 30), had more than twice the operational range/endurance, and a much better AA suite (20 5-in/38 DPs, 48 Oerlikon 20mm guns, 16 1.1in Chicago Pianos).
 
Last edited:
SaltyWaffles said:
No, Hitler was very often wrong, and his direct interference often fucked things up.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

No, he was frequently very often right on all the issues that those around him challenged him on, at least up until 1943 (and even then he made some good calls), although after that it really didn't matter what calls Hitler made. The issues that he was wrong on dealt with basic strategic goals (such as conquering all of Europe and totally remaking it's politico-social-racial order in an orgy of conquest and genocide), but on these issues he was not challenged on. Once one accepts Hitler's basic premise, that Germany had to wage a massive genocidal war to conquer Europe or die, then the course he followed was the one that offered the most chance of success. In that sense, Hitler was the best strategist Germany had (which is more a damnation of the German military's capacity for rational strategic thinking then it is any praise of Hitler's acumen).

Sure, ultimately Hitler's style of leadership became counterproductive once the Nazis were losing, but the fact that they even got as far as they did was because of him.

As it turns out, invading almost all of Europe in rapid succession (not counting Italy) stretches one's military quite thin and has no long-term outcome in your favor. Who knew?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This pretends that a more measured pace would have brought Germany more dividends. Nothing is further from the truth: time was on the side of Germany's enemies, not Germany, as Hitler was well aware. A more measured German leadership would have achieved less before being crushed. Germany either had to win quickly (which necessitated all those rushes, improvisations, and shoe-stringings you spent all your post deriding) or she was doomed to defeat. I mean, to address some individual points you make:

but he made no effort to avoid war with Britain
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Of course Hitler made no effort to avoid war with Britain. That was impossible given what he was trying to do. His basic strategic goal of conquering all of continental Europe pretty much obviates any attempt at avoiding war with Britain since it flew in the face of Britain's own basic strategic policy of the last 500-so years of preventing any continental power from dominating all of continental Europe. And since Britain could always count on growing support and eventual entry into the war of the United States before the Germans could build the necessary naval-air power to defeat her, fighting the necessary prolonged naval-air war to actually defeat Britain is not a winning prospect.

and he never gave sufficient consideration to the massive undertaking of an ideological throwdown with fucking Russia that he could see being around the corner the whole time.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Because Germany did not have the time to accrue those resources. It's 1941 or bust. In 1940 or earlier, Germany is too weak. In 1942 or later, Russia is too strong. Hitler gambled on a short, victorious war with Russia because the time and resource constraints upon Germany obviated any other option.

The alternative of not starting the war and abandoning rearmament is there too, but from the perspective of Hitler's cosmology of racial struggle this is an even worse fate then the historical bloodbath of a defeat Germany suffered in 1944-45 as it dooms the "master race" to eventual racial subversion and extermination by the Jews (in a very real sense, the Nazis believed they were doing unto the Jews what the Jews would do unto them). For the Wehrmacht, though, abandoning rearmament is unacceptable because it undermines their domestic political power, position, and sense of prestige and self-esteem.

The rest of your post is spot-on, though.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
More appropriately, Germany may have taken Moscow if they hadn't been diverted into the Balkans by Mussolini's typical failure in Greece. At least, I've read as much...something like Barbarossa was delayed to take into account having to invade Yugoslavia and then Greece to save Italy's bacon.

Had Mussolini not gone empire building in the Balkans, Germany would have struck the Sovs sooner. And if the Soviets folded like they did IRL...well.

More related note: Next chapter will return to the main story.
 
still_guns said:
You forget that Germany didn't plan to go to war in '39. They wanted to build up a fleet (Z Plan), army and airforce and then go all out in '48.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't know about '48, but if they had built up longer and still has a drive toward wonderweapons (some of which would have been devastating if fully developed) to aid their war machine then under any charismatic leader, and there were a few that could have stepped into the role sans Hitler, WWII would have been very different.

It is my opinion that they still wouldn't have won, but the actual effects of the war would have been a lot more devastating.

However, I'm not an expert and will defer my opinion for the time being in lieu of not having more data available.

Skywalker_T-65 said:
More related note: Next chapter will return to the main story.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Looking forward to it
 
Skywalker_T-65 said:
More appropriately, Germany may have taken Moscow if they hadn't been diverted into the Balkans by Mussolini's typical failure in Greece. At least, I've read as much...something like Barbarossa was delayed to take into account having to invade Yugoslavia and then Greece to save Italy's bacon.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Myth. The Spring Raputitsa in 1941 was longer then expected (into early-June) and it was this that delayed Barbarossa, not the Balkans diversion.

It has to be remembered that the Germans were incredibly fortunate at the start of the invasion as it was. Given the already amazing scale and scope of German battlefield success during Barbarossa, alternate scenarios where Germany takes Moscow in 1941 or does even more damage to the Red Army aren't particularly realistic and often enter the realm of fantasy. Indeed, there is vastly more room for Barbarossa to fail faster and harder then IOTL then there is for it to achieve success.
 
Last edited:
*shrug*

Like I said, what I've read. At any rate...while this discussion is certainly interesting it won't have much bearing on the story. If only because there is little that even the spreading butterflies can change insofar as the Land War goes.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top