# Sorens Really What If Thread



## Soren (Oct 2, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> Soren, are you british?? it doesn't sound it, when was the last time we gave up hope??



Lanc this has nothing to do with hope, even Germany eventually gave up and Russia was bloody close to during the battle for Stalingrad. 



> in 1940 what did the luftwaffe have that could take out a capital ship?? the LW were no more prepared to take out ships than the RAF, we were both still using small bombs to try and penetrate the top armour, which wasn't gonna happen



You seem to be oblivious to the fact that during the invasion of Norway, the RN "destroyers" HMS Afridi, Bison, and Grom, as well as the anti-aircraft ship Bittern were all sunk by Stuka's carrying "Bombs". One bomb even passed completely through the Bittern's sister ship, the BLACK SWAN, and exploded under it, luckily for the Black swan who survived. 



> , you're right in saying that aircraft are the most effective weapons against ships,* but only really when they're carrying torpedos*,



Which is exactly what the LW would bring at the RN ! 



> the RN would have loved the chance to bring their huge forces together for the sole purpose of destroying the ill prepared invasin force, the germans had no experience of amphibious landings and were coming over often in just civilian barges! they wouldn't have a chance, the germans caused problems releasing S-boats into the allied invasion force and they just had a couple of torp. tubes, imagine what battleships and cruisers would do, meanwhile the massed flak from all the ships the the german fear or hitting their own ships in the channel would make it very difficult for them to bomb, i realise there would be losses but they can be replaced as long as the island remains intact,



Lanc think before you burst out. The Germans weren't going to attack the RN while at the same time launching Op.Seelöwe, no they would annihilate the RN before even preparing for Op.seelöwe.

This is pure simple tactical exploitment, and the Germans wouldn't have missed the chance to use it !

[/quote="thelancasterkicksass"] if you think we'd have given up you know nothing about the British........ [/quote]

Without an airforce, against such a large opponent, any nation's army would 'eventually' give up Lanc.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 2, 2005)

> even Germany eventually gave up



that's odd, all sources i've read seem to think that germany fought right to the end, obviously you're history books seem to think they gave up whilst they still had allot of strength and the allies were several hundred miles from berlin........

and would you say the Japaneese would've surrendered if a conventional landing on their mainland was made?? no, the peasants were sharpening their bamboo spears waiting for the americans on the beaches, we'd be much the same i can assure you of that...........



> You seem to be oblivious to the fact that during the invasion of Norway, the RN "destroyers" HMS Afridi, Bison, and Grom, as well as the anti-aircraft ship Bittern were all sunk by Stuka's carrying "Bombs".



but we're not just talking destroyers here, and some aircraft were lost too........



> The Germans weren't going to attack the RN while at the same time launching Op.Seelöwe, no they would annihilate the RN before even preparing for Op.seelöwe



following the battle of britian there was a matter of weeks before the weather window that would allow any form of invasion closed, you are now suggesting that they could completely destroy the RN in those couple of weeks?? then launch a succesfull invasion of the British isles??



> Without an airforce, against such a large opponent, any nation's army would 'eventually' give up



yes it's true the germans had a bigger army, what does that matter though when most of them would still be sitting in france when the invasion took place, the british wouldn't have to fight the entire german army, they only had to fight the few that made it off the barges oh yeah, those civilian barges the germans were coming over on, how many would the germans be able to land in a short space of time after only a couple of months planning?? the allies planned for years for D-day and landed 11,000 troops in a day, realistically, how many could the germans land? did they even have any plans for how they'd keep them supplied??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

Soren the Luftwaffe was not able to win the BoB and they would not have been able to fight the RN at the same time so it is all hopeless anyhow. Even if the Luftwaffe had one the BoB, they would not have overwelmed the RN. The RN was too large. There only hope would have been the U-Boots and there were not eneogh U-Boots at the time to undertake that adventure.


----------



## Soren (Oct 2, 2005)

Lanc first of all, stop being so bloody disrespectful, it doesnt suit you well.



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> that's odd, all sources i've read seem to think that germany fought right to the end, obviously you're history books seem to think they gave up whilst they still had allot of strength and the allies were several hundred miles from berlin........



Yes thats right the Germans "Gave up", they officially "Surrendered" May 7. 1945. 



> and would you say the Japaneese would've surrendered if a conventional landing on their mainland was made??



Eventually, yes they would. And they showed us that eventually, if enough casualties were inflicted, even they would surrender. (Just like any other nation) 



thelancasterkicksass said:


> no, the peasants were sharpening their bamboo spears waiting for the americans on the beaches, we'd be much the same i can assure you of that...........



Until your casualties rise to a certain point you would, yes, but after that you'd accept the inevitable.



> but we're not just talking destroyers here



Lanc the Stuka could easely bring down any of the RN's Battleships if thats what your pondering about, with 'one' bomb. 



> , and some aircraft were lost too........



"Too what" is my question then. RN Flak ? No, RAF fighters.




> following the battle of britian there was a matter of weeks before the weather window that would allow any form of invasion closed, you are now suggesting that they could completely destroy the RN in those couple of weeks?? then launch a succesfull invasion of the British isles??



Without an airforce, in a week, the RN would've been annihilated.



> yes it's true the germans had a bigger army, what does that matter though when most of them would still be sitting in france when the invasion took place, the british wouldn't have to fight the entire german army, they only had to fight the few that made it off the barges oh yeah, those civilian barges the germans were coming over on, how many would the germans be able to land in a short space of time after only a couple of months planning?? the allies planned for years for D-day and landed 11,000 troops in a day, realistically, how many could the germans land?
> did they even have any plans for how they'd keep them supplied??



Lanc, with no RAF to pose a threat, the LW would bomb the British coastal defenses to smithereens (or atleast leave them permanently out of action), and the invading German troops on the beaches wouldnt meet a fraction of the resistance the Allies did on D-day. And with the coastal defenses down, supplies could come rolling in unhindered.

Fact is, once you have utter and complete air supremacy, planning-time drops dramaticly.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 2, 2005)

Agreed Lanc and Alder the Germans would not have been able to destroy the RN in the window of opportunity for landing in 1940. There was not enough time for them to do so. The small number of troops the Germans would have been able to land on the first day would not have been able to overwhelm the defences and the RN would have crippled any follow up forces. The Germans would have run out of steam and would have had to withdraw in my opinion. The Germans did not have enough resources avaliable to them in France in 1940 to launch a successful invasion of the UK with or without air superiority.


----------



## Soren (Oct 2, 2005)

*Adler and Gnomey*, we're talking if the RAF was no'more.  

But yes, as I've said before, its not worth even discussin it as the RAF was never beaten, and at the time it was close to, the LW was closer.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 2, 2005)

i'm not even gonna bother continue this argument now you're taking this tone 



soren said:


> Lanc first of all, stop being so bloody disrespectful, it doesnt suit you well



this was a healthy debate, i fail to see how i was being disrespectful and i do not apprechaite being spoken to like that at all........


----------



## Soren (Oct 2, 2005)

"!obviously you're history books seem to think they gave up whilst they still had allot of strength and the allies were several hundred miles from berlin........ "

That is disrespectful talking Lanc.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 2, 2005)

to me that's not disrespectful, i think other members will be on my side on this one, that was a fair enough comment given what you were saying............


----------



## Soren (Oct 2, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> to me that's not disrespectful, i think other members will be on my side on this one, that was a fair enough comment given what you were saying............



So your saying that in your History books the Germans didn't surrender ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

Soren I know that you are talking about if the RAF had been defeated however look at this way. What landing craft did the Germans have. Nothing very good. The RN would not have even needed Battleships or Cruiser to take out the German landing fleet. It would have taken quite some time to build a suitable landing craft fleet.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 2, 2005)

Soren said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > to me that's not disrespectful, i think other members will be on my side on this one, that was a fair enough comment given what you were saying............
> ...


Of course the Germans surrendered we all know that *but* they only surrendered after they had lost everything the Western Front had collapsed and the Russians were in Berlin. Hitler and the other members of the Nazi high command had commited suicide. A weaker leadership came in to replace Hitler and they surrendered. Now they same in my opinion would of have to happen for the British to surrender in 1940, *a change of leadership from one that did not want to surrender to one that did.*


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 2, 2005)

soren said:


> So your saying that in your History books the Germans didn't surrender ?



no, they did but only after everything and almost everyone in germany had been destroyed and the allies were in berlin, in the same way not until the germans had reached john o'Groats would the british surrender, and we also had our empire to carry on the fight from.............


----------



## Soren (Oct 2, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Soren I know that you are talking about if the RAF had been defeated however look at this way. What landing craft did the Germans have. Nothing very good. The RN would not have even needed Battleships or Cruiser to take out the German landing fleet. It would have taken quite some time to build a suitable landing craft fleet.



With complete air supremacy, amphibious landings are far from the only option Adler  

Para invading forces proved successful at Crete and France, why not Britain ?

And without an airforce, how do you effectively stop an invading army from the air ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

They did not have eneogh paratroopers to do an airborne invasion. I think you are missing the point that it was not possible.


----------



## Soren (Oct 2, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> no, they did but only after everything and almost everyone in germany had been destroyed and the allies were in berlin,



Actually ALOT of Germans surrendered, German mass surrendering already started April 26. And alot of German cities were still not occupied.



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> in the same way not until the germans had reached john o'Groats would the british surrender, and we also had our empire to carry on the fight from.............



But again lanc, without any RAF to pose a threat, the Germans would've reached London in a very short space of time, and eventually the British would've surrendered just the same as the Germans did themselves in 45.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 2, 2005)

Paras still need supply, Soren. They're not a very self-sufficient force for extended deep penetration missions. They're primarily there to seize objectives quickly and hold them long enough for the main forces to arrive. Do you honestly think the German ground forces were arriving anytime soon to relieve them? You keep writing off the Royal Navy for some reason. The German Luftwaffe would have been extremely hard tasked to defeat them for an invasion of any sort. Do you realize just how big and powerful the RN was? Then of course there was the almost complete unpreparedness of the Germans for any sort of channel crossing, as has already been gone over...and over...and over...


----------



## Soren (Oct 2, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> They did not have eneogh paratroopers to do an airborne invasion. I think you are missing the point that it was not possible.



Not a "pure" airborne invasion, no.

An airborn invasion force combined with an amphibious invasion force, would probably prove just as successful against Britain as they did on D-day.

And I bet Hitler would sacrefice alot of troops elsewhere, for an invasion of Britain if the RAF was beaten, as strategicly, Britain was VERY important.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

Allright Soren though I respect your views on this, this is nothing more than a bunch of *"What Ifs"* and for the reason of getting back on topic here which is *P-40 vs. Hurricane *take this to the *"What if"* Threads.


----------



## Soren (Oct 2, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> Paras still need supply, Soren. They're not a very self-sufficient force for extended deep penetration missions. They're primarily there to seize objectives quickly and hold them long enough for the main forces to arrive. Do you honestly think the German ground forces were arriving anytime soon to relieve them?



What happened in France Nonskimmer ? 

With no RAF, supplies could reach the para's reasonably unhindered, and supplies for the main force could come totally unhindered from the sea.



> You keep writing off the Royal Navy for some reason. The German Luftwaffe would have been extremely hard tasked to defeat them for an invasion of any sort. Do you realize just how big and powerful the RN was?



Combined with naval strikes in the form of U-boats and Battleships, the LW could take out the RN in a short space of time, oh yes. The KriegsMarine and LW would have a field day.



> Then of course there was the almost complete unpreparedness of the Germans for any sort of channel crossing, as has already been gone over...and over...and over.....



As I've said, I bet Hitler would sacrefice alot of troops elsewhere, for an invasion of Britain if the RAF was beaten.


----------



## Soren (Oct 2, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Allright Soren though I respect your views on this, this is nothing more than a bunch of *"What Ifs"* and for the reason of getting back on topic here which is *P-40 vs. Hurricane *take this to the *"What if"* Threads.



Exactly, your right. 

Back to the topic.


----------



## Lunatic (Oct 2, 2005)

Soren said:


> > and would you say the Japaneese would've surrendered if a conventional landing on their mainland was made??
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I respectfully disagree. The Japanese people were willing to sustain tremendous losses in defense of the Emperor. The Japanese military commanders still believed that if they could inflict sufficiently high losses on the Allies the Allies would accept a negotiated surender and they were willing to endure many times that level of losses to achieve this.

Had the USA forgone the use of non-conventilonal weapons (the A-Bomb and nerve gas) Allied losses would have run to the mid 6 figure mark, perhaps even as high as a million. And Japanese losses would have been 10 fold as high. And the Soviets would have ended up in complete control of China and at least two and probably three of the Northern Japanese Islands (they hold one today), if not the entire contry. And the Soviet's would have had no respect for Japanese culteral identity or tradition.

Having the A-Bomb dropped on Japan was the best thing that could have happened to them short of a miracle of enlightenment in the Japanese milititary leadership. It saved millions of Japanese lives and allowed them to retain the largest part of their cultural identity. Had they endured a an invasion, even without the Soviets being involved, their culture would have been almost completely lost.



Soren said:


> Without an airforce, in a week, the RN would've been annihilated.



How? They'd have hung back until the critical moment when Hitler made his move and wiped out his invasion force. Hitler didn't have the resources to build a Luftwaffe' large enought to stop that (especially at night).

Sea-Lion was a fantasy cooked up in a cocain/amphetamine/morphine daze. The German's had no capacity for such an operation and had they tried it the war would have ended much earlier.

Read this essay: http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/althist/seal1.htm

Convinced?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 2, 2005)

Nice link Lunatic. I agree with the conclusions made.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

Again Please read a couple of posts back. While these are all great posts and what not lets get back on topic. There is a What If thread for this purpose.


----------



## Lunatic (Oct 2, 2005)

Soren said:


> *Adler and Gnomey*, we're talking if the RAF was no'more.
> 
> But yes, as I've said before, its not worth even discussin it as the RAF was never beaten, and at the time it was close to, the LW was closer.



Well, that's pretty silly isn't it Soren? I mean, lets assume the Luftwaffe' had destroyed the RAF. To do so would have certainly have weakened them substantially. And even at their level of force at the point hitler abanon attacking the RAF in favor of bombing cities they didn't have the kind of forces required to stop the RN, especially at night, from destroying any significant invasion force the Germans might have fielded.

Besides, had the RAF been loosing to the degree you suggest they'd have been pulled back out of reach of the Luftwaffe' until such an invasion was begun. Then, when the Germans were over-extended they'd have been re-deployed.

Anyway read the essay I posted in my previous response. I think you will see that Sea-Lion was utter rubbish and simply could not have worked. Floating 10's of thousands of men across the channel on river barges? Even if the British did NOTHING to defend themselves losses would probably have exceeded 50%!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 2, 2005)

What exactly _did_ happen in France though Soren? I have no idea what you were referring to.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

I give up. Whats the point in trying to get a thread back on topic when no one listens anyhow?


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 2, 2005)

Can you not split the thread where it went off-topic because the way this is going it is unlikely to get back on topic for a bit...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

Yes I will do that.


----------



## Lunatic (Oct 2, 2005)

Soren said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > Soren I know that you are talking about if the RAF had been defeated however look at this way. What landing craft did the Germans have. Nothing very good. The RN would not have even needed Battleships or Cruiser to take out the German landing fleet. It would have taken quite some time to build a suitable landing craft fleet.
> ...



Oh come on be serious Soren. A para attack without a naval invasion would result in lots of German POW's. Paras are not an objective capturing force, they are a disruptive force. Without a naval invasion the paras would have run out of supplies in less than a day and been doomed. The first night that fell the British tanks and armored cars would have cut them to ribbons.

Unless you are suggesting that Hitler had some means of dropping 20 or 30 thousand well supplied troops into England this is an absurd proposition.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 2, 2005)

That's better.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

There we go now this can carry on however you wish!


----------



## Soren (Oct 2, 2005)

Lunatic said:


> I respectfully disagree. The Japanese people were willing to sustain tremendous losses in defense of the Emperor. The Japanese military commanders still believed that if they could inflict sufficiently high losses on the Allies the Allies would accept a negotiated surender and they were willing to endure many times that level of losses to achieve this.
> 
> Had the USA forgone the use of non-conventilonal weapons (the A-Bomb and nerve gas) Allied losses would have run to the mid 6 figure mark, perhaps even as high as a million. And Japanese losses would have been 10 fold as high. And the Soviets would have ended up in complete control of China and at least two and probably three of the Northern Japanese Islands (they hold one today), if not the entire contry. And the Soviet's would have had no respect for Japanese culteral identity or tradition.



Sure losses would've been high, but the USA wouldn't have signed any form of Peace treaty with the Japanees, no they would've only accepted a Japanees surrender.

And eventaully, against the might of the USA, the Japs would've surrendered.



> Having the A-Bomb dropped on Japan was the best thing that could have happened to them short of a miracle of enlightenment in the Japanese milititary leadership. It saved millions of Japanese lives and allowed them to retain the largest part of their cultural identity. Had they endured a an invasion, even without the Soviets being involved, their culture would have been almost completely lost.



I agree 100%.



> How? They'd have hung back until the critical moment when Hitler made his move and wiped out his invasion force.



Hung back ? Lunatic, the RN would be sunk before even having the chance to escape.



> Hitler didn't have the resources to build a Luftwaffe' large enought to stop that (especially at night).



Without any RAF, oh yes he had.



> Sea-Lion was a fantasy cooked up in a cocain/amphetamine/morphine daze. The German's had no capacity for such an operation and had they tried it the war would have ended much earlier.
> 
> Read this essay: http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/althist/seal1.htm
> 
> ...



Remember Lunatic, we're talking no'more RAF here. 

And as your link suggests, the RAF would have had a huge part in defeating any invasion force.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

And how would the RN been sunk without a chance. Sorry Soren but the RN is more powerful than you think it is. How the hell do you think it survived anyhow? By sitting in the harbor hiding.


----------



## Soren (Oct 2, 2005)

Lunatic said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> ...



Please read my previus posts properly, I never proposed a "Pure" airborne invasion.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 2, 2005)

The RN was the most powerful fleet afloat in 1940 and it would have been impossible for the LW to destroy every single ship the RN possessed at the time and significant damage would have been done to the invasion fleet.


----------



## Soren (Oct 2, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And how would the RN been sunk without a chance. Sorry Soren but the RN is more powerful than you think it is. How the hell do you think it survived anyhow? By sitting in the harbor hiding.



Here's how it is..

Without any RAF, the RN wasnt mighty, it was just big. And any attempt to escape by the RN, would be abruptly halted by axis aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

I agree. There was no way to destroy eneogh of the RN to allow the Invasion fleet to get through and then eventually the paratroopers that Soren has thrown into the mix would have been overrun and not been able to be supplied which brings to my next point that the Germans would not have been able to sustain an invasion force for very long. The forces would have lacked supplies and would have soon fell apart due to attrition.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 2, 2005)

Soren said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > And how would the RN been sunk without a chance. Sorry Soren but the RN is more powerful than you think it is. How the hell do you think it survived anyhow? By sitting in the harbor hiding.
> ...


I have to disagree Soren while the LW could have interferred and harrased it could *never* have stopped the RN getting away.


----------



## Soren (Oct 2, 2005)

Gnomey said:


> The RN was the most powerful fleet afloat in 1940 and it would have been impossible for the LW to destroy every single ship the RN possessed at the time and significant damage would have been done to the invasion fleet.



How is the RN going to protect itself against airial attacks with no RAF to back them up ? They were sitting ducks..


----------



## Soren (Oct 2, 2005)

Gnomey said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> ...



I ask again, how could the RN defend itself with no RAF to back it up ? 

Ships are slow, aircraft are not.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

How did the Japanese and American Ships protect themselves when the dive bombers and torpedo bombers get through the fighter cover in the PTO. The RN would do the same!


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 2, 2005)

There were enough ships in the RN that if they tried to break out there would have been enough AA fire to at least stop some of the attackers. Even then some of the ships would have been sunk. Look at Crete the RN had very little air support and yet the LW didn't manage to sink the part of the RN that was there only sink a few ships.

Admiral Cunningham said the following during the Crete evacuation


> It takes 3 years to build a ship it take 300 years to build a tradition. We're going back


That sums the attitude the RN would have had to an invasion of Britain they would not of given up despite taking (possibably heavy) losses.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

I am sure the RN would have lost quite a few ships but not eneogh to allow a German Invasion fleet through.


----------



## Soren (Oct 2, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How did the Japanese and American Ships protect themselves when the dive bombers and torpedo bombers get through the fighter cover in the PTO.The RN would do the same!



With aircraft, problem is there are none, and flak is far from enough. (Even up close as the Japs showed )

And remember the RN would also have to deal with the KriegsMarine aswell.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

You fail to see the point that not even the Luftwaffe could destroy eneogh of the RN. Why cant you see this?

Anyhow I am off. I have to get some sleep so that I can get up at 3 in the morning to watch the 49er game.


----------



## Soren (Oct 2, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You fail to see the point that not even the Luftwaffe could destroy eneogh of the RN. Why cant you see this?



And you fail to see that the LW weren't alone, the Kriegsmarine would be there in all its might aswell.

Imagine what havoc U-boats would cause against a RN being simultaneously attacked by the LW.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Anyhow I am off. I have to get some sleep so that I can get up at 3 in the morning to watch the 49er game.



Alright, looking forward to continuing this debate with you tomorrow. 

Night night.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 2, 2005)

There weren't enough U-boats to cover the Atlantic convoys as it was. Taking on a Royal Navy task force would have gotten them killed quickly. 
And I don't know what all this talk about breaking out is for. The Royal Navy wouldn't have had to break out of anything. It was still the largest, most powerful, and probably still the most experienced navy in the world in 1940/41. Only the Imperial Japanese Navy really came close to even rivaling it at the time. The Kriegsmarine had a few brand new battleships and cruisers against a powerful foe who knew what they were doing, and who under the circumstances would have been more determined and resourceful than ever. Torpedo boats would have been a wily foe for the Brits in the channel perhaps, but not enough to bottle up the fleet. Even with air supremacy, taking out British defences wouldn't have been this cake-walk you envision.

And what were you talking about with France earlier, with respect to airborne forces? You never did fill me in.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 2, 2005)

the rn did wonderful work against airpower without topcover against the japanese the prince of wales and repulse were swatting them right out the air with little effort


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 2, 2005)

They were both sunk though. Bad example.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 2, 2005)

and assuming most of the naval activity would be in the channel one could also assume the army artillery would certainly be a factor but again air power might not be the answer recalling the raf attempts at coord inating during the channel dash


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

You hit it right on the nail there NS. 

Soren what U-Boots. The Germans did not have eneogh U-Boots yet and there Surface navy was not even ready for war. Hitlers admirals even said that it was not ready in 1939. What did they have that could possibly due anything to the RN while the Luftwaffe was attacking.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 2, 2005)

Sealion was impossible, even with the Royal Airforce defeated.



> A frontal attack against a defence line, on too narrow a front, with no good prospect of suprise, with insfficient forces reinforced only in dribblets'
> 
> Field Marshal von Brauchitsch, commenting on 'Operation Sealion' in September 1940.



I think that sums it up really. Even German Army high command considered the plans for Operation Sealion the highest folly.

The German Navy wanted landings on a narrow front. It couldn't guarentee control of the chanel for more than a few days. The Army demanded a broad front landing, but didn't have the necessary sealift capacity to support it, without converting half the Kriegsmarine into troopships.

Halder (one of the German Army Chiefs of Staff) put it nicely in a August 14 memo to the Navy, referring to their desire for narrow front landings; "I might as well put the troops through a sausage machine"

Schniewind, the other Army Chief of Staff, noted that "the airborne troops can influence neither the weather or the sea; they cannot prevent the destruction and incapacitation of the few harours, nor hold off the enemy fleet, or even a small part of it' In the words of the German high command, Airborne troops could be used but they would not be of much influence to the main landings.

Initial German calculations for Sealion showed that they would need between 2 to 3 days to put ashore just the first wave of 13 divisions. The final August draft plan for Sealion reduced this to 9 divisions, with 2 airborne divisions supporting, but stretched the length of the landings to 9 days for just the first wave. To land the frontline elements of the 40 divisions that the Army requireded, at a minimum, to conquer England, it would take an estimated total of 40 days, without taking into account allowances for heavy or specalist equipment or logistic formations! There is little doubt that the Royal Navy would of done everything in its power to disrupt this further.

To support the landings the Germany Navy had made no commitments for artillery support, its primary role was to keep open a clear sea-lane between Calais and the Dover area. Two old 15 inch monitors were considered but dropped as it would take too long to refit them with sufficient anti-aircraft armament and anti-submarine capability. Artillery support, for the planned 50 mile wide landing in the inital phase, would be supported by just 27 costal patrol craft, fitted with 3 inch howitlers and 37mm cannon. Compare that to the support for the Allied landings in Italy, Sicily, North Africa and France and you can see just how deficient it was.

The German High Command planned to capture the ports of Folkstone on D+1 and Dover slightly later. Both were expected to have been damaged by British forces once landings started. The estimates of supply requirements of an infantry division were around 300-350 tons a day. Inital calculations were tah Folkstone could handle 150 tons a day, building to a maximum of 600 per day by D+8. Dover would have slightly higher capacity of 800 tons per day.

Considering that the initial wave was 9 infantry divisons and 2 airborne divisions then they would need a minimum of 3,300 tons of stroes, rations, ammunitionand other necessities every day. But Dover and Folkstone together could only supply 1400 tons per day, or less than one third of the suplies necessary to supply just the initial wave of troops. Siply put, even with the capture of two ports intact, Germany could support a mere 4 divisions. 

At best Germany could of put across 3-4 divisons in early July and kept them supported and supplied with air and sea-lift capacity. Reinforcements of men could of been brought in IF airfields in the south had been captured IF the RAF had been completely defeated. Supplies and heavy equipment could of crossed the channel in sufficient amounts only IF the RN was defeated and IF the major ports had been captured undamaged.

So to launch Sealion sucessfully Germany needs to more than triple its sea-lift and supply capacity, capture several ports and airfields intact, defeat the numerically superior Royal Navy or prevent its interference, have the weather and seas behave appropriately, create a dedicated landing support artillery group, defeat both Fighter and Bomber Commands, make a wide landing without suprise against an entrenched enemy on a mined coastline and then carry out extended logistics operations with a minimum of supplies. Simple really


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

Yeap I really dont think it is debatable.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 3, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeap I really dont think it is debatable.


I agree Alder. Well put Jabberwocky.


----------



## Lunatic (Oct 3, 2005)

Soren said:


> > How? They'd have hung back until the critical moment when Hitler made his move and wiped out his invasion force.
> 
> 
> 
> Hung back ? Lunatic, the RN would be sunk before even having the chance to escape.



Huh? What Luftwaffe' aircraft had the operational range to effectively engage the RN along the West Coast of Britian? The only attack aircraft the German's had which was likely to be successful against the RN was the Stuka and it had no where near the range. The HE111 was not well suited to such missions and it too lacked sufficient range. And w/o fighter escort the remnants of the RAF (pulled back out of range of German fightgers) would have had a field day eating Luftwaffe' bombers for lunch.

Look at the map and the ranges of the planes Soren.



Soren said:


> > Hitler didn't have the resources to build a Luftwaffe' large enought to stop that (especially at night).
> 
> 
> 
> Without any RAF, oh yes he had.



Jeeze, he had less than 2000 aircraft at the height of German power in the BoB, of which only a small fraction were capable of successful naval interdiction.



Soren said:


> > Sea-Lion was a fantasy cooked up in a cocain/amphetamine/morphine daze. The German's had no capacity for such an operation and had they tried it the war would have ended much earlier.
> >
> > Read this essay: http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/althist/seal1.htm
> >
> ...



Read it again. Even without the RAF the chances of the barges successfully crossing the channel were practically zero. A topedo boat or small destroyer making full speed through the channel would through up a wake sufficient to swamp them. And the odds of the Channel remaining calm enough for them to cross for the requisite 48 hours are practically nil.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lunatic (Oct 3, 2005)

Soren said:


> Gnomey said:
> 
> 
> > The RN was the most powerful fleet afloat in 1940 and it would have been impossible for the LW to destroy every single ship the RN possessed at the time and significant damage would have been done to the invasion fleet.
> ...



Just what aircraft was the Luftwaffe' going to deploy against the RN in 1940? They had about 600 Bf109's and about 750 bombers of all types at the height of their advantage. Of this, only the Stuka was suited to naval attack and it was not available in sufficient numbers nor did it have the range to pose much of a threat to the RN. The He111 was not well suited to attacking shipes and the Ju88 was only beginning to come on line. And German bombers werfe generally setup to carry too small a bomb to be effective anyway - and I think they lacked the Armor Percing bombs used by the Japanese entirely.

And the Luftwaffe lacked any capability to interdict the RN at night. The RN could easily move 200 miles at night and the Luftwaffe' could do nothing about it at. German planes simply lacked the range to do much about the RN if it were pulled back to the North and West.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## CurzonDax (Oct 3, 2005)

Several points on all of this yelling:

1. The Germans had nothing that even approached the power and mobility that the Allied airborne divisions had. Take for example the 82nd in Holland. Besides all of the infantry, whether they be paras or gliderborne troops, they were able to bring to play whole hospitals and arty batteries. German airborn units were, like someone said previously, disruption units. Allied airborne divisions, if well supplied and concentrated, with good support (like any other ID) could secure and hold objectives. Look again at the airborne divisions at D-Day. They were scattered and understrength but they held thier objectives. German paras, unless Hitler would have made the commitment to make them as "heavy" as allied airborne divisions, could not do this. A airborne attack on England in 1940, in ANY condition, in ANY what if scenerio, would have made Crete look like spring tea party compared to the massacre that the German paras would have gone through in southern England

2. As far as landing craft, the barges that the Germans were using were designed to be used in rivers and lakes and only if these bodies of water were as flat as a mirror. So yes, a destroyer, or heck, a PT boat with two baboons and a retarted Klingon could have swamped the fleet. The German Navy had nothing like LSTs, LCIs, LCVPs, LCMs, Amtracs, and DUKWs, to mention a few. So unless the Germans had invented transporters, in any what if situation, they would have never made it across, because in any what if scenario, the RN would still be there in strength. 

3. Lastly, every time that Allied Elite met German Elite, the Germans always ended up with the short end of the stick. Study Carentan, Bastonge, and so on and so forth. Even in Cisterna, where the Rangers got mauled, they totally disrupted the attack. 

:{)


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 3, 2005)

Lunatic said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > > How? They'd have hung back until the critical moment when Hitler made his move and wiped out his invasion force.
> ...


Agreed Lunatic well put.


Lunatic said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > Gnomey said:
> ...


Again well put Lunatic. The LW had no plane that could do any damage to the RN and the ones that could (Stuka/JU-88) either had to short a range or were not yet in service.


CurzonDax said:


> Several points on all of this yelling:
> 
> 1. The Germans had nothing that even approached the power and mobility that the Allied airborne divisions had. Take for example the 82nd in Holland. Besides all of the infantry, whether they be paras or gliderborne troops, they were able to bring to play whole hospitals and arty batteries. German airborn units were, like someone said previously, disruption units. Allied airborne divisions, if well supplied and concentrated, with good support (like any other ID) could secure and hold objectives. Look again at the airborne divisions at D-Day. They were scattered and understrength but they held thier objectives. German paras, unless Hitler would have made the commitment to make them as "heavy" as allied airborne divisions, could not do this. A airborne attack on England in 1940, in ANY condition, in ANY what if scenerio, would have made Crete look like spring tea party compared to the massacre that the German paras would have gone through in southern England
> 
> ...


That about sums it up, the Germans did not have the necessary equipment or expertise to achieve a seaborne invasion of the UK in 1940, it just wasn't going to happen and if it had it would have been a massacre plus none of the Generals had confidence in the plan and neither did the admirals. The cohesion between the services needed for a successful seaborne invasion was not there for the Germans as it was for the allies in 1944. There was not the same planning, practice (Operation Tiger for the allies - although ~700 lives were lost because of LST's sinking if I remember right.) or knowledge and willingness for the plan to succeed. The invasion was never going to succeed for the Germans in 1940 with or without air superiority or even naval superiority as the flat bottom river barges would have never been able to make it across the channel as the perfect weather conditions they needed would have been unlikely to happen for the invasion long enough for it to succeed. The weather in September in the channel is unpredictable and perfect weather conditions for more than a few hours were unlikely and the Germans needed at least 2 days of it. They may have been able to land a few troops but these troops would of been cut off and unsupplied and they would have been defeated, the plan for Sealion was botched in the first place it was so flawed it would of had almost no chance of succeeding. The British would have almost to have done nothing and the invasion would of still failed in the weather became unfavourable and swamped the barges mid-channel dumping the invading force in the so called 'Shit Canal', end of invasion attempt and no resources to attempt again. It would have been easy for the British with limited resources to stop the invasion if everything held together. There is my opinion.

Gnomey


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 3, 2005)

Didnt the RAF have some bombers hitting the barge assembly points along the coast? And I didnt think there were many harbors in the channel where the Germans could bring together the numbers of troops necessary to invade in force. And having a flat bottomed barge sail the 100 miles from Normandy to England would be crazy.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 3, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Didnt the RAF have some bombers hitting the barge assembly points along the coast? And I didnt think there were many harbors in the channel where the Germans could bring together the numbers of troops necessary to invade in force. And having a flat bottomed barge sail the 100 miles from Normandy to England would be crazy.


Yes the RAF bombed the barges while they were being stockpiled in France about 10% (I think) were sunk.

Agreed it would have been madness.


----------



## Concorde247 (Oct 3, 2005)

Something i dont think that anybodys picked up on yet as an example of ships getting through is the merchant ships their escorts that made the Malta run in the med. They were under virtually constant air attacks by not only the luftwaffe but also the italian airforce. inspite of high losses ships still got through, and thats with TWO nations airforces attacking them. and those convoys escorts were mostly corvettes destroyers, not bigger ships with more firepower.

you also have to remember that Not all the Royal Navy ships were in their 
home waters, there were a great many protecting the trade routes empires around the world. if the RAF had been destroyed, and the nations shores were under such dire threat, dont you think that the admiralty would have pulled a lot of those ships back if not all?

The bottom line is: Yes, although the RN would have suffered losses, the German barges would have been mincemeat, and there was NO WAY that the seabourne invasion would have been successful.

Not enough U-boats or E-boats, for protection insufficient quantities of the correct available aircraft to keep the RN at bay, Sealion would have been a disaster for the germans. 

And regarding any airbourne assault, without the troops from the barges (they would have been either at the bottom of the channel or swimming home without their equipment) to relieve them, they could only hold out for so long til both men ammo had been exhausted.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 4, 2005)

I really dont htink there is much to argue here Soren. The Germans were not prepared to do an invasion of England and it never would have happened. Yeah there a lot of What Ifs but that is all they what ifs.


----------



## Lunatic (Oct 4, 2005)

A much more plausible "What if" is - What if Hitler had not let his racism get the best of him and formed an alliance with the Ukranian seperatists? This would have allowed him to defeat the Soviets and would most likely have also brought Turkey into the war on the Axis side, exposing Africa and the vital Mid-East oil supplies to direct German attack. It might also have made the Japanese more seriously consider attacking India rather than the USA in order that Japan and Germany might link up via India.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 4, 2005)

Lunatic, that is quite a plausable scenario. Ive always wondered the same thing myself. If they formed some Ukranian divisions, they would have gone after the Russians with a fury.


----------



## CurzonDax (Oct 4, 2005)

Here are two what ifs. What if Midway had been a Japanese victory or what if MARKET-GARDEN had been 100% successful.

:{)


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 4, 2005)

Midway would have been a "so-so" victory for the IJN, as they didnt have the shipping to properly support it. Midway is a long way from the nearest Japanese bases, and couldnt be properly supplied or defended.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 4, 2005)

Interesting scenerios Lunatic and I too often think about the same thing when I think of what ifs. I personally think it might have changed the war drastically because it would have allowed the Germans to defeat Russia and that would have given the Germans access to raw materials that they did not have prior.


----------



## CurzonDax (Oct 4, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Midway would have been a "so-so" victory for the IJN, as they didnt have the shipping to properly support it. Midway is a long way from the nearest Japanese bases, and couldnt be properly supplied or defended.



Oh I am not saying that the US would have lost the war but the loss maybe all three carriers and the taking of Midway would have made the US' hold of Hawaii, ricketty at best. Also let me state that I am not a believer that the Japanese could have invaded the west coast of the US. 

:{)


----------



## Lunatic (Oct 4, 2005)

CurzonDax said:


> Here are two what ifs. What if Midway had been a Japanese victory or what if MARKET-GARDEN had been 100% successful.
> 
> :{)



Midway would have prolonged the war perhaps 6 months but had little other consequence.

MarketGarden would have shortened the war by perhaps 6 months and greatly effected the post-war dynamic.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lunatic (Oct 4, 2005)

CurzonDax said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > Midway would have been a "so-so" victory for the IJN, as they didnt have the shipping to properly support it. Midway is a long way from the nearest Japanese bases, and couldnt be properly supplied or defended.
> ...



Read the following: http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

from the excellent site: http://www.combinedfleet.com/kaigun.htm (very worth some time).

I think it is all to clear that Japan had virtually no chance in WWII. Just look at the ship production table. Japan produced a total of just 17 aircraft carriers in WWII, where the USA produced 18 in 1942, 65 in 1943, and 45 in 1944.

If you read over the various articles on this site it becomes utterly apparent that the Japanese Navy had virtually no chance in WWII. By mid-1943 they were, for the most part, just waiting to be sunk.

The "Strategic Implications" section covers the topic of a total loss at Midway in depth and concludes that by mid-1944 the USN would still be totally dominant. And a loss at Midway would probably have meant even quicker deployment of ships to the PTO - after the Midway victory the USA was able to relax a little bit knowing the Japanese could not recover from such a devestating defeat.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Oct 4, 2005)

First of all to make thing clear, I never said that this "What if" was ever plausible with the RAF still alive. My argument was built entirely on "If the RAF was defeated", which they weren't, and according to Hop's very interesting source, were never really close to either. But if the RAF were defeated, this "What if" seems very plausible, thats all I'm saying.

*Nonskimmer*,

What I meant about what happened in France was, that an airborne invasion force was used combined with a main land-based invasion force, and basically took over France in the blink of an eye, as there were basically no french aircraft to harass the Germans. (The only obstacle being the Maginot line)

With no RAF to harass the German invasion force on the beaches, supplies and manpower could come rolling in much the same way they did during the invasion of France. This means the linkage between the airborne invasion force and the main force could be established in much the same way and time as in France.



Lunatic said:


> And German bombers werfe generally setup to carry too small a bomb to be effective anyway - *and I think they lacked the Armor Percing bombs used by the Japanese entirely*.



Norway April 1940, the destroyers Afridi, Grom and Bison as well as the anti-aircraft ship Bittern, were all sunk by Stuka's carrying 250kg "Bomb's". Bittern's sister ship, the Black Swan, was also hit by a Stuka, but the bomb passed straight through the ship before exploding, luckily for the Black Swan who survived. 

The penetration ability of German bombs was every bit as good as the Japanee's ones ! Infact the Japanee's copied a couple of German bomb designs. (IIRC the delayed penetration bomb was one of them)



Lunatic said:


> Huh? What Luftwaffe' aircraft had the operational range to effectively engage the RN along the West Coast of Britain? The only attack aircraft the German's had which was likely to be successful against the RN was the Stuka and it had no where near the range.



The Ju-87R, the "R" stood for "Reichweite (Range)". This version had fuel tanks in the outer wings and could carry two *300 liter *(80 US gallon) *external* tanks, along with a single 250 kilogram (550 pound) bomb. 

The Ju-87D aswell, which although it had a shorter maximum range 'with' its typical bomb-load of 1160km(1x500kg bomb + 4x40kg bombs), could still reach most of western Britain if launched from Basse-Normandy.

The Ju-88 was a great choice as-well, accurate, and with combat range of 2,108 km (1,310 miles) carrying 1,200kg (2,100lbs) of bombs, more than capable of reaching the RN. 



Lunatic said:


> The HE111 was not well suited to such missions and it too lacked sufficient range.



What ?! The He111 had great bombing accuracy, and had a combat range of over 2,100km (1,300 miles), carrying 2,000kg (4,410lbs), of bombs. (Or a Torpedo)

The Me110 fighter-bomber was another possible good choice, with good bombing accuracy and a combat range of 2,410km (1,500 miles), carrying up to 2,000kg (4,410lbs) of bombs. (Or a Torpedo)

Or how about the He115, with a combat range of 2,100km (1,305 miles), carrying a 450kg (1,000lbs) Torpedo.

With these aircraft in service, I don't see where the problem of reaching the RN would come from. The only small problem would be to have enough of them for one critical strike, however Im sure Hitler was willing to sacrifice quite a few from other front-line stations, just to have enough.

Germany did after-all have 960 bombers at their disposal.



Lunatic said:


> Look at the map and the ranges of the planes Soren.



Yeah, you do that Lunatic.


----------



## Lunatic (Oct 4, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Interesting scenerios Lunatic and I too often think about the same thing when I think of what ifs. I personally think it might have changed the war drastically because it would have allowed the Germans to defeat Russia and that would have given the Germans access to raw materials that they did not have prior.



Not to mention a shift of approximately 3 million soldiers from the Soviets to the German alliance, plus soldiers from Turkey and possibly even more from other Arabic countries.

Also with this change in the overall dynamic, Japan or Hitler may have also been able to bring India over to the dark side, shifting yet another million or two soldiers from the Allied to the Axis cause.


----------



## Udet (Oct 4, 2005)

Jesus Christ of Nazareth...

What the hell am I reading here?

To strenghten Soren´s last comment, I will tell those who affirm the Luftwaffe could not tangle with the Royal Navy another interesting fact:

Operation Merkur, Crete, May 1941:

Royal Navy losses:

*3* cruisers (HMS Gloucester, HMS Fiji and HMS Calcutta) and *6* destroyers pounded to hell and sent to the bottom by Ju87´s and Ju88´s.

Do not forget to add: *2* battleships (HMS Warspite brutally damaged and knocked out of action for several months), *1* carrier (HMS Formidable, also knocked out of action for months), *5 *cruisers and* 5* destroyers with heavy damage.

A total of 23 war vessels either sunk or erased from the Order of Battle for a while.

All that in a mere few days of combat.


A naval force, no matter how large, no matter how big and powerful the vessels comprising it are, is piece of cake if air cover is lacking.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 4, 2005)

Soren said:


> *Nonskimmer*,
> 
> What I meant about what happened in France was, that an airborne invasion force was used combined with a main land-based invasion force, and basically took over France in the blink of an eye, as there were basically no french aircraft to harass the Germans. (The only obstacle being the Maginot line)
> 
> With no RAF to harass the German invasion force on the beaches, supplies and manpower could come rolling in much the same way they would've during the invasion of France. This means the linkage between the airborne invasion force and the main force could be established in much the same way and time as in France.


That's not much of a comparison. The German ground forces in France had no channel in their way, nor did they have a powerful navy to deal with or the British shore defences. Not to mention the British fighting spirit. Like you said, the big obstacle was the Maginot Line. Once the paratroops had seized it, the ground troops just rolled right in.


----------



## Soren (Oct 4, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> That's not much of a comparison. The German ground forces in France had no channel in their way,



What problem is a channel if you've got total air-supremacy ? Transport ships could come rolling in on the beaches with supplies without meeting any resistance at all(Much like the German supply trucks did in france), not to mention unhindered airborne supplies. (Just like in france)



> nor did they have a powerful navy to deal with



A big navy, not a powerful one, as combined the LW and Kriegsmarine would've dealt with it quite successfully.



> or the British shore defences.



Which with total German air-supremacy would be bombed to smithereens before any German soldier would ever set a foot on British soil.



> Not to mention the British fighting spirit.



We are all men of the same flesh and blood Nonskimmer.  



> Like you said, the big obstacle was the Maginot Line. Once the paratroops had seized it, the ground troops just rolled right in.



And the main obstacle the Germans would face invading Britain would be the beach shore defenses, which already would've been bombed to hell and back by the LW. The remains could quite easily be taken care of by the Fällschirm Jäger's.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 4, 2005)

Soren, have you actually been reading this thread at all?


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 4, 2005)

I am not aware of the german navy having amphibious landing craft that would allow them to transfer supplies right to an unimproved beachhead.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 4, 2005)

This has all been a great read, it's really made me giggle. I'm quite amazed anyone would try and argue for a successful German invasion of Britain in the first place but even more so amazed after reading that article Lunatic posted on page two. Which, by the way, was excellent, thanks for that. 

I don't think I should even bother joining in. The article alone proves that even without a RAF the German barges would fall under the waves without British forces firing a single shot. Or a few Royal Navy vessels could just move on by at high speed and the wash could sink the German troop carrying vessels. 

With this constant mention of there being no RAF I am assuming that you mean, Soren, no RAF at all. Not one single plane in the entirety of Britain. Which is laughably far-fetched as it is. But for entertainment lets just say the RAF didn't exist, all planes by some freak ...let's say...flower arranging accident have been destroyed. The Luftwaffe is completely unopposed in the air. Okay. 

Actually ...come to think of it, why waste my time? I would like to point out now that the Royal Navy didn't even lose 20% of it's force during the entirety of World War II to any and all causes. 

And the fallschirmjager didn't do much in France in 1940. It was all the work of the panzer forces. The fallschirmjager were concentrated in Holland and Belgium, they landed as a diversion force from the main assault that moved through the Ardennes. The fallschirmjager were also relieved within hours of being dropped, one such unit by a regiment of the fully mobilised SS-VT. The break-out into France was at Sedan on the Meuse river where no fallschirm took part. The Maginot Line was assaulted by regular infantry after being surrounded by the break-out. 

Also, crossing a river is trouble enough when it's sixty metres. Scale it up to a twenty-six mile sea.


----------



## Udet (Oct 4, 2005)

Yup, very interesting essay. Although I am not sure how is it one can prove a fact that actually never became a fact. Is that possible? 


Has any of you even bothered to research the re-deployment of the Wehrmacht forces upon termination of Fall Gelb?

Roughly a year after the start of the German attack in the west Barbarossa was being launched against *Hitler´s fundamental, primary and most desired target: THE SOVIET UNION*.

Quit fighting ghosts that are of your creation.


Had Germany had the actual intention of invading England, firstly, very firstly, they would have proceeded to exterminate the BEF down to the very last soldier, instead of letting it escape and cross the channel back home all shocked and bewildered.

So what? I let the entire BEF get away to later face it on the battlefield once I manage to send my invasion force across the channel? Brilliant.


Mr. Plan_D: what happened to Great Britain´s naval power after the end of WWII?

What nation found itself as the new naval power of the world after the war?


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 4, 2005)

Soren,

I am a little confused by your insistence that the shore defenses would be smashed by the LuftWaffe. Afterall, German shore defences seem to have survived well enough in June, 1944 to provide stiff opposition to the Allied landings, despite the Allies having over 2400 fighter bombers and 700 medium bombers at their disposal in two tactical airforces as well as massive naval artillery fire. This is ignoring the D-Day saturation bombing by approximately 1500 4 engined bombers as well.

Are you attempting to suggest that Germany, with 960 bombers available to them, and almost zero naval artillery for landing support, could do significantly better?

Secondly, it has been shown that it was logistically impossible for Germany to attempt a succesful landing in force. The first phase of Operation Sealion required 9 divisions to be moved across the English channel. Contrary to popular belief German targets were not Dover, but further South at Folkstone. The German landing flotilla would have to cross nearly 40 miles of Channel, maintain formation at sea, and then make a landing against a prepared and entrenched opponent.

To land just 9 foward divisions and their supplies, the orders for Operation Sealion give 11 days. Thereafter the plane calls to land two extra divisions every 4 days. To land the whole of the proposed German invasion force of 40 divisions would therefore take around 2 1/2 months! 

The transoprt for the landing forces was also inadequate. With just a 9 division landing force the German High Command estimated shipping requirements of;

155 transports
1,722 barges
471 tugs
1,161 motor-boats

In reality only 1004 barges were assembled and most of those were unpowered. Only 386 tugs were available to tow them. Germany couldn't assemble the necessary transport for its least ambitious variant of Sealion. 

The barges were flat bottomed with a loading capacity of between 600-800 tons and a draught of 6 feet. They were adapted as landing craft by removing the bows and replacing them with collapsible ramps. They were also given concrete floors so that they could transport tanks and vehicles, something which wouldn't of helped their already dubious seaworthiness. 

In defence, the British army had 29 divisions either partially or fully equipped by September 21, 1940, the planned date for operation Sealion. They also had 6 independent armoured brigades and 2 independent infantry brigades.

So against this opposition, the German army is going to land 6,700 men from the sea and 9,000 from the air on the first day, 9 divisions in 11 days and up to an additional 30 divisions in the next 60 days. The other option for Germany was 'Sealion lite' with 13 divisions landing in a total of approximately 20 days.. 

Against this the Royal Navy had in the Home Fleet; 95 destroyers, 25 submarines, 9 battleships, 35 cruisers and 4 aircraft carriers plus more than 100 Motor Gun Boats and escort (light) destroyers. Even with complete German aerial superiority, it is difficult to imagine the situation where the LuftWaffe could render a force this large impotent. Ships are hardened, mobile, heavily defended targets. The Royal Navy is in home waters with friendly defended harbours in close proximity.

The Kriegsmarine had 3 battleships, 2 pocket battleships, 7 cruisers, 22 destroyers and 57 U-boats as well as approximately 80 E-boats to pitt against the Royal Navy. In otherwords, the only area it has superiority is in U-boats. The RN outnumbers it 2:1 in battleships, 5:1 in cruisers, 8:1 in destroyers and has far larger coastal forces (MGBs, MTBs, and the first of the D class boats).

Royal Navy policy was to bottle the German fleet up in the North Sea. For the Kriegsmarine to support Sealion they would have to run the gauntlet of Royal Navy destroyers, fast cruisers and submarines then assemble and maintain a sea corridor over 100 miles wide and over 60 miles deep for at least two weeks. Dring which the Royal Navy would be making fast runs through the Channel and night strikes on German naval bases with light forces, with overwhelming numerical superiority, interrupting the German landing and supply efforts.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 5, 2005)

The British Government happened to the Royal Navy after World War II. Ever hear of a thing called defence cuts, Udet? Well, when you do ...be sure to take a look in Britains direction, we've got loads of 'em.


----------



## CurzonDax (Oct 5, 2005)

I think it is all to clear that Japan had virtually no chance in WWII. Just look at the ship production table. Japan produced a total of just 17 aircraft carriers in WWII, where the USA produced 18 in 1942, 65 in 1943, and 45 in 1944. (quote)


These are figures of reality. Yes I agree that the US would have eventually won the war but if all three US CVs had been lost I think it would have been at least a year before the USN could have assumed serious offensive ops. Guadalcanal would have never taken place and while I also believe that that Japan could have never invaded or even taken Australia, it would have made the suppling the continent extremly hard to do. 

I propose that Japanese would have established a full hold on the Solomons and New Guinea, especaily in the Solomons. And a US with only two fleet carriers, the Saratoga, which was in port for most of the 1st year of the Pacific war because of, if memory serves a power plant issue, and the Wasp, which if memory serves was smaller than the other fleet carriers, would have been hard pressed. I won't even go into the USN aircrews that would have been lost at Midway. 

Economically they would have consolidated thier hold in the far east too. But here is where I agree with the article is that once the US industrial capacity reached its zienith, yes the IJN eventually would have become targets. Also the IJN, or for that matter the assinine way that the Japanese supplied thier Empire would have also, even with them winnig at Midway, eventually help in thier doom. Case in point would be how to supply parts of all those different engine parts that all of those different Japanese planes were using vs the Americans using Pratts.

Just my two yen

:{)


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 5, 2005)

Udet said:


> Had Germany had the actual intention of invading England, firstly, very firstly, they would have proceeded to exterminate the BEF down to the very last soldier, instead of letting it escape and cross the channel back home all shocked and bewildered.
> 
> So what? I let the entire BEF get away to later face it on the battlefield once I manage to send my invasion force across the channel? Brilliant.




My mistake, Sealion was obviously just an illusion in minds of Hitler, the OKW, the Kriegsmarine and the Luftwaffe.

Germany obvioulsy assembled 1000 barges and 380 tugs on the French and Belgian coast because it didn't intend to invade Britain. Hitler issued Furher Directive No 16 on July detailing preparations for Operation Sealion for no reason at all. The OKW was mistaken in the belief that it had been preparing plans for the possible invasion of Britain since November 1939.

The OKW surely didn't order a "suprise crossing on a broad front extending approximately from Ramsgate to a point west of the Isle of Wight" In a July 2 document entitled 'The War Against England', because it always intended to invade Russia. Army group A didn't transfer two mountain divisions to the Channel in July as cliff scaling troops for proposed landings in Dover, they wouldn't have been needed. The German army was obviously dreaming when it stationed 9 divisions in and around Rotterdam, Bolounge and Le Havre in Mid-August. The August 30th decision to mount Sealion on September 21st was obviously completely farscical and merely meant to make the Army and Navy work hard.

Come on.

Sealion was a detailed, highly planned and organised operation. It never went ahead because Germany; 

1) Failed to secure the necessary airsuperiority 
2) Failed to neutraliase the Royal Navy and control the Channel
3) Realised from its own exercises that the task of shuttling troops and supplies across the Channel was well beyond its capacity, even when it was unopposed.

Crossing the English Channel was not like the OKW envisaged, as a 'river crossing on a broad front'. It was infinitely more complex than that, a true combined air-land-sea operation which the German armed forces had never attempted before.

Sealion was a product of German unfamiliarity with seaborne operations, blinkered optimism from German high command and rampant opportunism from its political leadership. When the plan met the actual realities of seaborne logistics and transport, the need for air and sea superiority, local operational requirements and the prospects of renewed British opposition in late September, THEN the whole thing crashed into upon itself and reality sunk in.


----------



## Lunatic (Oct 5, 2005)

Soren said:


> First of all to make thing clear, I never said that this "What if" was ever plausible with the RAF still alive. My argument was built entirely on "If the RAF was defeated", which they weren't, and according to Hop's very interesting source, were never really close to either. But if the RAF were defeated, this "What if" seems very plausible, thats all I'm saying.
> 
> *Nonskimmer*,
> 
> ...



Jeeze how can you even compare a land based supporting invasion to a naval based one?



Soren said:


> Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > And German bombers werfe generally setup to carry too small a bomb to be effective anyway - *and I think they lacked the Armor Percing bombs used by the Japanese entirely*.
> ...



You're seriously using these examples of success against Destroyers to support your argument? These bombs would not likely destroy even a light cruiser with less than half a dozen hits. The Japanese used 1700 lbs armor penetrating bombs to sink US capital ships at Perl Harbor. The German's had no equivalent bomb in their arsonel in 1940, and the stuka would only have been able to carry one such bomb if they had.



Soren said:


> Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Huh? What Luftwaffe' aircraft had the operational range to effectively engage the RN along the West Coast of Britain? The only attack aircraft the German's had which was likely to be successful against the RN was the Stuka and it had no where near the range.
> ...



Lets assume the British would not be stupid and line their ships up for slaughter. Instead they'd only spend what time in port was necessary for resupply. Only true dive bombers have much chance of hitting a moving ship. The He111 was not well suited to such attacks, and the Me110 lacked a bombing sight and could not really dive bomb so it would also do poorly. Level bombing and glide bombing attacks proved generally unsuccessful against warships thoughout the war, except when they were at anchor.

So out of the 960 bombers the Luftwaffe' had, only perhaps 200 were capable of successful attack against naval combat vessles at sea. Of these the best choice would have been the Ju-87R with a range of 1410 miles for the Ju-87R, apparently less than about 50 of these were available. This means a combat radius of less than 650 miles (allowing for climb and formation and a minimal reserve).

The next best choice is the Ju-88, but again only about 30-40 would have been available. The combat radius would have been about 700 miles but that required carrying a relatively small bomb load. It should be noted that in the 3rd week of the war four Ju-88's attacked British warships at Scapa Flow but inflicted no damage.

Liverpool is 605 miles from Calaise. No Luftwaffe bomber has the range to fly this far and then patrol to locate British warships in the waters off this port. And the RN really had no immeadiate need to go to port in England anyway, they could operate out of iceland or other available bases and still keep within range to defeat any attempt at an invasion.

And without fighter escort, these bombers would have been torn to shreads. Surely you are not suggesting that there would be absolutely no RAF remaining? That they might have been defeated and unwilling to engage the Luftwaffe bombers within fighter escort range I can accept, but the idea that the RAF would not even intercept unescorted bombers is just silly.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## CurzonDax (Oct 5, 2005)

I am sorry if this ticks off a lot of people but I personally think that the Stuka was a piece of junk (Dauntless fan). They were short ranged and could not carry a good load. I was never impressed with thier record exept when they were going against 2nd rate powers such as Poland and such. 

So in this what if situation I think that even if you covered the skies with Stukas, the RN would have turned them into guacamole.

:{)


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 5, 2005)

Once the Brits knew the German troops were loading up the landing barges and getting ready, the RN could have sortied at nightime and blast the barges. I dont think the Luftwaffee could have put much of a fight when it was dark.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 5, 2005)

> Sealion was a detailed, highly planned and organised operation



sorry just had to quote that- funniest thing i've read today!


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 5, 2005)

That is good! Talk about deluding yourself. When was that said? I couldn't find it...


----------



## CurzonDax (Oct 5, 2005)

To continue with my last post. The long and the short of this is, the GAF exept for a few planes, such as the Condor, was a short ranged airforce, for that matter so was the RAF in 1940. Even if the situation would have been ideal the GAF would not have the legs to do top cover for the landings. The Nazis were a continental power and that mindset to me never changed. I know that, again this is going to tick off many people, but I was never impressed with either the leadership, tactics, or equipment of the GAF for reasons that I will not go into here because it is not a subject of this forum (read Geoffrey Perret's book Winged Victory).

Soooooooo

Even in the most ideal what if scenario the Luftwaffe would have not been able to be much help in Sealion. 

Again my two yen
:{)


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 5, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > Sealion was a detailed, highly planned and organised operation
> 
> 
> 
> sorry just had to quote that- funniest thing i've read today!



Lanc;

You should read "Operation Sealion" by Peter Flemming (Yes, THAT Flemming, Ian's younger brother). 

He goes into great and exacting detail about how well Sealion was planned for by the OKW. First draughts of operational orders for invading England had been made in December of 1939 and were constatnly revised all the way up to August, 1940.

The main impracticality of the whole operation was the German Army's fundamental mis-interpretation of what crossing the Channel would entail. Infact, both the German Army and Navy initailly displayed an incredible optimism and an uncharacteristic naiveity about the crossing. It wasn't until August that they realised that Sealiion couldn't be done as easily as first anticipated.

Much of the initail planning for Sealion is a masterwork of self-delusion and fantasy but even so, the OKW was preparing and organising it for 4 months at least.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 6, 2005)

CurzonDax said:


> I am sorry if this ticks off a lot of people but I personally think that the Stuka was a piece of junk (Dauntless fan). They were short ranged and could not carry a good load. I was never impressed with thier record exept when they were going against 2nd rate powers such as Poland and such.
> 
> So in this what if situation I think that even if you covered the skies with Stukas, the RN would have turned them into guacamole.
> 
> :{)



The Dauntless was deffinatly better but the Stuka was not bad at the beginnin of the war and the dedicated anti tank versions of it were also pretty succesfull.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 6, 2005)

I would say the dauntless was the better of the two for anti-shipping, and the Stuka better for land attack


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 6, 2005)

That I can completely agree with. The Dauntless was a better overall aircraft too though.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 6, 2005)

> the OKW was preparing and organising it for 4 months at least.



D-Day took 4 years of planning.............


----------



## Udet (Oct 7, 2005)

Jabberwocky:

Sorry but I have to disagree.

I am aware of the German assembly of barges and tugs in the Channel coast; also I am aware of the OKW´s directive to proceed further with the alleged invasion of England.

There is plenty of sound evidence that will help strenghtening the notion of Hitler not being really interested about invading, let alone occupying England; I am sure you are aware of all the facts I´m about to comment here:

Firstly, and very firstly, who declared first war against the other?

For whatever reasons it was England who first declared war. The Reich had begun its move eastwards and the Brits decided to pick the fight.


Hitler offered peace to England twice: after the fall of Poland and after France surrendered, both rejected.

Contrary to what most apparently do believe, Chamberlain backed Churchill´s decision to refuse any peace offer issued by Hitler.

The fall of France, and the peace offer that followed, includes the *acquital* of the BEF, when the table was served to proceed ahead with its execution. The BEF was allowed to escape.

An authentic intention, then a plan, to invade and occupy England must imply the necessary destruction of the armed forces of the British Empire, oddly they let the BEF get away.

Why do you think the BEF was allowed to live?

In spite of all that, Mr. Churchill continued to present Germany as a menace to British people; even when a massive number of British soldiers returned home and had the chance of seeing their families again.

You do not believe Churchill´s hogwash on the "survival of Christian civilization depending on the Battle of Britain" do you?


So we have a country that:

(i) declared war against Germany, when no imminent threat was being posed to the people and culture of Great Britain and the integrity and possessions of the Empire.
(ii) sent its army into the continent
(ii-a) got its ass kicked on the battlefield -utterly-
(ii-b) was spared from extermination when caught in a mousetrap
(ii-c) was allowed to escape -in their trousers only-
(iii) received a peace offer issued after the battle... from the very winner of the battle.

What do you think? But of course you disagree don´t you?


The Battle of Britain. I stick to the notion of Germany launching the air offensive of mid/late 1940 to push England to negotiate peace and not to ensure the air superiority that would allow the alleged invasion to proceed.

Right, the Germans failed, and since no signs of any British faltering were visible, they decided the cancel operations over the Island. The Luftwaffe did not cancel operations over England due to "catastrophic losses" as depicted by the allied propaganda. There were days with high losses, certainly, but nothing the Germans could not handle.

As I have said before, oddly after the BoB, the Luftwaffe pounded all its enemies in operations following 1940, and not only yugoslavians and soviets, also British: in early 1941, I./JG 27 arrived in North Africa an shot down RAF and SAAF planes at will, suffering extremely low casualties.

I do not know Jabberwocky, you might laugh, you might clench your teeth and stroke the keys...who knows, I do not know. What I can do tell you is your case is weak.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 7, 2005)

I will not bother with the vast majority of that post since it was a load of anti-British crap spouting. I will leave that to the others. The one thing to question though is, why did Germany spend all that effort and loss on collecting all available seafaring craft for transport in the English Channel? As a joke?


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 7, 2005)

Stunning bit of reasoning Udet.

Hitler directly orders preparations for the invasion of England because he wasn't going to invade. 

From the 1st two paragraphs of Furher Directive No 16, July 16th, 1940.



> As England, in spite of the hoplessness of her military position, has so far shown herself unwilling to come to a compromise, I have decided to begin to prepare for, and if necessary, carry out, an invasion of England.
> 
> This operation is dictated by the means of eliminating Great Britain as a base from which the war against Germany can be fought, and if necessary the island will be occupied



The General Staff trained infantry in amphibious landing operations, moved in specalty forces and convert 250 tanks so that they had amphibious capabilities for what reason then?

30% of the canal and river barges in northern Germany, Belgium and France and the whole of the transport capability of the Kriegsmarine are diverted to France.

Germany had already assigned Ernst Bohle as Reichskommisar for Great Britain. The OKW put out instructions on September 9th headed "Orders Concerning the Organisation and Function of Military Government in England". The Gestapo had already prepared notices in both German and English, in bulk, for use in a conqured Britain.

The LuftWaffe parachuted spies in whose sole objective was to provide intelligence on South-western England which would help the leading formations of an invasion. 6 were captured in August, 5 in September. 

Hitler intended to invade England. His 'appeals to reason' were done precisely because he was thinking of future conquests in the East. Why waste more troops and resources when he wanted to be elsewhere? The answer is simple; With a pacific Great Britain on his door step he wouldn't have to repeat the folly of the Kaiser and get Germany involved in a protracted two front war. Germany would have a free hand in Europe. Fortunately, the British people, embodied in their finest by Churchill, refused to back down from a bully who had given them a bloody nose.

They fought, and fought so well that they caused Germany to pause, reconsider and then give up its plans to invade England. With the RAF in the air and the RN in the Channel there was no way that Germany could land in the United Kingdom. Defeated in the air during the Battle of Britain, the first precondition to be able to launch Sealion was chopped away. After this Germany could do nothing but bomb cities by night and watch the RAF gain in strength and confidence by day. Hitler and Germany, beaten in the air, could do nothing but turn to the Western Desert and to the 'rotten edifice' of the Soviet Union. 

Here is a little poem by A.P. Herbert which sums up the British feelings in the period;



> Napoleon tried. The Dutch were on their way,
> A Norman did it- and a Dane or two,
> Some sailor-King may follow one fine day;
> But not, I think, a low land-rat like you.



I know that I won't have convinced you, all evidence to the contrary. Alas, I did but try.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 7, 2005)

Sorry Udet but I have to disagree with you. Do you really think that England could stand aside while Germany took over all of Europe? If you do then you are more naive than I thought.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 7, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Sorry Udet but I have to disagree with you. Do you really think that England could stand aside while Germany took over all of Europe? If you do then you are more naive than I thought.



And what are you saying - the UK sould of pursued peace with Hitler???


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 7, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry Udet but I have to disagree with you. Do you really think that England could stand aside while Germany took over all of Europe? If you do then you are more naive than I thought.
> ...



No ofcourse not, I was argueing his post that England was the agresser. England did what any free nation had to do. They did the right thing by declaring war on Germany. Read my post.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 7, 2005)

Udet said:


> So we have a country that:
> 
> (i) declared war against Germany, when no imminent threat was being posed to the people and culture of Great Britain and the integrity and possessions of the Empire.



we declared war not only due to relations with Poland and other European contries, but because it was obvious a war in Europe would affect Britian, we weren't gonna wait until the germans took france before declairing war, we were not the aggressers, we offered hitler an altermatum, he refused- he knew he was getting war............



> (ii) sent its army into the continent



yes we did, because we're at war, it's what waring nations do what is your point?



> (ii-a) got its ass kicked on the battlefield -utterly-



the BEF were not "utterly" kicked, our numbers were tiny compared to Germany's and, i can't remember which battle it was at but the BEF caused the only german defeat coming through France, it was the French army that was "kicked"...........



> (ii-b) was spared from extermination when caught in a mousetrap
> (ii-c) was allowed to escape -in their trousers only-



Let's all give a round of appause for Adolf Hitler, perhaps he wasn't that bad after all i mean if he let us escape, that's pure crap! Hitler was supprised by the speed at which the forces were pushed back that he thought it was a trap so he held his troops back, it wasn't out of the kindness of his heart......



> (iii) received a peace offer issued after the battle... from the very winner of the battle.



well that's very nice of the germans, think about it, if the germans could invade and take over the UK so easily why didn't they just do it? perhaps they offered the peace because they knew it wouldn't be easy and would try and threaten us??


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 7, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> Udet said:
> 
> 
> > So we have a country that:
> ...


Good points Lanc. Chamberlain issued the ultimatum because he (and the government) had had enough of Hitler and his constant breaking of promises (Rhineland, Anschluss, Czechoslovakia). They decided enough was enough and declared war against the German aggressor. The BEF put it a good show in France and as Lanc said it was the French who got kicked not the British (I think you are referring to Arras Lanc).


----------



## Udet (Oct 7, 2005)

First off, Mr. Plan_D, you are incorrect. 

I am not "anti-British", at all. 

I do have the bloody right to question whatever I deem is worth being questioned. So I´m to proceed accordingly.

PlanD, there are many facts of WWII that for guys like you are crystal clear; no further questioning or gathering of possible new evidence is necessary for the truth is now public domain. I of course do think different regarding some of such facts,

If it sets you off to read my comments just skip them.


Jabberwocky:

Adendum to my previous comment: Hitler had great respect and admiration for the British Empire long tradition of power and world domination.


Lancaster Kicks ass:

Right, Great Britain issued an ultimatum to Germany to no avail -of course-. Now tell me, why is it no declaration of war was issued against the Soviet Union when it joined Germany in invading Poland?

What was Great Britain´s decision making pattern there?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 7, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> ...



Sorry Adler - I meant that question for Udet


----------



## CurzonDax (Oct 7, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> Soren, have you actually been reading this thread at all?



Bangs head violently on keyboard.

:{|


----------



## CurzonDax (Oct 7, 2005)

The Dauntless was deffinatly better but the Stuka was not bad at the beginnin of the war and the dedicated anti tank versions of it were also pretty succesfull.[/quote]

Agreed. Gotta love a big gun on a plane. 

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 7, 2005)

Udet how can you even question Englands motives? Germany was the aggressor not the British. I think you have your ideas of the war a bit twisted.


----------



## Lunatic (Oct 9, 2005)

Britian and France's mistake was not in declaring war, it was in waiting for battle.

Had Britain and France immediately pushed into Germany the war would have been over before it started and Hitler and his gangster's would have been finished.

Sitting back and waiting for Germany's response to their declaration of war was just stupid.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 9, 2005)

Lunatic said:


> Britian and France's mistake was not in declaring war, it was in waiting for battle.
> 
> Had Britain and France immediately pushed into Germany the war would have been over before it started and Hitler and his gangster's would have been finished.
> 
> ...


I agree Lunatic, it was possibably the worst decision of the war. France and Britain would have had the advantage in men and machines and the war as you say would have been over before it started or at least an artmistace signed. Then maybe though Hitler would of tackled the USSR with only one front too worry about and victory would have been a distinct possibility.


----------



## Glider (Oct 9, 2005)

The British wanted to start bombing operations against German militery targets from day one but France wouldn't let us. If we had, there was a good chance that it would hav provoked the Germans into action of some kind, before they were really ready.
Instead we had the Phoney War which gave the Germans all the time they needed to prepare for the assult on France which as we all know worked so well. 
Rushing them may or may not have changed the result but waiting certainly didn't help.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 9, 2005)

Ive been under the impression that in 1937 through the invasion of Poland, the German military was waiting to pounce on Hitler the moment his grandiouse schemes failed. If Britain and France were to attack the Rhine in 1939, then there would have been a coup-d'etat and that would have ended things right there.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 9, 2005)

That I can agree with, and then there never would have been a way to attack Russia anyhow. Whether there would have been a coup I do not know though. I do know one thing though that WW2 would never have become WW2.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 9, 2005)

Glider said:


> The British wanted to start bombing operations against German militery targets from day one but France wouldn't let us. If we had, there was a good chance that it would hav provoked the Germans into action of some kind, before they were really ready.
> Instead we had the Phoney War which gave the Germans all the time they needed to prepare for the assult on France which as we all know worked so well.
> Rushing them may or may not have changed the result but waiting certainly didn't help.



That isn't stricktly true.

Both Britain and France agreed to the 'Roosevelt Rules' with regard to bombing in 1939. These prevented them from bombing targets that might incur civilian casualties. In an attempt to take the moral high-ground the bomber arms of France and Britain essentailly hamstrung themselves for 4-5 months. So, while Germany was formation bombing Warsaw and Lodz, the RAF and French Airforce were reduced to bombing warships moored in North Sea harbours and flying mining operations. The RAF prevented its bombers from attempting to hit anything even tied to the docks, for fear of civilian casualties!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 9, 2005)

Still though they should have invaded Germany in 1939 and as was said it would have all been over. Even Germany Military Leaders at the time warned Hitler that Germany was not ready for war but Hitler and his cronies would have nothing to do with it.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 9, 2005)

I've often read that the German retaking of the Rhineland in 1936 was a huge gamble on Hitler's part, with a lot of bluff involved. The Wehrmacht was far from being up to war strength in 1936. In the event that the French Army had actually moved in to confront them, the German forces had orders to turn and run full tilt back over the Rhine.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 9, 2005)

That is what I have heard also and it does not surprise me because the Germany military was not ready in 1939 so they were certainly not ready in 1936. I think the fact that his bluff worked so well is why he chose to invade in 1939 rather than in 1941 or so.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 10, 2005)

That's exactly what the Wehrmacht were ordered. All the French had to do was show face in the Rhineland and the Wehrmacht would have retreated back across the river. 

Udet, I assume you have little idea of the reasoning behind the British invasion of Norway. Britain wanted to secure the iron ore from Sweden to ship back to Britain via Narvik. They also wanted an open land route to supply Finland with men and arms against the Soviet Union. Britain was willing to be at war against the Soviet Union and Germany at the same time. However, Britain was expelled from Norway by better equipped German forces and the plan never got moving. 

As is seen with the British plans, they were willing to combat anyone who was attacking her allies. However, when it was realised that Britain was in a bad situation, as Churchill said; "I'd sell my soul to the devil to defeat Hitler."


----------



## Lunatic (Oct 10, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Still though they should have invaded Germany in 1939 and as was said it would have all been over. Even Germany Military Leaders at the time warned Hitler that Germany was not ready for war but Hitler and his cronies would have nothing to do with it.



Hitler had no choice. Had he not gone to war the German economy would have collapsed by summer 1940. This forced Hitler's hand.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 10, 2005)

I have never heard a theory that Germans's economy would have collapsed by 1940.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 11, 2005)

Neither have I, but it would not surprise me because the German economy was in shambles because of WW1, WW1 reperations and the Great Depression did not help matter either.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 11, 2005)

I dont think the German economy was going to collapse in the short run. The militarization of the economy was putting plenty of people to work. Just by adding a few divisions to the army would soak up a lot of unemployed men.


----------



## CurzonDax (Oct 11, 2005)

In the short run not, but in the long run yes, hence one of the rasons for BARBAROSSA.

:{)


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 11, 2005)

The long run would have been a couple of decades.


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 11, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> The long run would have been a couple of decades.



I'm not sure about that, remember the economy? When you have a paper economy and you put togehter an army, airforce, navy and equip/pay them, much of which depends on imports the blak wall comes quickly. Once that happens a war to generate spoils and or outright elimination of your debt is inviteable.

wmaxt


----------



## CurzonDax (Oct 11, 2005)

I'm not sure about that, remember the economy? When you have a paper economy and you put togehter an army, airforce, navy and equip/pay them, much of which depends on imports the blak wall comes quickly. Once that happens a war to generate spoils and or outright elimination of your debt is inviteable.

wmaxt[/quote]

Agreed. I remember reading that Hitler wanted the raw materials from Russia, Norway, etc because he knew that the war machine would grind to a stop quickly without these things. Like Napoleon he had to adopt a continental plan. U-boats or not, the English had access to the world, Germany did not.

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 12, 2005)

Agreed also.


----------



## Lunatic (Oct 18, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> I dont think the German economy was going to collapse in the short run. The militarization of the economy was putting plenty of people to work. Just by adding a few divisions to the army would soak up a lot of unemployed men.



And that's exactly the problem.

When you employ lots of people making goods that have no (peacetime) value you strain the economy. Think of it this way... If we have an economy with 3 bakers, 3 farmers, and 9 unemployed people the bakers and farmers will trade goods and the unemployed are in hard times. Now you employ those unemployed people as soldiers and pay them... what happens to the price of bread now that we have increased the damand by 250%? Obviously it goes up.

By continuning such a cycle you create what is known as hyper-inflation which is what Germany was facing. In hyper inflation, the value of currency falls drastically very quickly eroding savings.

You simply cannot just print money to pay the expanding military without consequence.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Glider (Oct 18, 2005)

Good example


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 18, 2005)

Nice post Lunatic.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

Agreed completly. War is good for an economy only in the beginning. Eventually it will hurt you economy.


----------



## Meteor (Oct 6, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> sorry just had to quote that- funniest thing i've read today!



I posted this before but I think its worth it n this thread too


Operation Sealion


----------



## Meteor (Oct 6, 2006)

Notwithstanding tha above mad debate about what if the RAF had suddenly all been dissapeared somehow [when UK aircraft production in 1940 outstripped the Nazis] Soren's what if has been an informative debate for me anyway as a what if at least gives you an insight into the limitations of the equipment at the time. 

This what if is a bit lame though. The best and probably only opportunity to knock the British out of ww2 came at Dunkirk. Once again we can all thank Hitlers and his fellow Nazis madness for allowing Dunkirk to happen.

If the entire UK army had been captured I am almost certain that the UK would have signed a peace treaty with the Nazis. No 2nd front, no US involvement and a completely diffrent Europe. Thats the lot of the Nazis it seems, to forever be seen as the nearly men and to be shown as ironically hastening the very thing they wanted to fight to prevent, a Communist ruled Eastern Europe!

Cheers


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 6, 2006)

Hitler did not want to prevent a communist eastern europe but rather make more living space for the German people.


----------



## Soren (Oct 6, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Hitler did not want to prevent a communist eastern europe but rather make more living space for the German people.



- And war ofcourse.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 6, 2006)

Ofcourse.


----------



## Meteor (Oct 6, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Hitler did not want to prevent a communist eastern europe but rather make more living space for the German people.



Partly true, I agree, but Nazi rethoric made the ordinary German fear a Comminist grab in the Eastern European countries which frankly wouldnt have been possible without ww2.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 6, 2006)

Meteor said:


> Notwithstanding tha above mad debate about what if the RAF had suddenly all been dissapeared somehow [when UK aircraft production in 1940 outstripped the Nazis] Soren's what if has been an informative debate for me anyway as a what if at least gives you an insight into the limitations of the equipment at the time.
> 
> This what if is a bit lame though. The best and probably only opportunity to knock the British out of ww2 came at Dunkirk. Once again we can all thank Hitlers and his fellow Nazis madness for allowing Dunkirk to happen.
> 
> ...




Hitler didn't order the halt at Dunkirk, von Runstead did. It was a military decision, made in the heat of the conflict. Hitler was only informed of the decision the day after the tanks were stopped. The decision was made because battle weary German formations, with marginal supplies, had bumped up against British and French resistance of higher calibre than usual in the past few days, been subjected to local counter attacks and need to resupply, refit and repair. There was a pervasive fear German intelligence that there were several large enemy formations waiting to launch a counter attack because opposition through the frontier had been lighter than expected.

Hitlers key decision came about 4 days later, when, under advice from his generals, he orderd that the British evacuation be target by the Luftwaffe, primarily because the ground around Dunkirk was highly favourable to defensive operations. When the Heer did decide to move, it was too late and the British and French formed an effective defensive perimiter and managed to keep German land forces at bay, primarily through the prodigious and profligate use of artillery and infantry.


----------



## Meteor (Oct 7, 2006)

OK, Hitler didnt order the halt. He was in charge though. SO, maybe the Germans biggest mistake in the whole of ww2 is letting the BEF escape? A task that they could and should have realised.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 7, 2006)

Meteor said:


> Partly true, I agree, but Nazi rethoric made the ordinary German fear a Comminist grab in the Eastern European countries which frankly wouldnt have been possible without ww2.



Yes the Nazis hated the communists (well pretty much everyone did) but even if Russia had been a Democracy Hitler still would have looked East because that is the only place to go for living space.


----------



## Crumpp (Oct 8, 2006)

> It was a military decision, made in the heat of the conflict.



It was a prudent one as well. IIRC the bulk of the French VII Army was on Von Rundstedt’s thinly stretched left flank.

One must remember that the Allies on paper outnumbered the Germans. The swift victory was surprising to both sides. It is easy to quip in hindsight. However looking at the situational maps without the benefit of hindsight, Von Rundstedt did not make a stupid decision IMHO.

All the best,

Crumpp


----------

