michaelmaltby
Colonel
I did not intend to hijack this Jutland thread, my bad, 
but interesting responses.
but interesting responses.
Battle of Jutland.
- Thread starter The Basket
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Solo hijackers seldom succeed without willing accomplices.I did not intend to hijack this Jutland thread, my bad,
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
With Hitler's greatly expanded Reich stretching from Algeria to Norway to Warsaw to Suez and the oilfields, his natural resources deficit is mostly eliminated. He can now designate his Turkish vassals to garrison and administer their former Mediterranean encircling empire so he can dedicate a now strengthened and updated Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe to intimidating and eventually subduing USSR. Given his overwhelming local superiority, he can probably convince the Swedes to supply the mineral resources he needs, if not to join up outright. Note, this entire program doesn't rely much on surface sea power, an acknowledged German shortcoming.
With what? The Italian merchant navy was too small to keep Rommel's Afrikakorp and the Italian forces in Libya supplied, how do you think Hitler was going to magically ship the much larger amount of troops, material and supplies required to support the whole Heer in Libya? Remember, no land route for Hitler to get to the Middle-East unless he goes through Russia or neutral Turkey. And even had he managed a deal with Turkey, he does not have the infrastructure to support such a long land supply-line, as was shown in Russia. His attempt to support the rebellion in Iraq failed exactly because there was very little he could do to help the Iraqis.
Hitler had only intended to bolster the Italians in the Desert theatre to protect his southern flank, he originally ordered Rommel not to attack the British in 1941, but Rommel ignored him. Hitler invaded Crete in 1941 instead of Malta for two reasons; firstly, he needed to prevent the RAF using Crete as a bomber base to hit those Romanian oilfields, and secondly, because he didn't have enough air transports, paratroops, and navy to attack Malta and Crete, even with Italian assistance. When the B-24s were hitting Ploiesti in 1943 they were flying from Italy and from Egypt, which suggests the RAF could have used B-24s as night-bombers from Egypt to hit Ploiesti in 1941.
Meanwhile, the RAF and RN were sinking the Italian merchant navy in such numbers during 1941 and 1942 that it was projected to cease to exist by mid-1944, because the Italians simply didn't have a ship-building industry large enough to exceed the rate that they were losing ships. Whilst the Italian's loss of 2.1 million tons of merchant shipping in the Med seems tiny compared to the Allied losses in the Atlantic, the Allies not only had the merchant navies from Occupied Europe that had fled to safe harbours, they also had the much bigger ship-building industries of Britain and the USA to churn out replacements. Indeed, as the Italian fleet declined, the Allied merchant fleet actually grew. Worse, in an attempt to isolate Malta, Hitler had to move U-boats from the Atlantic to the Med, because he didn't have enough U-boat-building capacity to supply both naval theatres.
The Germans couldn't produce any transport ships to help the Italians because they didn't have much of a fleet themselves, they didn't have enough steel to build ships and tanks, and because any ships had to be routed through the North Sea, down the Channel and then across the Bay of Biscay, past Gibraltar, and then along the Med past Malta to Italy - a suicide run! When the Kriegsmarine moved E-boats to the Med, they sent them via the French canal system exactly because they knew they could not send them via the Atlantic and expect them to survive.
By 1942, the Italians were getting so little supplies through to Benghazi that the Luftwaffe resorted to trying to fly fuel supplies in, only to find all the Ju52s and experienced crews they had lost in Norway, France and Crete meant they could not do the job, and Goering has been forced to concentrate on bombers and fighters and had neglected the transport arm even further. The lack of industrial capacity was one of the factors forcing Goering's hand. And so Rommel had to steal fuel from the Italians for his retreat from Alamein.
Ever wonder why there were so few Tiger tanks in North Africa? One of the reasons was because the Germans had nothing they could fly a Tiger in, so they had to go by sea, and Hitler realised that trying to ship Tigers to NA was a lottery with half of them expected to end up at the bottom of the Med. Hitler failed to supply his forces in Russia and that was a much simpler over-land supply-line, he would never have been able to supply the forces necessary to push down through Africa or northeast to the Persian oilfields, and Rommel would need to do both to stop the British outflanking him from one side or the other. And even before that decision is made, Hitler couldn't send all his forces to the Desert because he had to keep an anti-invasion force in Poland to guard against the expected attack from Stalin.
So, no, Hitler could never have turned the Med into a Nazi lake.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #46
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Er what?
Lieutenant Rommel bombing Malta?
Was he on the Goeben?
I don't understand? Germany was in Africa? Is this to do with Lettow-Vorbeck?
Turkey? The Ottoman Empire? Poland is independent?
None of this is making sense.
Isnt Hitler a Lance Corporal? Help me out here.
Lieutenant Rommel bombing Malta?
Was he on the Goeben?
I don't understand? Germany was in Africa? Is this to do with Lettow-Vorbeck?
Turkey? The Ottoman Empire? Poland is independent?
None of this is making sense.
Isnt Hitler a Lance Corporal? Help me out here.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
They did have four colonial possessions and there was even an interesting battle on Lake Tanganyica between elements of the Royal Navy and the Imperial Navy.
It appears the Basket is still fighting WWI, while the rest of us thread hijackers have skipped ahead to WWII. I think he's calling us out.
Guilty as charged, Sir!
- Thread starter
- #49
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Why is Germany helping our ally Italy and what is USSR?
Why are you flying tigers? Is this for a zoo?
Germany did have African colonies but...not for very much longer.
Our good friend and ally the Japanese will help us in the Mediterranean. I'm sure they will spare a Kongo. Need to keep an eye on the Austro Hungarian navy and their Tegetthoff battleships.
Why are you flying tigers? Is this for a zoo?
Germany did have African colonies but...not for very much longer.
Our good friend and ally the Japanese will help us in the Mediterranean. I'm sure they will spare a Kongo. Need to keep an eye on the Austro Hungarian navy and their Tegetthoff battleships.
With Malta gone, Spain cooperating, and both shores of the Straits of Gibraltar in Axis hands, RN in the Med is limited to what it can do from Alexandria, supplied up the Red Sea and Suez. This tremendously reduces support available to the Desert Army, especially if the supply train is going to also support RN Med ops. Attrition of Axis Mediterranean merchant shipping is drastically reduced, and with Malta as an intermediate base, aerial resupply can be enhanced and Luftwaffe effectiveness in NA much improved. In such a scenario, Alexandria couldn't hold out for long. Turkey might be induced to abandon her neutrality and join the "winning" side, especially at the prospect of regaining much of her former empire. With Axis control extending down into the South Atlantic, supply lines UK to Alexandria would require a lengthy circumnavigation or be subject to land based air attack. The Axis deficit in merchant hulls could be addressed by capturing and repurposing, rather than torpedoing, Allied and neutral shipping. With Spain cooperating and Gibraltar under control, Portugal wouldn't last long, opening a secure shipping route from Occupied Europe to the Med. The shipping deficit would be overcome, and the "Nazi Sea" would be secure.
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
FLORIDA (AP) - An unspecified number of hijackers managed to gain total control of a thread discussing the World War I (1914-1918) Battle of Jutland (1916) and steer the conversation to the next war (World War II - ~1939-1945) with possible changes in historical outcome favorable to Germany. Reports indicate that the hijackers had significant help from current posters to the thread, possibly a case of "Stockholm Syndrome". Authorities are investigating.
NEW YORK (UPI) Authorities investigating an alleged highjacking first reported in Florida have discovered on the grounds of The WWII Aircraft Forum the remains of an expired equine named "Jutland", displaying evidence of having been savagely kicked, to death, and for a significant time thereafter. Several forum members with apparent blood stains on their boots were observed in vehement discussion of The Forum's primary topic of study, WWII. Results of this investigation to date have been forwarded to State's Attorney's Office as well as to ASPCA.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #53
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Some guys driving DeLoreans on this forum pumping up to 88mph.
Gotta be stopped or them Nazis be back.
Gotta be stopped or them Nazis be back.
But Hitler had already asked Franco to join the War and take Gibraltar, and Franco declined because (a) Spain was still a wreck after the Civil War, and (b) Franco was not an idiot and realised the British would regroup, and then Spain could be the target of retaliation, and (c) he owed the Brits as MI6 was responsible for arranging his escape from exile in the Canary Islands and flying him to his loyal Rif troops in Spanish Morocco, which led to his victory against the Spanish Republicans.
Actually, the majority of Commonwealth supplies took exactly that route (excepting aircraft, which took the overland route from Takoradi), because it was safer than going through the Med. The exceptions were the supply convoys to Malta from Gibraltar, and those could have been routed to Suez and then out from Alexandria.
No it doesn't because the vast majority of supplies went round Africa to Suez.
How? The RAF and RN are still in North Africa, especially the submarines, and Malta is still there with her airbases and anchorage. And with Hitler shooting his airborne bolt in Crete, the Axis don't have the means to subdue Malta without pulling forces from Russia.
You can improve the "effectiveness" of the Luftwaffe all you like, but without (at least) quadrupling the available number of transport aircraft, plus a doubling of the amount of rolling stock in Italy available to carry supplies across the Alps, you are never going to get enough supplies to Africa to support the existing Afrikakorps, let alone all the forces used in invading Russia!
More wishful thinking. Hitler tried bribes of military equipment and money, but the Allies simply paid larger bribes. The Turks hedged their bets, signed a Friendship Treaty with Hitler in 1941, but eventually realised that the Germans could not win the War, that is why they stayed neutral did not join the Axis. The Turks were very helpful to Germany, especially when it came to laundering gold and jewelry stolen from concentration camp victims, and in supplying chromium, but they did not want to go to war against Britain after their defeat and loss of the Ottoman Empire in 1918.
Throughout the War, Germany never controlled any open sea because the Kriegsmarine was to weak. Despite Germany having all the Atlantic coast from Norway to France, the RN still controlled the North Sea, Channel and Atlantic Approaches throughout the War. And the arrival of Catapult-Armed-Merchantmen and then escort carriers soon kept the Luftwaffe threat to shipping to a minimum.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,979
- Jun 25, 2013
Just as an aside, Napoleon had control of just about all of continental Europe, plus an on-and-off alliance with Russia. Of course, part of that control included an alliance with the unreliable Austrians and the suppurating wound that was occupied Spain.
Having control of much of Europe wouldn't grant Hitler invulnerability; it would just make everybody note that he was a far greater threat than the largely illusory one (beyond Eastern Europe) that was the USSR*.
------
* I mean specifically the USSR, as opposed to bolshevism. The threat from the latter was a matter of internal security. It was also conflated, by anti-liberal movements, with such concepts as civil rights and racial equality (by J Edgar Hoover, among others) and expanded suffrage.
Having control of much of Europe wouldn't grant Hitler invulnerability; it would just make everybody note that he was a far greater threat than the largely illusory one (beyond Eastern Europe) that was the USSR*.
------
* I mean specifically the USSR, as opposed to bolshevism. The threat from the latter was a matter of internal security. It was also conflated, by anti-liberal movements, with such concepts as civil rights and racial equality (by J Edgar Hoover, among others) and expanded suffrage.
Last edited:
If Franco wouldn't respond to a nudge, he could have been subjected to a push (or even a putsch).
Huh? The premise of this thread is no Barbarossa in 1941. Sure, he would maintain a force in being on the eastern front, but it wouldn't be the huge resource drain that the invasion was, and could be tapped for resources to support the Malta, Portugal, and Africa Corps operations. Remember, US forces not on scene yet, and even if Rommel hasn't triumphed by then, with Gibraltar closed off and west coast of North Africa in Axis hands, US arrival will be seriously complicated, if the time comes. Can Britain control an Axis surrounded Mediterranean with no Gibraltar and no Malta from Alexandria? I doubt it. Especially with an Axis controlled secure sea route from occupied Europe to the Med. Operation Drumbeat in the Med, hosted from Italy and Malta. Remember, this was before most of the later refinements in ASW were in place. This is not a surface navy scenario.
Russia again! No Barbarossa, remember? Russia will have to be dealt with eventually, but can wait until the Med is subdued. And as mentioned elsewhere in the thread, if Stalin attacks prematurely, Hitler has home court advantage, and Stalin's people have a purge-induced leadership deficit.
Cheers,
Wes
See Operation Felix for how that didn't pan out. In August 1940, Franco insisted the Germans had to invade the UK mainland before he would join them in attacking Gibraltar. Hitler knew he couldn't invade the UK, the Kriegsmarine was too weak to carry the Wehrmacht across the Channel and the Luftwaffe was busy losing the battle of Britain. And he couldn't wait until 1941 because he needed to attack the Soviet Union by mid-1941, because if he left it too late then Stalin would attack him. So, in 1940, Hitler couldn't risk getting tied up invading Spain and leaving himself open to an attack from Stalin. You need to write this down and read it before you consider this scenario further - no Barbarosa does not mean no threat of a Soviet attack in 1941!
Oh yes it would be. Indeed, Hitler had to invade because his generals had already told him that it was very possible that Stalin would be able to defeat the Germans if they didn't strike first. The Soviets had 174 divisions on the Polish front in 1941, which was more than the total number of all German divisions in all theatres! The Soviets also had more than four times as many tanks and three times as many aircraft. Hitler had to strike first to ensure survival. So, no Barbarosa does still means a drain from tying down a massive German force defending the East in Poland, on the end of another long supply-line. Remember, Hitler has no defensive fortification in East Poland, no Siegfried Line or Maginot Line to enhance his defence, and it is wide-open tank country the Soviets already know well from fighting the Poles in 1920. Hitler can't build an Atlantic Wall in East Poland in time, so he has to match Soviet muscle with German muscle, and there is just not enough German muscle available to split off a bigger force for the Med.
Hitler did have to pull Luftwaffe units from the Soviet Front to attack Malta in the winter of 1941-42, and it still wasn't enough because he was also having to supply Rommel's failed gamble in the Desert. But you're ignoring the fact Hitler still doesn't have either the navy, the merchant ships, or the air transport to actually mount an invasion of Malta. Just pulling more forces from Russia and piling them up in Sicily is not going to help invade Malta. No Barbarosa does not magically double the size of the Italian merchant navy.
And Britain didn't need them. Until Operation Torch, all the ground forces in Africa are Commonwealth (and some Free French), and that is who stopped Rommel at El Alamein and then drove him back to Tunisia. Even without Torch, Rommel was doomed after El Alamein because Hitler cannot supply him with the reinforcements and material Rommel needs because Hitler doesn't have the necessary ships and planes in the Med (or anywhere for that matter).
Go back read again, Rommel can never triumph in Africa. Even if he drives the British back to the Suez Canal, he does not have the forces and would never have the logistical capability to push forward into the Middle East and south towards the Sudan. If he does just Sudan, the British resupply their forces in Syria and Palestine from Iraq, India and South Africa, and attack Rommel's supply lines in Egypt, cutting off his forces and defeating him. If Rommel goes east into Palestine, the British resupply their forces in the Sudan and come back down the Nile Valley and cut off Rommel's forces, defeating him. If Rommel tries both routes of advance, the British simply wear him down whilst bombing his supply lines. All the British supplies that would have gone to Suez can go to Basra and/or Aden and/or Port Sudan, still safe from Rommel, whilst all Rommel's supplies are being pounded on by the RAF from the factories onwards. Every mile Rommel advances is stretching his supply lines whilst shortening those of the British.
Yes it is, because the size of the force Hitler can bring to bear and supply in Africa is directly related to the size of the merchant navy he has available. Hitler has no overland supply route, and nowhere near enough air transport. So, yes it very much is a surface naval scenario because the RN from Malta is part of the reason the Italian merchant navy is trending to zero. Even if you want to magically erase Malta, that doesn't remove the RN submarines form the Med, there are still ports in Palestine and Syria available, and the subs can still pass into the Med from the Atlantic because the Kriegsmarine is too small to close even the Straits of Gibraltar, even if their ships could survive getting there from the RN-dominated Channel, North Sea and Atlantic Approaches. The Bismark demonstrated that folly.
OK, just to try and make it as simple as possible, Hitler can only ever beat Stalin if Hitler manages to seize control of the USSR and puts Stalin's head on a spike. Just stopping Stalin's invasion in Germany is not enough, because the Soviets will resupply, reinforce and resume their offensive. Stalin really never cared about casualty rates, he would have happily used up all 174 divisions, down to the last man, to secure victory. And Hitler cannot win a long war because his industry is simply not up to matching that of the British Empire, let alone the Empire plus the Soviets, plus the USA. And the biggest risk of sitting back and letting Stalin attack is that Stalin won't just invade Poland and Germany, he will seize the rest of Romania he hungers after, including the Romanian oilfields, which is game over for Hitler.
Which still managed to defeat Germany even after the Germans invaded and the Soviets lost 4.9 million casualties in Barbarosa alone.
No Barbarosa means either a long, slow war of attrition against the British Empire backed by the industrial might of the USA, which Germany will lose, or invasion by the Soviets and a quicker war Germany will lose.
Associated Press and UPI? Fake news, the lot of you! Next!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EsUNOIYyKg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EsUNOIYyKg
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
I see what you did there, two thumbs up with a Zorro Snap.
Not to put too fine a point on it Wes but... I thought this was a thread about "the World War I (1914-1918) Battle of Jutland (1916)" to quote the AP source above.
