Could the Allies defeat Germany only with air power?
- Thread starter Jenisch
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Anglos are Germanic, and I think Hitler wrote of that in Mein Kampf, along with his intentions not to war with them.
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
History of the English Language
You are right, there is a historical link. What Hitler seems to have overlooked is the cultural differences between the two countries.
He could write whatever he likes in his ghastly book but,there was no common ground between Britain Nazi Germany.
John
Last edited by a moderator:
So was it better for Hitler to attack SU or not?
France was soundly defeated, Vichy regime was allowed to be there only because Germans allowed it.
I've made allocation for BoB ('almost all battles...', not all every)
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
If Hitler has just attacked Russia and not gone through Poland (to avoid the British DoW) then WW2 could have taken a different path.
Doubtlessly the Germans would have prevailed initially but, the supply lines would have been very long and Germany would have been vulnerable to attack from another direction. Whether Germany could have truly held the whole of Russia is another matter.
My own view is that Hitler would have exhausted Germany fighting Mother Russia. (which he actually did).
John
Last edited:
I am thinking more along the lines of they allow the Germans and Russians to destroy themselves. But of course this all a "what if" anyhow.
Last edited:
Russia was always hard nut to crack, no worries.
Perhaps you could describe how could Hitler attack Russia with Poland Baltic states in good order?
parsifal
Colonel
A few observations. Hitler was a split person over Poland. He confided in a number of people within his entourage that he wanted war in the lead up to the invasion, but his policy moves were attempting to repeat the coup he had achieved at Munich. He wanted to achieve a fait accompli to achieve yet another bloodless victory. He certainly acted surprised when the british, followed somewhat reluctantly by the French, honoured their open gurantees to the Poles. Hitlers emotions wanted war, but his objectives was to pull off another bluff. Germany fell into the war only slightly better prepared than her opponents.
People read Mein Kampf and automatically conclude that hitler was following an orchestrated logical plan that led to the Kremlin. It didnt. Hitler was content with the non-aggression pact until presented with British intransigence. His decision to turn on Russia can be traced to a specific moment in time, (which I forget at this moment) where, faced with the british refusal to surrender, and the inability of his forces to subdue her, he retreated for a weekend in one of his retreats, to ponder the issue philosophically. That kind of receipe was boud to push his natural instincts to attack the Russians to the top of his thinking. From that point the pieces fell into place for Hitler. Britiain maintained her resistance because it pinned its hopes on securing a continental aly, as they had always done. The only viable major power on the continent was russia. Remove Russia, and not only is the natural enemy eliminated, the British will likely follow suit and sue for peace terms as well. He then convnced himself, with the help of his military advisers, that defeat of the russians would be an easy task ("all we have to do is kick in the door etc....."). Russian refusals to do German bidding exactly as the germans wanted only added fuel to German suspicions
Hitler miscalculated on this issue in so many ways. He under-estimated his dependance on the Russians, He underestimated the Russian powers of resistance. he over-estimated the military capabilities of his own forces. He over-estimated the british reliance on the russians. In regards to this last point, he was actually completely off the mark. Britiain never had any intention of surrendering, with or without the Russians. In the opening weeks and months of barbarossa both Britiain and the US expected a Soviet collapse. Churchill certainly had no faith in the Communists at the start, but following the prgmatism that always went with his warime career, set about forming a partnership with the russians as soon as hoistilities broke out ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend").
We have played a number of quite detailed simulations of Hitlers invasion of russia, on the basis of early commencment of hostilities. The systems we have use include:
Totaller krieg, War without Mercy, Drach nach osten, war In Europe, Hitler moves East, Might Power, World At War, Russian Campaign .
I must have participated in over 100 simulations on this subject, including some that postulate early invasions from as early as summer 1939, many of them against, or with, the most experienced simulants in the world. These guys are not your snotty nosed 15 YO's besotted by Tiger tanks or Russian artillery. many of them are army officers that think about this stuff for a living. Both the 1939 and the 1940 options ended in total disaster for the Germans.....their army lacked the experience, the MT, the tanks, the industrial base, to pull off these options successfully. There was some benefit to going in early in Russia, but not much earlier than early June, as the persistent rains in early 1941 prevented an earlier kick off of the offensive (at least on a front wide basis). But a June comencment still did not deliver enough advantage to knock out the russians. We have tried every permutation of the basic historical plans that you can think of....no southern deviation, primary objective Moscow, primary objective Leningrad, primary objective the Ukraine, airborne components, amphibious components, forces reorganized, more nfantry/less armour, more arnmour/less infantry, more air (no BoB), just to name the more obvious. Some work better than others, but none were able to achieve the total defeat of the russians.
And even though the allies were delivering aid to the russians from the beginning, this stuff didnt have a major effect on the east front until the counteroffensive in December. Until then, for all practical purposes, the russians were on their own. aqnd even though they suffered horrendous losses....about 6m of their total 13m miltray casualties in that first six months, the Russians survived. The germans simply could not infict enough pain on the russians to make them surrender.
People read Mein Kampf and automatically conclude that hitler was following an orchestrated logical plan that led to the Kremlin. It didnt. Hitler was content with the non-aggression pact until presented with British intransigence. His decision to turn on Russia can be traced to a specific moment in time, (which I forget at this moment) where, faced with the british refusal to surrender, and the inability of his forces to subdue her, he retreated for a weekend in one of his retreats, to ponder the issue philosophically. That kind of receipe was boud to push his natural instincts to attack the Russians to the top of his thinking. From that point the pieces fell into place for Hitler. Britiain maintained her resistance because it pinned its hopes on securing a continental aly, as they had always done. The only viable major power on the continent was russia. Remove Russia, and not only is the natural enemy eliminated, the British will likely follow suit and sue for peace terms as well. He then convnced himself, with the help of his military advisers, that defeat of the russians would be an easy task ("all we have to do is kick in the door etc....."). Russian refusals to do German bidding exactly as the germans wanted only added fuel to German suspicions
Hitler miscalculated on this issue in so many ways. He under-estimated his dependance on the Russians, He underestimated the Russian powers of resistance. he over-estimated the military capabilities of his own forces. He over-estimated the british reliance on the russians. In regards to this last point, he was actually completely off the mark. Britiain never had any intention of surrendering, with or without the Russians. In the opening weeks and months of barbarossa both Britiain and the US expected a Soviet collapse. Churchill certainly had no faith in the Communists at the start, but following the prgmatism that always went with his warime career, set about forming a partnership with the russians as soon as hoistilities broke out ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend").
We have played a number of quite detailed simulations of Hitlers invasion of russia, on the basis of early commencment of hostilities. The systems we have use include:
Totaller krieg, War without Mercy, Drach nach osten, war In Europe, Hitler moves East, Might Power, World At War, Russian Campaign .
I must have participated in over 100 simulations on this subject, including some that postulate early invasions from as early as summer 1939, many of them against, or with, the most experienced simulants in the world. These guys are not your snotty nosed 15 YO's besotted by Tiger tanks or Russian artillery. many of them are army officers that think about this stuff for a living. Both the 1939 and the 1940 options ended in total disaster for the Germans.....their army lacked the experience, the MT, the tanks, the industrial base, to pull off these options successfully. There was some benefit to going in early in Russia, but not much earlier than early June, as the persistent rains in early 1941 prevented an earlier kick off of the offensive (at least on a front wide basis). But a June comencment still did not deliver enough advantage to knock out the russians. We have tried every permutation of the basic historical plans that you can think of....no southern deviation, primary objective Moscow, primary objective Leningrad, primary objective the Ukraine, airborne components, amphibious components, forces reorganized, more nfantry/less armour, more arnmour/less infantry, more air (no BoB), just to name the more obvious. Some work better than others, but none were able to achieve the total defeat of the russians.
And even though the allies were delivering aid to the russians from the beginning, this stuff didnt have a major effect on the east front until the counteroffensive in December. Until then, for all practical purposes, the russians were on their own. aqnd even though they suffered horrendous losses....about 6m of their total 13m miltray casualties in that first six months, the Russians survived. The germans simply could not infict enough pain on the russians to make them surrender.
michaelmaltby
Colonel
".... Hitler attack Russia with Poland Baltic states in good order?:
Very good question ...
... he could man a "static" defensive line in the North - from the get-go - and pour his resources in an all-out thrust for oil - Romania is an allie.
Post M-R Pact, the Baltics would not be a secure environment for the USSR with Germany providing sanctuary for the Balts and Estos 'malcontents' to operate from to the west.
Poland - a flat country - would find itself in the same shoes as Belgium in WW1 - having been dismembered by both Stalin and Hitler post M-R - the lines would flex through Poland and into the Ukraine. But the money shot would be all-out drive for oil and control of the Black Sea.
MM
Very good question ...
... he could man a "static" defensive line in the North - from the get-go - and pour his resources in an all-out thrust for oil - Romania is an allie.Post M-R Pact, the Baltics would not be a secure environment for the USSR with Germany providing sanctuary for the Balts and Estos 'malcontents' to operate from to the west.
Poland - a flat country - would find itself in the same shoes as Belgium in WW1 - having been dismembered by both Stalin and Hitler post M-R - the lines would flex through Poland and into the Ukraine. But the money shot would be all-out drive for oil and control of the Black Sea.
MM
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"... Hitler was content with the non-aggression pact until presented with British intransigence." ..... getting up Hitler's nose
MM
MM
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"... What Hitler seems to have overlooked is the cultural differences between the two countries."
An island peoples vs a non-islands peoples.
MM
An island peoples vs a non-islands peoples.
MM
Roosvelt was taking care of reconaisance more or less all over the atlantic relieiving further British resources as well. I didn't see him protecting neutral and german coastal shipping of neutral Norway.
The Germans tried the cruiser rules inspection route in WW1. This is what happened.
1 Firstly Churchill ordered the merchant ships and liners to ram the u-boats.
2 The British opperated q-ships which were disguised trawlers that were armed and sank the u-boat when it attempted the inspection.
In the case of the Baralong incident the q shipped machine gunned the u-boat survivors and then hunted further survivors who had swum
to the Baralong and murdered them by shooting them in cold blood.
Prior to this the u-boat crew had applied 'cruiser rules', found contraband, put the crew min life boats. The q ships approached pretending to be a neutral US flagged ships pretending to help those in life boats.
3 Britain armed its merchant ships.
This kind if behaviour makes a mockery of the idea of a submarine or even a surface ship inspecting a ship. It was litterly a propagandistic farce; pure posturing.
In that context the German behaviour is not illegal. An armed merchant ship can be sunk, so can one which has been ordered to ram.
4 Later the Germans declared particular zones around the UK in which they would sink ships, they did not do so globablly or off the us coast.
5 They did not sink netral ships. Anyone travelling to the UK could have chosen an American line instead of the British White Star Lousitania and they would not be targeted.
Last edited:
parsifal
Colonel
.
Where were the Americans providing the british aerial recon. In the waters west of Britain, in 1941, it was the other way around....british aircraft providing information to American warships, who then used that information to hunt their prey. Legitimate responses consistent with the US neutrality patrols.
No, not at the beginning. In 1915-16 they used a limited form of unrestricted warfare and never adopted the cruiser rules completely at any stage.
Yes, and most ships did not comply....they were still sunk, mostly without warning, and never with the benefit of the cruiser rules applied to them
Which were registered on lloyds as warships and could be fired on without warning. Doesnt give carte blanche to unrestricted warfare on all shipping
Ah the baralong incident. Was wondering how long it would take for this to rise to the surface. firstly, the events surrounding the baralong are still disputed. According to pro-German sources (many of which were doctored by the nazis who beat this incident up as justification for their own decisions to implment unrestricted warfare) the British commander ordered their massacre. according to the reports by the baralongs skipper, and the skipper of the nicosia, the U-27s crew were attempting a boarding of sorts to take over one of the allied ships. There were 6 American witnesses that disagreed with that.
But none of this is relevant to the issue we are talking about. Its the responses of the british and the germans that are the most revelaing.....I happen to think there was a war crime committed that day, but it is significant that the admiralty recognized that for what it was and tried to hide the fact. They knew that wrong doings had been committed and acted accordingly. For the germans it was quite the reverse. Despite being offered the opportunity to undertake an enquiry in a neutral nation, they chose to reject that offer, and instead issue illegal orders that contravened international law....they did this on two occasions.....in 1917, and 1938.....act outside the law over a disputed incident. Yep, thats Germanrespect for the law alright....
Err no they did not, on a number of points. Putting crews into lifeboats does not constitute "cruiser rules, and in any case, sinking the ship can only apply to contraband. In WWI, the Germans did not apply the rules in this way they frequently just sank the ship with no warning, and when they did stop and search, they took insufficient care of the crews, and sank everything anyway. That is not applying cruiser rules, and the German methods in the relatively innocent world of WWI their behaviour at sea was found to be almost as abhorrent as it was in WWII.
Which gives the germans the right to sink those ships without warning....not all ships, which is what they did. Rember this is not about war crimes, or fairness, this is about legality, and who was pushing who's buttons
No, it was not, it was the law of the sea, formulated by all the nations of the sea, and enshrioned in the London Naval Treaty. Germany was not a party to that teaty, because they had forfeited that right under the terms of Versaille. Under Versaille they were prohibited from having any submarines, under the 1935 naval agreement with britain they were permitted a percentage of British tonnage in all classes, and were expected to abide by the rules that limited British use of such warships. they chose to honour none of these treaty obligations. They (the germans) elected to act outside the law, and paid the price for that.
Germany acting outside the law....beginning to see a pattern here....
That I can agree with, except that the neutral ships like those of the US pre-1942 were not armed, and did not attemtp to ram the u-Boats. Uboats still sank them, despite the declarations of where they might find these ships, and who migght be escorting them
What packet of corn flakes did you find this piece of information. The Germans never had declared war zones, or zones where they would limit their unrestricted warfare to. Raider sank merchantmen of all nationalites, on sight, wiithout warning and contrary to the international laws of the sea across the world. There was never any restriction placed on the employment of unrestricted tonnage warfare attacks applicable after 1939. none.
if you are referring to WWI, then yes there were declared war zones, frequently ignored by the germans incidentally
.
Assume you are referring to WWI. WWII any ship not under the control of the germans was a target. In WWI U-Boats frequently sank neutral shipping sometimes by accident, sometimes deliberately. After 1917, always deliberately.
Last edited:
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
Pray tell what were they using Coastal Command was truly a non factor at this point in time
Shortround6
Major General
That may be stretching things a bit. Sinking U-boats and spotting them are two different things and having U-boats submerge and stay submerged because of fear of being spotted is a third. It was found in WW I that even the aircraft of the day ( and the even more primitive weapons they had than Coastal Command had in 1941) severally limited the effectiveness of the U-boats. A submerged U-boat has a much smaller search radius using the periscope than a surfaced U-boat using look out-outs. A submerged U-boat has very limited mobility compared to one running on the surface. It wasn't necessary to sink U-boats with aircraft to severely limit their effectiveness.
Good point, Shortround. It's worth remembering that the U-boats of both the First and Second World Wars were submersibles, rather than true 'submarines' in that they had higher surfaced speeds than their submerged speeds. For WW1 the U-boats cruised at approximately 10 to 15 kts, while submerged around 4 to 6 kts. They usually spent the majority of their time on the surface, which is where they carried out the most of their attacks from. From February 1917 the Germans waged unrestricted submarine warfare; they changed their minds on this a few times in WW1 and loss rates rose dramatically to the extent that by the end of 1917 more shipping had been lost than each previous year put together.
The answer was greater countermeasures; the British increased production of maritime patrol aircraft (and merchant shipping), notably airships but also conventional aeroplanes, and by mid 1918, there were over 100 non rigids in service. The non rigid 'blimp' proved a very useful anti-submarine aircraft; the smaller SSZ Class cruised at between 50 and 60 kts and could come to a standstill, so transit times were lower than larger types and the submarine could be stalked. Airship 'kills' in number were not very high, but the airship's use was primarily to carry out patrols and record by radio the location of a sub, harrassing it until a destroyer turned up using light bombs and smoke flares. They often worked together on anti-submarine patrols.
I don't think an accurate figure of the number of U-boats destroyed by airships has been produced, because there was no way of determining whether the airship actually destroyed the sub other than by eye, which the submariners could fool the airship crews by releasing oil and debris until the airship left. Only one rigid airship has ever taken part in the sinking of a submarine, that was HMA R.29 on 28 September 1918; UB-115 was sunk by depth charges from the destroyer HMS Ouse after R.29 forced it underwater by bombing.
The answer was greater countermeasures; the British increased production of maritime patrol aircraft (and merchant shipping), notably airships but also conventional aeroplanes, and by mid 1918, there were over 100 non rigids in service. The non rigid 'blimp' proved a very useful anti-submarine aircraft; the smaller SSZ Class cruised at between 50 and 60 kts and could come to a standstill, so transit times were lower than larger types and the submarine could be stalked. Airship 'kills' in number were not very high, but the airship's use was primarily to carry out patrols and record by radio the location of a sub, harrassing it until a destroyer turned up using light bombs and smoke flares. They often worked together on anti-submarine patrols.
I don't think an accurate figure of the number of U-boats destroyed by airships has been produced, because there was no way of determining whether the airship actually destroyed the sub other than by eye, which the submariners could fool the airship crews by releasing oil and debris until the airship left. Only one rigid airship has ever taken part in the sinking of a submarine, that was HMA R.29 on 28 September 1918; UB-115 was sunk by depth charges from the destroyer HMS Ouse after R.29 forced it underwater by bombing.
parsifal
Colonel
SRs explanation is spot on. aircraft in 1941 were basically useless at sinking U-Boats, but they remained invaluable in giving advanced warning of spotted U-Boats. gave the convoys time to change course and speed, and alert the escort.
Moreover, u-Boats spotted by air had to dive, which transformed them from a mobile weapon of war to an immobile one. This is considered a major reduction in Shipping losses....it enabled the convoy to slip past the u-boat without being attacked. Less U-Boat attacks equals less losses.
Moreover, u-Boats spotted by air had to dive, which transformed them from a mobile weapon of war to an immobile one. This is considered a major reduction in Shipping losses....it enabled the convoy to slip past the u-boat without being attacked. Less U-Boat attacks equals less losses.
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
That's my point too. Mutal destruction.
We could spend the rest of our lives arguing about something which didn't happen...
John
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
"... What Hitler seems to have overlooked is the cultural differences between the two countries."
An island peoples vs a non-islands peoples.
MM
That's one aspect Michael. There are many others of course.
John
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
