Could the Allies defeat Germany only with air power?

[Jabberwocky]

Two dates. The Day before 18.12.1940 Mid 10.1941.

Bwuh?

17-December-1940, the day before Furher Directive 21.

October 1941, the slowing of German advances outside of Moscow.

Forgive my incredulity, but neither of these two events have any effect on the "Battle of Britain" which stretched between late June and late October 1940. By December 1940, the battle has been over for a good two months.

You'd need a second offensive, either in 1941 or 1942, for the Luftwaffe to attempt again to "crush" the RAF. As I've expressed earlier, the defensive situation for the RAF, both during the day and night, was vastly better in 1941 and 1942 than it was in 1940. Both in comparative and absolute (numerical) terms.

To defeat the RAF, Germany needs to wage a battle of attrition against an opponent that is producing more aircraft and pilots than it, as well as sourcing aircraft and pilots from the Commonwealth and US. It needs to do this over its opponent's territory. Against the finest air defence network that had ever existed to that point in history. Against an opponent that beat the Luftwaffe once and is confident that it can do so again.

 

[parsifal]

Hi DonL

You are suggesting to abstract for one side, but not the other. If we abstract for one side, the usual practice when assessing possibilities is to try and assess what would be the most likley reaction by the other side. The purpose of all this balance and counterbalance is to determine at what point one side has an advantage that the other side does not or cannot counter.

Of course its possible to enter into pure supposition and not factor in what the opponenht will do, or to corral the opponents responses within unrealistic parameter. this is precisely what the japanese did before Midway, and look at the prize they took hoe with them. Its far better to think of a plan, and then think what might go wrong with that plan, rather than think of a plan, and then try and ignore or downplay what an opponent might do as a reaction. This is what you pro-german guys are doing right at this minute.....thinking about the possiblities, and trying not to think about the problems.

Also, at what point does historical extrapolation become historical fantasy. We are bordering on that now. as an example, you seem to be saying that the invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece was not limited by concerns about Soviets. Not sure what you are getting at here, but historically Yugoslavia was an ally of the germans until the Coup in early April. Unless the germans are prepred to start stomping on their own allies, nothing is going to happen in that front until then. In the case of Greece, the only option available to the germans was to reinforce the Albanian front until Yugoslavia revolts, and that plan was rejected by the italians. The italians resisted overtures for help until they starteed to have some difficulties, so earlier entry is just not going to happen, unless the germans are prepred to invade the italians, or ignore their rights as Axis partners. Again, aint gonna happen.

The issue here is not the power of the germans armed forces, so much as the lack of power in the German supply services. You are overestimating German supply capability by miles. its a waste of resources to pour the teeth into a battle without a supporting tail....the trouble for the germans is that in 1941 they lacked an adequate tail to deal with a situation like the med. unless you are saying they should start reorganizing their forces from before involvement. For the LW that would mean pulling a significant proportion of their forces out of the BoB. Do we now suppose that the allies are not going to respopnd to that in some way.

I am not so naive as to suggest the problems, to a degree could not be solved eventually.....eventually for example the port of tobruk might be restored or improved to some point of usefulness. Its just that these solutions cannot be achieved quickly, they take time, and that means the allies also have time to react. Quid Pro Quo. Making assumptions that your enemy is not going to respond, or not counter your initiatives is the dangerous precednt, not the failure to abstract that you are wont to accuse me.

As for :

As I said, you are in no condition to abstract! If you wan't to tell me that the attack about UDSSR via Rostov to Baku, was easier then to invade, North Africa, Malta and the Suez Canal at 1941 you are totaly out of the discussion, cause you have no single clue to the reality!

It would appear that you think I said it would be easier to go to Baku than to suez. I never said anything of the sort. But that is not the question. Does Germany have the toools to do the latter. They certainly have the military teet, but that too is not the question either. Ask this question....do they have the logistic tail and the speicialised unit training. answer is no. Could they acquire that capability. yes, in time, but then we have to assume a n allied response, or assume the allies are stupid and want to be beaten.

With reagrd to:

Are you smokinh pot? We are talking about 5 divisions at May/June 1941!
Please tell me from the given historical sources that Tobrk can withstand that army, you are dreaming sir, nothing else!

I am not the one making the outrageous claims for victory I said in my opening comments on this thread that it would be difficult to draw too many conclusions. So because I am counselling you to be cautious, and that there are more diffulties than perhaps you have considered, you think I am being outrageous. that has to be first. behave conservatively, and be accused of radicalism.
In response to the specific claims, it would firstly be very difficult to have 5 German Divs in place by June. Historically 5th light began arriving at the end of january, and was in psotion at the Agheila line by late march, some of it at least....about 2 regiments. 15 Panzer began arriving mid April, and had not all iots elements in place until late may. By extrapolation (as opposed to abstract fantasy) thats about 2.5 months to get most of a division across the ditch and into position. That means the germans would need another 5 or 6 months to get theuir extra 3 divs into place. And a quick side note. German units in North africa were pared down in terms of both men and equipment.

The single division defending Tobruk historically, was assualted by no less than 5 Divisions, including most DAKs heavy artillery, all of its Stuka assets, 1 German and the very best italian Infantry Divisions, more or less simulataneoulsy. The Germans in particular were heavily defeated in these battles. Ask yourself this.....if there had been no commitment to greece or Crete (you said be creative, be abstract) there would have been an additional 2.5 aus divs to pour into this battle. The question becopmes at that point not "can they hold" rather it is "is ther any way they can be contained" I tend to think not.

As for

You should abstract the situation in this given scenario and the power of the LW, german navy and the Wehrmacht to to eliminate dangerous conditions! Malta was a dangerous condition and as you can poove crete was eliminated!
Malta was a easy target at the first half of 1941 with the historical strenghts abstract to no war in the east!

If we are going to abstract situations for one side, why not the other. What power does the german Navy have in 1941? If they had started to build ships in the prewar build up, what reaction do you think would happen in Britain......if the germans laid down another BB, the brits would lay down 5, if the germans build ten more destroyers, the brits would build a 100. Wheras the germans held the whip hand in continental weaponary, and training, it was the reverse for logistics and naval construction .

If malta was such an easy target, why did it take 7 months to prepre for its capture on two occasions and on two occasions the operation was cancelled. The resources able to be brought to bear on the island are not limited by the military front end, its the logistic and transport assets that limit the forces that could be committed. I can only say again, taking it is not a certainty, and is not easy, and is a time consuming and resource intensive operation.....you cannot be training your airborne forces for an assault of the island, AND be using your Ju52s for trasnport to North Africa at the same time. one thing or the other, not both.

welcome to the world of limited resources

 

[DonL]

Lets keep this civil or the thread will be locked and infractions given. Please everybody, some good info was being brought to the table.

I apologize if I where to harsh at my argumentation especially against parsifal!

I appreciate his posts and I think he is well informed about the WWII.
I appreciate too his posts about the "third reich" and the political estimation and the political adjudgement!
I will sign his posts.

But we are talking here much about military and technology strenghts. And in much posts I miss some objectivity and the the ability to abstract historical information from given sources to military and technology scenarios.
You can be against germany, no wonder that, at the given events at WWII, but to talk and fathom something like this given scenario you should be a little objektive about the strenghts and the potentiality to military and economic things.
Not all germans were nazis or stupid!

 

[parsifal]

Hi DonL

No need to apologize to me, but maybe to the mods. I am not seeking to insult you or belittle your POV. I just dont agree with it. We should stop marking the man, and start playing the ball. There is no wrong or right answer in this, all viewpoints are valid, and in many respects my ttechnical knowlwedge is weaker than many. but I have experience in operation analysis....how to assess a given situation, how to extrapolate, how to speculate logically. Maybe that is of use to you, maybe not.

Hope this is of help, and hope we can now get back to the discussion.

One thing I will concede. whilst i will argue till the cows come home that the germans could never win outright....what becomes highly problematic is the ability of the allies to defeat her. I think dropping Russia out of the equation makes a negotiated peace a very likely outcome. A draw if you like....

 

[DonL]

You are suggesting to abstract for one side, but not the other. If we abstract for one side, the usual practice when assessing possibilities is to try and assess what would be the most likley reaction by the other side. The purpose of all this balance and counterbalance is to determine at what point one side has an advantage that the other side does not or cannot counter.

Of course its possible to enter into pure supposition and not factor in what the opponenht will do, or to corral the opponents responses within unrealistic parameter. this is precisely what the japanese did before Midway, and look at the prize they took hoe with them. Its far better to think of a plan, and then think what might go wrong with that plan, rather than think of a plan, and then try and ignore or downplay what an opponent might do as a reaction. This is what you pro-german guys are doing right at this minute.....thinking about the possiblities, and trying not to think about the problems.

Yes but what is your intention?
GB was fighting for life at 1940/41 and germany was totaly in the war against the UDSSR after the lost of BoB!
You suggest that a german move to "total" war against GB would have major counter action!

From what forces? Royal Air Force, Royal Navy, GB troops? What can GB do at 1941 other then they have done at the Mediterranean?
From what sources came troops, aircrafts and ships? GB was totaly involved at the Mediterranean war at 1941 from the given sources!

As you can read at any book germany wasn't! All moves were under circumstances of the war to the UDSSR!
At this given scenario there will first no plan for the war to the UDSSR and second all plans and ressources would under the circumstances to a total war to GB

What is that difficult, that if germany move all his strenghts to the Mediterranean, especially logistic and LW, that GB would be in real trouble!
Germany managed with low logistic, low LW forces and low ground troops to give GB a hard time for 2 years with perhaps 5% of the given logistical, economical and military strenghts and now you want tell me, that if germany moves 50-70% of this capacity to the Mediterranean, all would be the same as historical?

Please think about it!

O fcourse some things need a little more time then other, but an invasion of Malta is the same as the invasion of Crete, only easier, and to take Tobruk with 5 elite division, well supllied and the assistance of thousands of LW aircrafts?!

You should think about the issue that germany blow up there ground forces from 155 to 180 division between the france campaign and Barbarossa. Under the circumstances in this scenario they can imobilize 30 to 40 divisions.

Think about this!

 

[Jabberwocky]

Pursuant to my last post, some more musings on UK vs Germany in the air, assuming the collapse of the Soviet Union post Barbarossa.

For Germany to defeat the RAF in 1941 or 1942 in a battle of attrition, it would need to knock down British fighters at a rate of almost 2:1.

Production of aircraft by UK (1st column) and Germany (2nd column) and the ratio of production (3rd column)

1939: 1324, 614, 2.2:1
1940: 2735, 4238, 1.6:1
1941: 7064, 3744, 1.9:1
1942: 9849, 5358, 1.8:1
1943: 10727, 10059, 1.1:1
1944: 10739, 24981, 0.5:1


UK fighter production figures taken from HyperWar: British War Production [Appendix 4]

German fighter production figures taken from wikipedia - so usual caveats for accuracy German aircraft production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course, this ignores the impact of British purchases from the US and US lend lease to the UK: Better than 4500 fighters were delivered from the US between 1941 and 1945, including almost 2000 P-51s and more than 2400 P-40s.

Yes, the P-40 was not used in Northwest Europe, but as you're presenting a scenario where the UK is faced with renewed German attacks, the possibility that they are used in defence of Great Britain cannot be discounted.

In 1941, purchases from the US amounted to 9.1% of the UK's total military supplies. Lend lease made up 2.4%. In 1942, the figures are 4.7% direct purchases and 12.4% Lend lease.

 

[DonL]

One thing I will concede. whilst i will argue till the cows come home that the germans could never win outright....what becomes highly problematic is the ability of the allies to defeat her. I think dropping Russia out of the equation makes a negotiated peace a very likely outcome. A draw if you like....

I absolutley agree, my attention was to show, that it isn't the easiest to defeat germany under the circumstances in this szenario. They would have some options like the Arabian Islands (OIL), Jets (Me 262) and the XXI submarines.
With this scenario they have to my opinion more time to get their technology in action, but a win is absolutley impossible, but to my opinion an invasion without a nuke too!

 

[parsifal]

Yes but what is your intention?

To apply conservative logic to a hypothetical situation

GB was fighting for life at 1940/41 and germany was totaly in the war against the UDSSR after the lost of BoB!

Kinda true, but kinda not as well. Britains approach to continental wars since the spanish armada has been to support the second most powerful country in Europe, and thereby ensure that no single individual nation dominates the continent. a united Europe, hostile in its attitude to britain is a big threat.

Britain's chief offensive weapon since Napoleon has been blokcade and the classic application of seapower. It was the blockade and seapower that defeated the germans in 1918 more than the land offensives. both were needed, but the ground offensives would not be possible without the sea blockade


In the second war, Britain applied the same principal. This was complicated by the many leaks in the British ship of war. germany controlled all of europe, she was trading with neutral states that could not be blockaded (ie USSR) and was more self sufficient than previously. So the process of blockade was slowed by these effects, but not stopped. britains number one weapon against the germans was the blockade....a thing called the neutrality act, that said, essentially "we will sink your ships if you trade with the Germans". And they did. I have just about finished looking at german shipping losses on the Atlantic seaboard, well almost, for 1941. So far have found about 200000 tons of shipping sunk by the brits, maybe a bit more. Germany was denied the free usage of the oceans, the access to foreign markets outside Europe, and this hurt her economy. Britain lost far far more shipping, but she could afford to do this, and eventually solved the U-Boat issue. The allied offensive against german shipping just got worse and worse.

There were of course other offensives taking place that whilst pin pricks really, were the foundation stones for later operations. Of course there were the Bomber raids, but also missions like Taranto, Spitzbergen, the fighter sweeps over france (costly and only partially successful), the conquest of Abysinnia, and O'connors offensive are just examples of what was happening. so whilst survival was the main game, there were also steps toward offensive action, right from day 1 of the war

You suggest that a german move to "total" war against GB would have major counter action!

From what forces? Royal Air Force, Royal Navy, GB troops? What can GB do at 1941 other then they have done at the Mediterranean

?

Plenty. Starting with being able to divert an additional 9% of her outputs that were originally intended for the dominion forces, but were instead diverted to Russia. something like 2000 tanks, about 2500 a/c, and similar amounts of every imaginable piece of military hardware was either diverted directly from Britain, or diverted from Lend Lease, that had been promised to britain, but passed to russia.

There were vast amounts of naval assets, trained and untrained manpower, aircraft, merchant shipping military hardware being diverted from the european war effort, to the containment of the japanese. all of this could have been used in the Middle east. Around an additional 700 aircraft were maintained in the Far East, around 400 aircraft were also diverted from britain to china, at least two fully trained and experienced divisions. with that additional equipment not going to Russia, enough equipment to train and deploy about 10 australian divisions (which had been raised and trained, but not equipped, including a full armoured div). There were about 35 Indian Divs in the same boat, all now sitting around waiting to fight someone.

Also, though this is specualtive (abstract), there is every possibility that an increased threat on the south, aimed at Suez and beyond, would have boosted domestic production in the Dominions. I dont think it unreasonable to assume that 1942 production levels for Aus, India and NZ would not have been pushed forward as a result of the escalation in the med. Then we have the vast resources of Canada, a more significant industrial nation than italy during the war, and of course Britains home production, which in 1941 generally outstripped that of germany in just about every category.

In terms of immediate naval assets, there is approximately 1m tons of shipping the allies could use from the far east just sitting around waiting to be sunk or captured by Japan, about 20 destroyers, carrier Implacable, battleships PoW and Repulse, 5 Heavy cruisers, 8 Light Cruisers,, and from memory 3 or 4 aa cruisers. These are quite vast resources. There is a fully trained Australian Division in Malaya, another fully trained Div enroute (the 18th), the equivalent of a trained div in Burma, a full brigade in Fiji, another 5 Bdes in NZ, 12 Divs in Australia, a brigade in Hong Kong, two Brigades in ceylon, 35 Divs in India, another 5 divs in Malaya, 2 divs in South Africa. Do i need to continue. It also needs to be pointed out that approximately half the material being diverted to the pacific TO by the Americans was originally intended as Lend lease, roughly speaking this amounted to about 500 aircraft, all of them brand new. Without a japanese threat this would likely go back to the dominions, with additional aircraft added by the americans

So realistically from June to December 1941, under this sceanrio, you might see an additional 15 or 20 allied divisions in the delta, an additional 2500-3000 aircraft, pretty much a doubling of the Med Fleet.

Germany is never going to win a resources battle

From what sources came troops, aircrafts and ships? GB was totaly involved at the Mediterranean war at 1941 from the given sources!

You are incorrect on that score. Most of the troops in fact were Dominion, but most of the dominions were occupied either supplying the russians, or diverting resources to the pacific. With both these drains gone, it seems logical to me to expect a boost in the TO.

As you can read at any book germany wasn't! All moves were under circumstances of the war to the UDSSR!

Neither was Britain fully committed to the southern front. The majority of her army remained in England. The same for her air force and her navy. there were plenty of additional resources, both combat and logistical, to pour into this TO if need be

At this given scenario there will first no plan for the war to the UDSSR and second all plans and ressources would under the circumstances to a total war to GB

And unless the brits want to lose, or are incredibly dumb, they are going to respond on a like for like basis, call on her allies to move to a full war futting as well (which they could do, but didnt. These allies did that anyway, in 1942)

What is that difficult, that if germany move all his strenghts to the Mediterranean, especially logistic and LW, that GB would be in real trouble!

heaps. Just as an example, DAK in 1941 had as many trucks allocated to it as the entire army Group South Command. i dont think you are realizing just how intensive the logistical problems were on this front. Moreover they were demands not easily met by the existing german force structure

Germany managed with low logistic, low LW forces and low ground troops to give GB a hard time for 2 years with perhaps 5% of the given logistical, economical and military strenghts and now you want tell me, that if germany moves 50-70% of this capacity to the Mediterranean, all would be the same as historical?

Not unless you exclude the italians can you say this. If you exclude the Italians, then we should exclude the dominions, if you include the italians, then we include the Dominions, but then resources poured in by the respective sides is heavily weighted in favour of the axis. they poured far more into the fight than the Allies, and lost far more incidentally. You are conveneitnetly forgetting that Libya was an italian colony, with italian control and italian troops. but even just counting germans only to british troops, the comparison is weighted in favour of the germans. they put more into the theatre historically than the british ever did, until 1943

 

[parsifal]

Please think about it!

Ive spent over twenty years thinking about it, and participated in excercises similar to the ones done at the RMC to test these theories. i am not just pulling this out of my rear end, it is based on observation of actual kriegspiel simulations

O fcourse some things need a little more time then other, but an invasion of Malta is the same as the invasion of Crete, only easier, and to take Tobruk with 5 elite division, well supllied and the assistance of thousands of LW aircrafts?!

If you take Crete, immediately you can forget any assault of malta. And malta is nothng like Crete. Crete wqas defended by men armed with nothing better than rifles for the most part, but it cost the germans a bucket for both their airborne and their air transports. If you take Crete, you will not take malta in the same year. malta was defended by at first two full brigades, and then three, fully armed and fortified. Not as good as the australians at Tobruk, but good enough. Germans would have been cut to pieces IMO, exscept if they could have at least two full parachute divisions, about 700 transports, a workabloe amphibious plan and complete air supremacy.

The trouble with your 5 elite divs idea at Tobruk, is that it takes the best part of a year to get them there, and in any event some of them are needed to contain the brits at the frontier. The best you can hope for is about 3 divs, and not all of them can attack at once as the germans found out historically. The lines of attack are very constricted.....the place is a natural fortress, and was guarded by troops even better than your so-called "elite" troops (dont believe me, ask Rommel, see what he said about the Australians at Tobruk...he gave up trying to beat them until they left the place). If the brits want to hold tobruk, it will be impossible for the germans to take it if properly garrisoned and competently defended, which the Australians did for nine long months. there is nothing the germans possessed, nothing they could hurl at the place that can change that. it is the battle that saved North Africa.

You should think about the issue that germany blow up there ground forces from 155 to 180 division between the france campaign and Barbarossa. Under the circumstances in this scenario they can imobilize 30 to 40 divisions.

Which gains them what. Raising a few security division, splitting your existing forces to make new weaker formations, raising garrison troops for the westwall does what to help you in a war that is more about logistics than rifles. The germans could not produce enough steel, enough trucks, enough tanks, enough ships, to undertake a war of this kind

Think about this!

I have. more than you can appreciate.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

So if I am, please show how the Luftwaffe wasn't on the verge of victory then?
The RAF was out of time by the end of the BoB. IF Goring would have continued the champain, The RAF would have been crushed.

You really should market those rose-tinted glasses you're wearing; they'd make you a fortune. Your technical knowledge is formidable, but you ruin it with ludicrous statements like this.
The Germans had given up attacking the RAF's airfields, having only completely closed just one sector station, for only a few hours, and only Manston Lympne were unfit for day flying for more than a few hours (Dowding's post-BoB report.)
They had switched to night bombing, inherently inaccurate, and moved to bombing the civilian population.
They had given up daylight attacks on the north of Britain, having lost too many aircraft. They'd reached October with fewer aircraft and pilots than they started, while the RAF had more (Fighter Command went from 1,259, on July 2nd., to 1,796 on November 2nd. In 1940, the RAF lost 1544 trained airmen, the Germans lost 2,698; the RAF lost 1547 aircraft, while the Germans lost 1,887.
From August to December 1940, German fighter strength diminished by 30%, and its bombers by 25% (Otto Bechtle's 1944 lecture.)
Given all this, you maintain that the RAF was on the verge of being crushed; as my grandmother used to say, pull the other leg, it's got bells on.

 

[parsifal]

To lighten the mood , a few snaps of Tobruk '1941......

 

[DonL]

In the second war, Britain applied the same principal. This was complicated by the many leaks in the British ship of war. germany controlled all of europe, she was trading with neutral states that could not be blockaded (ie USSR) and was more self sufficient than previously. So the process of blockade was slowed by these effects, but not stopped. britains number one weapon against the germans was the blockade....a thing called the neutrality act, that said, essentially "we will sink your ships if you trade with the Germans". And they did. I have just lookfinished looking at german shipping losses on the Atlantic seaboard, well almost, for 1941. So far have found about 200000 tons of shipping sunk by the brits, maybe a bit more. Germany was denied the free usage of the oceans, the access to foreign markets outside Europe, and this hurt her economy. Britain lost far far more shipping, but she could afford to do this, and eventually solved the U-Boat issue. The allied offensive against german shipping just got worse and worse.

Later in the war yes, but there was no single ressource problem to germany at 1941!

There were of course other offensives taking place that whilst pin pricks really, were the foundation stones for later operations. Of course there were the Bomber raids, but also missions like Taranto, Spisbergen, the fighter sweeps over france (costly and only partially successful), the conquest of Abysinnia, and o'connors offensive are just examples of what was happening. so whilst survival was the main game, there were also steps toward offensive action, right from day 1 of the war

All against italy in the Mediterranean before the german were in game!

Plenty. Starting with being able to divert an additional 9% of her outputs that were originally intended for the dominion forces, but were instead diverted to Russia. something like 2000 tanks, about 2500 a/c, and similar amounts of every imaginable piece of military hardware was either diverted directly from Britain, or diverted from Lend Lease, that had been promised to britain, but passed to russia.

When? Sources?
There was no war against the UDSSR till 21.6. 1941
From my sources the first Lend Lease act with the UDSSR was at November 1941
This numbers from you are for 1942 but never for 1941!

There were vast amounts of naval assets, trained and untrained manpower, aircraft, merchant shipping military hardware being diverted from the european war effort, to the containment of the japanese. all of this could have been used in the Midle east. Around an additional 700 aircraft were matinained in the Far East, around 400 aircraft were also diverted from britain to china, at least two fully trained and experienced division. with that additional equipment no going to Russia, enough equipment to train and deploy about 10 australian divisions (which had been raised and trained, but not equipped, including a full armoured div). There were about 35 Indian Divs in the same boat, all now sitting around waiting to fight someone.

Next, there was no war against Japanese till 7.12 1941
Do you realy and seriously want to tell, this were all strategic reserves against Japan at 1941?

Also, though this is specualtive (abstract), there is every possibility that an increased threat on the south, aimed at Suez and beyond, would have boosted domestic production in the Dominions. I dont think it unreasonable to assume that 1942 production levels for Aus, India and NZ would not have been pushed forward as a result of the escalation in the med. Then we have the vast resources of Canada, a more significant industrial nation than italy during the war, and of course Britains home production, which i 1941 generally outstripped that of germany in just about every category.

In terms of immediate naval assets, there is approximately 1m tons of shipping the allies could use, about 20 destroyers, carrier Implacable, battleships PoW and Repulse, 5 Heavy cruisers, 8 Light Cruisers,, and from memory 3 or 4 aa cruisers. These are quite vast resources. There is a fully trained Australian Division in Malaya, another fully trained Div enroute (the 18th), the equivalent of a trained div in Burma, a full brigade in Fiji, another 5 Bdes in NZ, 12 Divs in Australia, a brigade in Hong Kong, two Brigades in ceylon, 35 Divs in India, another 5 divs in Malaya, 2 divs in South Africa. Do i need to continue. It also needs to be pointed out that approximately half the material being diverted to the pacific TO by the Americans was originally intended as Lend lease, roughly speaking this amounted to about 500 aircraft, all of them brand new. Without a japanese threat this would likely go back to the dominions, with additional aircraft added by the americans

My question is, where have been all this troops, ships, aircrafts till May 1941?
The german were able to create heavy power and attacks to the Mediterranean till May 1941, the situation at Crete was much important for GB, but I can't see all this weapons at the Mediterranean. Even as Rommel was at the borderline of egypt at autum 1941 no weapons were there!
I realy doubt your agumentation and it would be much more difficult to get this weapon to a Mediterranean frontline with the Mediterranean sea and the suez canal in the hands of the german and the presence and power of the LW!

So relaistically from June to December 1941, under this sceanrio, you might see an additional 15 or 20 allied divisions in the delta, an additional 2500-3000 aircraft, pretty much a doubling of the Med Fleet.

Again, there was no Lend-Lease and no war with Japan till November and December 1941!
I realy doubt your arithmetic. Historical the war at North Africa was on it's high at December Janury 1941/42 and very very important for GB, but I can't see this weapons!
Also I realy doubt that GB or the dominion could train as much soldiers and pilots on this equipment and even ship them to the frontline half around the world and this all 1941!

Neither was Britain fully committed to the southern front. The majority of her army remained in England. The same for her air force and her navy. there were plenty of additional resources, bith combat and logistical, to pour into this TO if need be

Fact right, conclusion wrong! You can't underestimate the power from germany from Fance, Netherlands and Norway. GB must defend there Homeland, no way there will be plenty of a/c's, ships or troops for other frontlines!
And the army was in building, because the compulsory military service was coming slowly, most of the soldiers must be trained!

And unless the brits want to lose, or are incredibly dumb, they are going to respond on a like for like basis, call on her allies to move to a full war futting as well (which they could do, but didnt. These allies did that anyway, in 1942)

The historical facts from the Mediterranean frontline at 1941 (espicially Januar till May) are against your argumentation! The situation of GB at May 1941 at the Mediterranean was much more serious then in Summer 1942!

but even just counting germans only to british troops, the comparison is weighted in favour of the germans. they put more into the theatre historically than the british ever did, until 1943

Sorry but I can't take this seriously! Please name facts ressources and troops!

Ive spent over twenty years thinking about it, and participated in excercises similar to the obnes done at the RMC to test these theories. i am not just pulling this out of my rear end, it is based on observation of actual kriegspiel simulations

Me too

If you take Crete, immediately you can forget any assault of malta. And malta is nothng like Crete. Crete wqas defended by men armed with nothing better than rifles for the most part, but it cost the germans a bucket for both their airborne and their air transports. If you take Crete, you will not take malta in the same year. malta was defended by at first two full brigades, and then three, fully armed and fortified. Not as good as the australians at Tobruk, but good enough. Germans would have been cut to pieces IMO, exscept if they could have at least two full parachute divisions, about 700 transports, a workabloe amphibious plan and complete air supremacy.

Again the historical facts are against your argumentation!

From all my research and speak to german general staff members of the Bundeswehr, that were doing historical research, Crete and Malta could be taken at the same day at May 1941!

The X. Fliegerkorps (General Geisler) was at sizilien from Januar to June 1941 with 200-500 a/c's
At March 7 1941 Viceairmarshall Maynard reported that he can't support any longer the Wellington's and Sunderland's against the german fighter!
At the same day General Sir William Dobbie reported the german airattacks are that heavy, that Malta as Navy and aircraft base was near meaningless.
From March 1941 the people at Malta were without food supply, severe restrictions of food were ordered.
The garnison of Malta at May 1941 was 1 infantry Regiment and 8 infantry battalions and only 4 tanks with a few 3,7; 6 zoll guns and some 18 pounder guns!.

With one more Fliegerkorps the germans would have total air supermarcy and the 22. ID Airborne division was at hand at May 1941 without a war in the east! Also there were enough Ju 52 for crete and Malta at the same day!
So please tell me how on earth GB want to defend Malta, if historical they weren't able to defend crete!
And germany had the ressources and logistic to attack at the same day, if you doubt that, please explain the Denmark and Norway attack at 1940!

 

[DonL]

The trouble with your 5 elite divs idea at Tobruk, is that it takes the best part of a year to get them there, and in any event some of them are needed to contain the brits at the frontier. The best you can hope for is about 3 divs, and not all of them can attack at once as the germans found out historically. The lines of attack are very constricted.....the place is a natural fortress, and was guarded by troops even better than your so-called "elite" troops (dont believe me, ask romel, see what he said about the Australians at Tobruk...he gave up trying to beat them until they left the place). If the brits want to hold tobruk, it will be impossible to do that if properly garrisoned and competently defended

Yes but without supply I realy doubt they could fight! You need food and ammunition to fight and with Malta and Crete at german hands the whole Royal Navy will be bottled at Gibralter and Alexandria! Please explain how do you want to supply the Aussies at Tobruk at this circumstances?

Which gains them what. Raising a few security division, splitting your existing forces to make new weaker formations, raising garrison troops for the westwall does what to help you in a war that is more about logistics than rifles. The germans could not produce enough steel, enough trucks, enough tanks, enough ships, to undertake a war of this kind

That's an other statement that i can't take serious!
Between 120 and 180 Division are 60 x 16000 Men= 960000 more workers for the german economy, much more pilots much more steel for a/c's and submarines, but I think you don't get it!

 

[michaelmaltby]

Great photos, P.



MM

 

[parsifal]

Some notes on casualties

Britain and the commonwealth suffereed 220000 casualties....dead, wounded or missing. There were 14500 CW and brit deaths in the campaign. The Axis suffered between 620000 and 930000 depending on the source. The German feldgrau site says that 12000 Germans were killed and 90000 were captured or wounded to the end of 1942, only including the North African campaign. In crete and Greec they suffered additional casualties......By April '43 another 90000 had been captured. American casualties were just over 18000. The italians suffered about 25000 fatalities in the land campaign alone

The axis alsolost 70000 trucks, 2500 tanks over 8500 aircraft. At sea they lost most of the italioan navy, and about 1.5m tons of shipping. 60 Italian and 50 German U-Boats were lost

Not sure about British tank losses as yet, or the numbers of aircraft lost. Over Malta occupied the attentions of over 2000 Axis aircraft to just over 700 Allied, of which 329 were casualties to enemy fire. In exchange the Axis lost 689 aircraft, of which 225 were italian. not bad for an island "weakly defended".

 

[DonL]

My sources till May 12 1943:

Germans.: dead: 18594 missed:3400
Italians: dead: 13748 missed: 8821

Commenwealth: dead: 35476
USA: dead: 16500
France ?

 

[Vincenzo]

The Axis suffered between 620000 and 930000 depending on the source.

???

in all the war to come in North Africa for sea route around 260k men, an other 220k were there, few teens thousand come air route?


edit

i was in wrong the air route was most important that i thought. the men sent via air route come in around 280k (around 250k alone in '42-43).
i'm more interessed in the early war and i knewn the limited use of air trasport at time and so i thinked that use was limited for all the war but was not so.

 

[Jenisch]

Parsifal, do you think Germany would start to build airfields in the Mediterranean during the BoB in this scenario?

And let's not forgot that Britain would not be fighting alone in this scenario. The full US participation and all it's consequences from mid 1941 would be present as well.

 

[tyrodtom]

Why would America come in even earlier in this scenario. I would think that their support would be delayed, if they entered the war at all.

 

[davebender]

Why?

Nothing short of an American military attack on Europe or the surrounding waters would cause Germany to declare war on the USA. Not even the USN protecting British convoys and attacking German submarines in the western Atlantic. FDR had a lot of power for an American President but there were limits to what he could order without a Senate Declaration of War.