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
davebender
1st Lieutenant
After December 7th, 1941 the American public were burning for revenge against Japan, not Germany. IMO we would have stayed out of Europe even longer if the German Government hadn't foolishly declared war.
Wasn't Hiltler gambling that Russia would declare war on Japan? iirc.
tom,
as opposed to what? Hitler declared war after the PH attack. before, he had no desire to do so.
answer for below this post:
" As I already pointed you, one possibility for this would be the same one that got the US into WWI; Germans get too arrogant and try to dictate where and with whom the US can trade, using the U-boat fleet as a threat. "
best answer for why the US got involved in WWI:
the Lusitania enigma..
The passenger ship referred to above, the RMS Lusitania, was sunk in May 1915, and the US went to war against Germany in April 1917. In other words, about 23 months passed between the two. The sinking of the Lusitania helped to turn American opinion against Germany, but it is certainly not the only reason for US involvement. It is far too remote. Most historians agree that it was not a single influence that provoked the US to declare war; rather, it was a confluence of many factors.
•Unrestricted submarine warfare: the Germans sunk the Lusitania which was carrying innocent civilians (along with supplies and weapons for England)
•The Zimmerman note: an encoded telegram sent from Germany to Mexico. It stated that if Mexico invaded the US they would get back some of their land. fortunetly Britain, our ally intercepted the message and cracked the code in time to warn us
•Economic issues: the US had invested over $2.6 billion in the war. If the allied powers lost US weren't ever going to get that money back.
•Russian revolution: the Russians withdrew from the war because they were having a revolution in their own country. They also signed a peace treaty with Germany. This allowed the US to make it a fight against Communism, and make it a "war for Democracy".
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #145
As I already pointed you, one possibility for this would be the same one that got the US into WWI; Germans get too arrogant and try to dictate where and with whom the US can trade, using the U-boat fleet as a threat.
By mid-1941, the US was already 'neutral in favor of the Commonwealth', with a great deal of assistance sent in the form of Lend-Lease; this was already a source of enormous irritation to Hitler, and would have become a greater one if the US provided Britain and the rest of the Commonwealth with the sustenance to continue defying him.
Frankly, in mid-1941, I don't think the US would enter or Hitler declare war. But until the end of the year, with the much bigger flow of supplies to Britain, I don't find this unrealistic. Specially Hitler declaring war.
In fact, this topic is just about a hypotetic Anglo-American war with Germany. Therefore, I will respectfully ask to those who don't agree with the theme, to retire from the discussion. Because you are disrespecting me desconsiderating the proposal.
By mid-1941, the US was already 'neutral in favor of the Commonwealth', with a great deal of assistance sent in the form of Lend-Lease; this was already a source of enormous irritation to Hitler, and would have become a greater one if the US provided Britain and the rest of the Commonwealth with the sustenance to continue defying him.
Frankly, in mid-1941, I don't think the US would enter or Hitler declare war. But until the end of the year, with the much bigger flow of supplies to Britain, I don't find this unrealistic. Specially Hitler declaring war.
In fact, this topic is just about a hypotetic Anglo-American war with Germany. Therefore, I will respectfully ask to those who don't agree with the theme, to retire from the discussion. Because you are disrespecting me desconsiderating the proposal.
Last edited:
parsifal
Colonel
no, the blockade was from day1, the effects also were immediate. Germany suffereed shortages from the very beginning of the war, which was a big reason her production lagged. Not well known but in March 1941, the iron ore convoys from Sweden suffered the loss of over 50000 tons of shipping due to various British actions, that a big deal for a nation with only 1.5 million tons of shipping. There were shortages in fuel for the italians, the main players, from the very beginning of the war. germany suffered its first fuel crisis in early 1942. Unless you are saying that the Russians would be continuing to supply the germans after the end of 1941....a highly unlikley event, the germans are in supply of raw materials difficulties from the very start.
Of course imports are onl;y half the equation. The Germans also needed access to export markets, and couldnt get them. This made revenue a constant and increasing problem as their main sources of income....loot from the occupied territiries dried up.
So no, the blockade made a difference from the beginning
Sorry but incorrect. the first offensive directed against by the British with the Germans present was Battleaxe, started in June 1941. Not a success, but neither can it be called a failure either. best described as a stalemate
Crusader very nearly cost rommel the entire DAK, and forced him to abandon Cyrenaica, with heavy losses. The battle was hard fought and close, but the retreat cost the Axis heavily. This battle started November 30 and continued through to late December
April 1941 to December 1941. Near constant action all of them defeated by the 9 aus Division plus supporting units. a particualr highlight was the battle of the Red Line 13April to 20 April, saw both regiments of the 5th Light defeated with over 1500 casualties and the loss af more than 20 tanks. This was an all German defeat, no possibility to blame the italians here ( they actually performed better than the germans in their simulataneous battle taking place 20km to the west) The defenders were the 20 Aus Infantry Brigade. 13th April 1941 saw a sustained attack by tanks and infantry of the 5th Light on the eastern flank of the besieged forces of Tobruk. Groups of the Australian infantry left their positions to deal with German infantry at the perimeter wire. Lieutenant Mackell led six men forward, including Corporal John Edmondson. by the time it was allover, there were about 1500 German casualties and 20 tanks, lost for less than 200 australian casualties. It was the beginning of a long list of citations and battle honours for the Australians, and it was fitting thet their opening score had been inflicted on the germans and not the less deserving Italians. From April until the December retreat, the battles in front of Tobruk were the focal point for Rommel, occupying the attentions of more than half his forces, and nearly half his German forces. He was never abale to get anywhere in that time frame. Whilst Tobrul remained under Allied control, Rommel could not move forward. It was THE battle that saved North Africa
if that is not a stunning and decisive victory I will not be able to convince you.......
For your buildup plan to work there there is no possibility of getting additional units to North Africa until after June 1941. The Italians were fully occupied getting 5th Light, 15th Pz and Ariete acxross the ditsch in that time there was no spare capacity, no port space, not enough supply to get the additional axis forces across the ditch before then. The earliest you are looking at to get your five division force across, supplied and into action is late 1941.
Between July and December 1941 there were three major convoys from Britain to Russia, and about 8 minor deliveries. The biggest of these were "Dervish I" and Dervish II which arrived in September. Dervish I had 14 merchant ships and Dervish II had seven ships. PQ-1 which commenced after the Dervish convoys and arrived Novemnber 1941 (perhaps this is the convoy you are referring to.....it was nowhere near the first convoy to arrive) had 7 ships attached. I have so far counted over 35 ship deliveries to the Soviet Union from July through to December. I go9t all this information, incidentally, from a German site http://www.wlb-stuttgart.de/seekrieg/41-03.htm....which you can verify for yourself. Yopu see, in additiona to American Lend Lease there was a mountain of stuff given over by the brits to the Soviets, far more in the beginning than was being sent by the Americans
I dont know how much 35 ships can carry, but its a lot. Just one ship of the tiger convoys that was lost, the Empire Song (9300 BRT) had embarked 57 tanks, 10 aircraft and 35 trucks embarked when she was lost. There were 790 ships needed to support 8th Army just before alamein, representing over 3million tons of shipping. Thats an average displacement per ship af about 5000 tons, if the Russian convoys were simlar then those 35 ships were carrying around 900 tanks, or equivalent.
Absolutely. there were 188 aircraft in malaya, 424 frontline aircraft in Australia, and other bits and pieces everywhere else.
I am not going to do all the research for you, Ive already done that for myself, but to give you a bit of a headstart I will give you a thumbnail OB for the Australians
In theatee. AIF XXX: 6, 7, 9 XX AIF
Northern Cmd; 11 XX 1, 7, 29, Bde, 2 Cav III
Eastern Cmd: 1Cav XX, 1 Inf XX, 2 Inf XX, 1 AA Bde, 1 -5 RAA Bdes (corps artillery), ATC (arm trainng corps...a brigade sized training unit), 53 Inf Bn (embarking for NG), 7 Garrison bns, 5 Bns in the tng establishment 3 companies of engineers, 2 x AT bns
Southern Cmd: 2 Cav XX, 3, 4 Inf XX, 6 cav Bde, 3, 12 Inf Bde, 2, 6, 10 RAA Bdes, 7x companies of engineers,13 cav Bde, 39 , 12 Inf Bns
Western Cmd: 13, 44 Indpt Inf Bdes, 3, 7 RAA, 2 AA bde, 3 x Ind Inf Bns, 1 x AT Bn, 1 x Eng company
Darwin MD: 1 Bde Gp
NG force : equivalent of 5 Bns of Infantry
Strategic Reserve: 1st armoured, 23 Ind Bde AIF
Malayan Cmd: 8th Div AIF
Not all the manpower was permanently in uniform, but all ranks had reived full training before being returned to the workforce. after the outbreak of hostilities, it was about a week to put the manpower into the formations.
Being trained and waiting for equipment. The III Indian Corps in Malaya had been used as a cadre for Palforce in the middle east
Britain and the dominions raised a mass army in wwii....just in case, but the experiences of WWI made them reluctant to commit to a full ground based war. they wanted to fight in the air and at sea. Casualties were the main concern
You seriously need to study your history. The defenders of Crete were evacuees from greec, having lost all their heavy equipment in the Greek Campaign. The formations at home (aus) were trained, but lacked equipment, plus there was insufficient shipping tomaintain the million tons plus in the far east, AND increase the ground forces in the Middle East. Without Japan, that million tons gets released....i daresay the now unemployed Japanese merchant fleet is also up for lease to be honest so shipping shortages are no longer the problem they were for Britain
parsifal
Colonel
What about the tiger Convoy, arrived late may 1941, with 238 tanks (matilda and crusaders embarked. There were masses of planes and tanks ariving all the time. For example, in terms of air reinforcements, the Desert Air force (not the theatre) received the Following in Autumn 1941
Aug:6 Beaf, 27 hurri, 70 p-40, 12 Bft, 66 Blen, 30 Maryland, 14 Well
Sep: 16 Beaf, 160 Hurri, 23 P-40, 3 Bft, 25 Blen, 3 Maryland, 13 Well
Oct : 8 bftr, 15 Fulmar, 81 Hurri, 16 P-40, 3 B-17D, 3 Bft, 36 blen, 7 A-20, 17 Well
According to CFNA they received anough new equipment to rebuild 3 Divs from cadre in that 3 months period. There were approximately 1500 shipp arrivals from England, which i estimate were carrying over a million tons of war material for the WDF. You have got to be kidding.
As the situation deterioated in the Autmn of 1941, both the Indians and the Australians began to withdraw their forces from the frontline, regroup, re-equip and train them for home operations in the Delta. For both the Australian 6 and 7 Divs, after their operations in Crete Greece and Levant, both divs were pulled out of the line and refitted in this way. The Indiands were busy building their 9th and 10th armies in the Middle East and pulled several of their Divs out of the line for similar overhaul. The main reason this was done because of concerns that the germans might break through in the theatre via the caucasus. Such cooncerns would not exist, so two entire armies might well be released for more frontline operations. 4th Indian, incidentally trounced the Germans at Alamein and after, so they were a formidable lot, that included gurkhas incidentally.....just in case you try and make some stupid comments about their committment or capability.
I
I know that you do, but the railnet is simply not ther, and the shipping capability is also short. Port capacities are low except for Aloex, and Gib and Suez. The Germans were going nowhere until they captured tobruk, and they couldnt do that, so they were stuck basically . The response to "we will capture suez" is "no, you wont, because you cant. General LW is basically useless at sea denial, and a net liability in terms of supply
!
Again you re wrong. err, lend lease was signed in April 1941, and before that cash carry was fom the very beginning. In addition ther was British lend lease to Russia fromm July 1941 on. The US is not the only country that gave substantial aid to the russians. without that drain, far more shipping, far more material, can be sent to the ME. as for no war with Japan until december, true, but substantial reinforcement were being rushed to the thaetre from January 1941, and substantial ground forces witheld and trained to try and deter the japanese. With that threat removed, none of that is needed.
There were three things that prevented a greater committment, not that your basic statement is even close to right (but i will get to that in a minute). Firstly, there was an acute shortage of shipping, which got worse because of the british committment to the Russians, and also due to the committments in the Far east. take away the Russian, take away the japanese and whole lot of shipping suddenly becomes avalable. More, a whole of US shipping also becomes available, because instead of shipping to China, the yanks are shipping to Egypt. Secondly, without the need for Soviet aid, suddnly a whole lot of material becomes available for use in the ME. Your starting assumption is dead wrong, thats the problem. Subnstantial aid was being shipped to the Russians fromalmost the very beginning. And that comes from a german source......(which I find hilarious...what are you going to say now....i cannot wait). Thirdly, not mentioned is all the equipment, shipping, manpower diverted to the far east by both the US and britain. It was substantial. It was lost very quickly, but it was still shipped to the far east rather than the Middle East.
I know its hard for you Eurocentrics to believe, but it did happen. There were 12+ divs in Australia, plus all that other colonial stuff I mentioned before. Do some elementary research beyond what SS totenkopf didnot do, and you might be surprised
No fact right audience stubborn and not listening. What are you talking about. As far as miltary trainng was concerned, the british Army was right up there. In 39-40 the brts raised more than 50Divs and the dominions additional units. these formations all went into training. The problem was equipping them, not training them. Once the initial call ups were done at the beginning of the war, there were only limited further callups needed. It wasnt like Germany that had to constantly eat into its mapower reserves, mostly because of hitlers insatiable appetite for more and more divisions.
How on earth can you claim that france, the Netherlands, Norway were on germanys side. apart from a few crackpots that decided they wanted to put on some jackboots and black uniforms, and masquerade that they were soldiers and not butchers, the majority of the populations were firmly against the germans. ever heard of the resistance???? When Spitsbergen was raided, all but 14 of the norwegaians out of the 1400 there sided with the british. This happened allover Europe. Europeans were NOT on the side of germans. even Germanys allies hated them. you have got to be kidding
What serious situation was threatening any of the direct national intersts of India, New Zealnd or Australi in 1941. Take a look at a map for christs sake....they are half a hemispehere away. Then have a look at Japan, and exactly where they got to. They actually invaded India and Australa. thats the difference. We are not the playthings of the british, though we were their allies, and there was interdependance. We were more concerned about local issues than German aggression in 1941. To us, and the other two Pacific Dominions, the number one threat was Japan in 1941. Take that away, and a whole lot of potential force gets released.
I know its hard when long cherished beliefs in German invincibility are exposed as just myth, but the facts are the facts. They are the fact that i have seen. Easy first look for you, have a peek at wiki before saying anything more on this. Then you might want to graduate up to something like Feldgrau something from your own country (shock horror) , and then to someone like Dunnigan or Berg. Maybe you might even learn something.
parsifal
Colonel
Firstly the malta garrison from the end of 1940 was as follows, according to my source material
12th Field Regt RA
4th Coastal Regt RA
1st Royal Malta Artillery Regt RA
26th Defence Regt
4th, 7th 10th Heavy AA Regt's RA
2nd 11th Royal Malta Heavy AA Regt's RA
4th Searchlight Regt RA
36th, 65th 74th Light AA Regt's RA
3rd Royal Marine Light AA Regt RA
According to Niehorster the combat formations wre as follows
The 1st Malta Bde was formed on July 14th 1940 Known as the Southern Infantry Brigade before that, and originally called the Malta Infantry Brigade
The 2nd Malta Bde was formed on August 7th 1940 and was known originally as the Northern Infantry Brigade. Also the 2nd Buffs served with the Bde from 22/02/41-12/05/42
The 3rd Malta Bde was formed on July 27th 1941 and was known originally as the Central Infantry Brigade. Also the 1st DLI served with the Bde from 27/01/42-12/05/42
The 4th Malta Bde was formed on May 13th 1942 and was known originally as the Western Infantry Brigade
The two brigades in existence as at May 1941 were heavily supported by artillery, and whilst the islands offensive capability was severely affected by the incessant and unrelevting LW attacks, its defensive capabilities were unimpaired. This too was reported by Dobbie, but you omitted to report that for some reason.
Now according to Ian Hogg the defences at Maleme at the time of its attack was defended by a NZ Bde and some AA Bns. The AA gps were quickly overrun, and the fight really got down to an infantry firefight between gp meindl and the new Zealanders. The New Zealanders were completely without arillery. Despite this the New Zealanders almost won. It cost the germans over 3000 men and 170 transports to defeat the new Zealanders which really didnt happen until the reinforcement by elements of the 5 mountain Div. but to achieve that victory, it took the commitment of all 500 trasnsports plus the 150 or so gliders they had. Anything less and they would not have enough strength to win the battle. Now, in malta, the 22ID would be up against propery entrenched and supported Infantry, but more to the point there would be no transports to get them across to the battle. Unless there are additional transports that I or anybody else except you are aware of, its impossible for this to happen. If you have supporters in the modern german army that say its possible, they are wrong to carry out such a mission simultaneoulsy, they are mistaken. So many transports, and so many paratroopers were lost taking crete, and malta was so substantially reinforced just after Crete, that I simply am flabbergasted that you wouls seriously make this claim.
parsifal
Colonel
Unlikley. there were only German military missions allowed in until late October. Remember German support services were limited.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Without Great Britain capitulation, and with US entry, the outcome, except maybe time period, would not have changed. Germany would never have been able to compete with the US in materiel output, even if Japan had been involved in the war. In 1941, before the US was in the war, total US aircraft output was twice Germany's and even fighter output was slightly higher. In 1942, US aircraft output doubled, Germany's went up 36% with US fighter output twice that of Germany. In 1943, US aircraft output again doubled, Germany went up 60%, again US fighter output was twice Germanys, and so-on.
There is no reason to believe that German technology nor productivity would have improved just because there was no war with USSR. Advanced technologies such as the Me-262 and XXI sub would not have appeared any faster or in more volume. There is no reason the Battle of the Atlantic would have differed in any way since no significant naval resources were spent against the Soviets.
Manpower levels were always on the side of the Allies.
War in Mediterranean, Africa or Middle East would only be sideshows with significant Axis movement and successes in the early war years.
With Great Britain, engorged with the full might of USAAF resources of fighters and bombers, being unsinkable and unassailable, and invasion of Europe far more risky, the war could have easily moved more terrible phase, fire bombing of Germany. If so, by the end of 1944, almost all of major German cities would be smoking ruins with millions of dead. Germany may have controlled the land but, with only hollow shell of a homeland left, all would be lost. Perhaps the war would have ended earlier.
Even if Japan had attacked the US, I do not see a change. The Navy could easily have been given the task of isolating and starving the Japan homeland and the above Army resources could still be dedicated to Europe.
Note that I have said nothing, except implied in manpower, about the asset contributions of Britain, Canada, South Africa, Australia, Brazil, etc., all substantial.
There is no reason to believe that German technology nor productivity would have improved just because there was no war with USSR. Advanced technologies such as the Me-262 and XXI sub would not have appeared any faster or in more volume. There is no reason the Battle of the Atlantic would have differed in any way since no significant naval resources were spent against the Soviets.
Manpower levels were always on the side of the Allies.
War in Mediterranean, Africa or Middle East would only be sideshows with significant Axis movement and successes in the early war years.
With Great Britain, engorged with the full might of USAAF resources of fighters and bombers, being unsinkable and unassailable, and invasion of Europe far more risky, the war could have easily moved more terrible phase, fire bombing of Germany. If so, by the end of 1944, almost all of major German cities would be smoking ruins with millions of dead. Germany may have controlled the land but, with only hollow shell of a homeland left, all would be lost. Perhaps the war would have ended earlier.
Even if Japan had attacked the US, I do not see a change. The Navy could easily have been given the task of isolating and starving the Japan homeland and the above Army resources could still be dedicated to Europe.
Note that I have said nothing, except implied in manpower, about the asset contributions of Britain, Canada, South Africa, Australia, Brazil, etc., all substantial.
- Thread starter
- #151
Thanks for mention my motherland, davparlr. We would surely have send our planned 300,000 men insteated of the historical 25,000. Or perhaps even more. And I beat our vast natural resources would be much more employed against the Axis (Hitler attacked our merchant shipping just because this), with the Americans investing much more in our industry.
Here's an American wartime propaganda movie about us:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg7lohLxUqo
=D
Here's an American wartime propaganda movie about us:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg7lohLxUqo
=D
Last edited:
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Yup, in this scenerio Germany will foolishly declare war on the USA during December 1941 just as they did historically. The first American military units will arrive in the British Isles during the spring of 1942.
That leaves Britain alone vs Germany for almost an entire year.
That leaves Britain alone vs Germany for almost an entire year.
Jenisch since your figures about American casaulties WW2 and Vietnam were so far from the truth , I think maybe a lot of your perceptions might be based on more of the same bad research.
I think it is probably best if I do withdraw from this discussion.
I think it is probably best if I do withdraw from this discussion.
- Thread starter
- #154
I can be wrong in a thing or other like everyone isn't?
My point with Vietnam was not even in the numbers, but that the American people accepted the entering in such a war. Fight Nazi Germany was something much more "just" than fight in Vietnam .
If you want to pull out of the discussion, go ahead.
My point with Vietnam was not even in the numbers, but that the American people accepted the entering in such a war. Fight Nazi Germany was something much more "just" than fight in Vietnam .
If you want to pull out of the discussion, go ahead.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #155
Yes. But a much stronger Britain supplied by the US and the Empire, and without necessity to send much resources to the Pacific. Because even with some risk of a Japanese attack, it would be better take the risk of lost the Pacific colonies than risk let the Nazi megalomaniac take the Middle East oil. And Britain would only need to fight a defensive war. Churchill never desconsiderated the possibility of an entering of Stalin, together with Roosevelt.
Last edited:
The Germans were in N.Africa becouse of Italy's bumbling ways, a German Wehrmacht bailout is the correct wording. Arab oil fields would have been a nice asset to have for Germany. Otherwise, for oil resouces.. Operation Barbarosa comes to mind. IIRC.
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
Good point dave.
However Britain was never really alone. We had our Commonwealth allies flocking to fight the Nazi's and the occupied countries resistance movements.
I take my hat off to those people. Brave beyond brave.
Germany battered us but, after the withdrawal of the LW from the BoB the threat of invasion faded. The next threat was the U boat menace but, that is another story.
We held on and WW2 became a 'people's war' that would do whatever was necessary to defend our Island.
John
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
I agree with you but since Japan was an ally of Germany, Roosevelt would have more support in his help for Britain and aid would most likely increased putting more pressure on Germany to respond ala WWI.
I see Germany putting a lot of pressure on Britain in Africa and Mediterranean during this time period but not really threatening the home land, and this was key.
- Thread starter
- #159
Even in the case Germany captures the Middle East oil, I see the Grand Alliance being formed. Stalin would attack Germany with it's massive forces; thousands of T-34 tanks (that perhaps the Germans would not even not had an ansewer in this scenario), millions of soldiers and thousands of planes. The subsequent relief of pressure from the Western Allies would allow them an amphibius assault in Europe. But the problem would be were, and if, Stalin would stop. With his country not suffering like did historically, uncle Joe could have been much more ambituous.
Last edited:
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Actually, I think Hitler was expecting Japan, as an ally to declare war on Russia. However, being spanked once by Zhukov, Japan was not interested in another go at the soviets
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
