Could the Allies defeat Germany only with air power?

[Ratsel]

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

Yes that sounds correct. Would that be one of the reasons why Hitler was so fast as to declare war on the US? Hoping to ease the pressure of the Ost Front?
Thanks.

 

[Jenisch]

Actually, I think they were - the IJA always wanted it, and the Japanese considerate the Russians a treat. But the planned modernization of the IJA after Nomonhan would only be ready by 1942-43. Of course, without a Pacific war and resources for it. I even mentioned about the possibility of the Western Allies try form an alliance with Japan to mediate an ending of the war in China, and put pressure or even attack Stalin, in order to not let him take Europe in case this scenario happened.

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... 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."

And the Soviets had infiltrated the German embassy and intelligence network in Japan and so knew very clearly that Japan had no intention of moving against them .... but .... even with that intelligence, Stalin held off pulling reserves out of the far east until he needed them in front of Moscow in December, 1941.

MM

 

[Hop]

Taking the Med, even if the Germans had managed it, does not give access to oil fields. The oil fields were in Iran, Iraq etc. The Germans would need to reach the Persian Gulf, which is across 1,000 miles of mostly desert, with very poor roads.

This would be a repeat of North Africa, Germans fighting a thousand miles from their ports against the British tens of miles from theirs.

And if the Germans managed another miracle (on top of the miracle of winning in NA), what do they do with the oil? Build a pipeline across 1,000 miles of desert? (and hope it doesn't keep getting blown up). Send tankers down the Persian Gulf and around the Arabian peninsula? (Past British bases like Aden).

Controlling the Med gains Germany almost nothing. And it does very little to hurt Britain.

 

[DonL]

@ parsifal

First of all thank you for your compliment

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

I doesn't help your argument it only shows your agenda and how biassed you are!

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.

No effect in 1941 and no shortages at the beginning of the war! The lag of produktion from 1940-42 is an whole other story but have realy nothing to do with shortages, you should do some proper research.

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.

Yes and that is the reason why the Wehrmacht would be in Saudi Arabia at winter 1941/42 in this given scenario!

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.......

Sorry you don't get it! But I'm more convinced you don't want to get it!
We are talking about a scenario without war in the east (June 1941)and I have shown, that this would be lead to a whole other Mediterranean campaign starting at January 1941, with the total german military, technologie and logistic strenghts at this campaign to get the arabian oil

For all your other comments in this post (146), read my statement above and do some abstract thinking!

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

That's the next statement that shows how biassed you are. Sorry the thing with Tobruk and the general LW is basically useless at sea denial and a net liability in terms of supply is ridiculous! You can question the GB and Commonwealth boys at Mediterranean Sea from January till May 1941 if they agree with you, I realy doubt this.

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

LOL!!!!
You should look at a map and tell us were the LW and the german navy were based? Have I said that france, netherlands and norway are fighting GB? I have said that GB must defend it's homeland and is pretty outflanked!

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

Opposed to you I can do mathematics. Your statement is in

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

relation to what?
The german economy, numbers absolutley, the GB economy or GB economy with Lend-Leas from the USA.....etc....?
Sorry an other biassed statement!

To Malta:

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.

Wrong, there were massive problems with the malta people because of the food shortage, they were striking to do cleanup efforts, after bombing attacks since April 1941. With an other Fliegerkorps at April at Sicily there would be no single ton supply to Malta till a german attack!
Besides I doubt the heavily supported artillery for ground troops!

Next the LW had 1300 Ju 52 transportes in service at May 1941. There were more then enough transports from italian to get troops from Sicily to Malta.

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.

I see, they are germans to dumb to make their homework and do a proper research!
These mens are professionals and have done a lot of research to "play" this sccenario with the right numbers.

Here I'm out, believe your myths about Malta, North Africa and Saudi Arabian and feel free to claim and believe that GB and the Commewealth can defend and take victory at the Mediterranean campaign against the whole military strenghts of the Wehrmacht and LW at 1941!

 

[DonL]

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.

I see, please explain why germany should have ground troops of 180 Divisions without a war in the east in this given Scenario?

100-120 Division would be enough! That would be ( for 120 Divisionen) 960000 less men to the army.
More then 2,7 millionen were kiled in action at the war in the east.

Feel free to do the mathematic on your self, what this imply to german economics, pilotes in training and abstract please the whole war would be at sea and at air, bevor an invasion would perhaps start. And then think again about your above statement!

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.

See my statement above and do some abstract thinking!

 

[Ratsel]

DonL you won't convince anybody who dosn't want to believe, becouse they refuse to see how much the Ost front was draining German resources of men and material. The US England alone could not win a unconditional surrender ( NOTE I said unconditional surrender) of Germany without russias help. period. It would take the Nuclear solution for Germanys unconditional surrender which the US would dare not use in Europe. And for those who think that the lowlands / Canada / NZ / Australia could make a difference, well this isn't WWI trench warfare we're talking about. The war at the very least would have went much longer, perhaps ending in a conditional surrender of Germany.

 

[Jenisch]

The US England alone could not win a unconditional surrender ( NOTE I said unconditional surrender) of Germany without russias help. period.

And vice versa as well. This is what most people forgot when talking about the Soviet importance. The war was won by the Allies, not only the Soviets like many like to spread today.

 

[DonL]

Which member in this forum?

You were the person with the if question!? And then at the middle of the thread you create a attacking UDSSR? See your posts above!

You should decide what you want!

 

[Jenisch]

Nobody. I created this topic to see opinions if the Western Allies could bring unconditional surrender to the European Axis by themselfs. Because I'm inclined to think the Soviets alone could not. And a popular view today is that the Soviets would probably won the war alone.

 

[Sagittario64]

I dont think the outcome would be any different. Cause Hitler is still in charge. He was already backwards in military strategy, and only with the grace of his generals did any of germany's conquests come to fruition. Britain would still have accidentally bombed berlin and then hitler would order the ceasing of attacks on the RAF and commence the terror bombing of the civilian english population, leading britain to win the battle of britain. western ground forces only directly threatened germany in late 1944, and before they played indirect roles up until then, by which germany was already in the process of losing the war on the western front

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... a popular view today is that the Soviets would probably won the war alone"

Popular view ??? .... where have I been hiding, I have never heard that claim except by Soviets downplaying Lend Lease. I have heard the view that Stalin was planning to attack Hiter sometime after October, 1941, but there is no guarantee that such an attack would have resulted in victory. Look how badly Finland turned out for the Soviets in 1939 .

As for the "optimism" about German capabilities in a war against The Alies (minus the USSR) ..... anything is imaginable, I guess. but Parsifal raises most telling arguments about German lack of control in the Mediterranean, and quite frankly, the Nazi war machine was seriously f****ed up in 1939 and didn't solve its problems throughout the war ... even with slave labour. It was an endless process of re-prioritizing -- artillery shells, syn fuel from coal, steel, chrome, alloys, food. Germany had great problems with food supply and unproductive agriculture -- had had since the time of Bismarck and unification.

I just don't see any German oil coming from Saudi Arabia -- mostly because very little was being produced until after 1945. And Iran .... tankers or pipeline ...take your pick. Both would have been highly vulnerable.

Show me a plan for Nazi Germany having control of the sea lanes -- because Britain and then the Allies had it, and never lost it. Everything Hitler needed was in the USSR. Was he prepared to power-share with Stalin for the duration of the Third Reich ..? Hardly.

MM

 

[parsifal]

Sorry you don't get it! But I'm more convinced you don't want to get it!
We are talking about a scenario without war in the east (June 1941)and I have shown, that this would be lead to a whole other Mediterranean campaign starting at January 1941, with the total german military, technologie and logistic strenghts at this campaign to get the arabian oil

You have shown nothing except that is your opinion, as my position is my opinion. You have not shown anything, except that you dont understand the inherent logistic difficulties the Germans faced, that the med campaign started january 1941 anyway (thats when the first units to the southern front began transfer and the first air battles started anyway. any movement of airpower earlier than that, any movement of the logistic elements before that reduces the pressure on England on the home front, and evokes a response that is appropriate).

If the Germans resolve to direct their total efforts to the south, that means no U-Boat war, no blitz, no threat of invasion, no attempts at tonnage war by the surface fleet, no defences over the Reich, no defences along the Coast. Even allowing for some rationalization of that statement...ie maintaining the minimum necesary for defence in the western hemisphere, will still decrease the pressure on the brits in western europe and enable a response to be formulated. Greater committment to the South by the germans will take time to develop, despite your denials, because of the poor levels of infrastructure there, no involvement in the east will cause a rethink of strategic priorities for Britain. For every action there will be an equal and opposite reaction. The grand offensive to the south will not achieve german access to oil, and is unlikely to achieve much more than was ever achieved historically, except with a massive and radical adjstment in German production. as soon as that is assumed, one has to also assume a similar radical and corresponding adjustment to british/allied production priorities.

I get it, i get it very well. I also get that so many aspects of your plan are unexplained, or poorly explained, or simply ignore strategic realities. making plans on the assumption that youir opponent will react in a certain way beneficial to your objectives is rule 101 of any tactical or strategic assesment, as to what not to do in war. Once again, I suggest you go back, look at your plan and try and think what might go wrong with it, and what you could do to counter that. apart from assuming your enemy would react in a certain way, or not at all, or could not react at all.

I will repeat my basic position. War against Germany wiothout russia (for either side) is unlikely or uncertain as far as unconditional surrender is concerned. Conditional surrender is the most likley outcome. Assumptions about German ability to break out to the south are pipe dreams, with or without full german concentration of effort. I agree with hop, highly unlikley to work, and even less likley to produce anything of any strategic significance for germany. least of all access to a viable source of oil.

I agree, we are about done on this subject

 

[DonL]

If the Germans resolve to direct their total efforts to the south, that means no U-Boat war, no blitz, no threat of invasion, no attempts at tonnage war by the surface fleet, no defences over the Reich, no defences along the Coast. Even allowing for some rationalization of that statement...

Yes we are done!

 

[Jenisch]

".... a popular view today is that the Soviets would probably won the war alone"

Popular view ??? .... where have I been hiding, I have never heard that claim except by Soviets downplaying Lend Lease.

Davidz Glantz is one of the most popular Eastern Front historians in the West, and he loves to downplay the Western Allied contributions in the critical level. According to him, the Soviets would likely won even without LL and bombing, just would take more time and casualities.

 

[parsifal]

The very same debates that that have raged about the difficulties for the allies, less the soviets, would apply to the scenario of the soviets less the allies.

Just as an opinion, I dont believe the Soviets were capable of winning on their own 9which is diffrent to what glantz says. he says that the Soviets were capable of winning on the eastern front without lend lease. That I do agree with). Why would the Soviets win with or without lend lease. because if the lend lease for russia was not used by the Russians, it would have been used elsewhere, to good effect. The resources are not lost, they are just used at other points in a world wide conflict

 

[Jenisch]

Parsifal, Glantz is know in the critics corner for his pro Soviet views. Why say the Soviets "could likely won in the East without Lend Lease and bombing". What is the point, it wasn't a World War? Why such specific claims that can as good as nothing in the overall considerations?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Alright everyone, Njaco already gave a warning about staying civil. No more warnings are to be given. People will spend some time at the beach if it gets out of hand.

 

[parsifal]

Dunno. Lend Lease definately had a massive effect on the Soviets......foofstuffs, transport, aircraft, tanks, you name it, and in huge quantities. maybe the effects are critical after all. Its hard to say. but the flip side is that if those resources arent used by the Soviets, they are going to be used elsewhere. As an example, say the Lend Lease to Russia equates to 100 Soviet Division at the front, if transferred back to the west, and given to say the Indians, we could see another 40 or 50 Indian Divs in the fight, either ETO and/or PTO. What effect could that have?

 

[Jenisch]

That's why I don't agreed with claims the Soviet Union was decisive. Really, no politics in my view, its just because it was a World War. Everything was conected. The 80% of the German Army casualities in the East were directly connected with the Lend Lease, with the 1000 U-boats the Germans built to fight in the Atlantic, with the LW being most in the West (and lost there), with the divertion of resources due to the bombing, the German transporte infraestructure being hit by the bombing, the 700,000 German troops in Norway in Africa, and not to mention the 1 million of Italins in Africa. Just to imaginate, the Germans could have used the Italians as a police force to deploy 700,000 men against Leningrad, seize Leningrad, patrol the occupied areas and then together with the liberated men from Army Group North, put almost 2 million men against Moscow in the critical period. And much other things.

I will post two factors regarding aviation I judge critical, first LW losses:

4.06 times as many aircraft were lost in combat in the West than were lost in the East, a ratio reasonably close to Groehler's 3.41 for all "losses". The most chilling statistic for the JG 26 pilots appears in the sortie data. An airplane flying a combat mission in the West was 7.66 times more likely to be destroyed than one on a similar mission in the East. It is clear that the burden of sacrifice was borne by the Luftwaffe aircrew on the Western Front and over the Reich, not on the Eastern Front.

Second, Lease Lease fuel: Oil of Russia : www.oilru.com : No. 2, 2011 / A HIGH-OCTANE WEAPON FOR VICTORY

That's why I hate people just trowing crude numbers when talking about the Russian front.

To be fair, the situation could have been different for the Russians, who knows, like for the Germans in the situation you was defending Parsifal. But I belive the Allied joint effort was crucial. And the claims of the Russians or Anglo-Americans that their side was decisive, have pure political interests in my view.