Groundhog Thread v. 2.0 - The most important battle of WW2

That's BS Udet.

Sure the German's beat the Brits when they had at least equivalent logistics, air superiorty, tank support, or all of these factors in their favor. But that was not going to be the case for Seelowe. The German army on the beaches would only have had light arms, no vehicles of any kind, and extemely limited logistical support if any. They'd have come ashore after 30 hours of sitting in barges, which means most of them would be very sick from the get-go. They'd have been scattered along the shoreline at night with no communciations and no officer core to lead them.

And that's the ones who made it to shore. Most would not have. Most would have drowned in the channel. To prevail the Germans would have had to get at the very least a few hundred thousand men onshore within the first two weeks, and to do this, they'd have suffered at least twice that number of losses, probably more, and Britain would still need to be conquered. This would have pretty much taken the heart out of Germany's ability to fight elsewhere for at least a couple of years.

German success was based upon superior mechanization, superior logistical support, superior command and control, and air-superiority. They lacked all of these things for Seelowe.

=S=

Lunatic

Udet, you haven't a clue on about the ground battles. Obviously.

Fall Gelb - 350, 000 BEF acting as support to the European armies. The BEF were the only ones to defeat the Germans in the Battle of Arras. Collapsing flanks from the French and Belgians, plus lack of equipment forced a withdrawal.

Norway, outstanding victories by the British. Capturing Narvik and keeping the ore supplies from Sweden rolling. Pulled out because of Germanys attack on France.

Greece, few British troops sent out. Purely to aid the Greeks in fighting the Italians. This is after the Greeks had allowed it. Evacuated after a numercial superior German force attacked.

Crete, an under-equipped, battered, tired British and Greek staging point for a trip back to England. Three AA batteries to cover the entire island. First German Naval attack wave, obliterated. German paratroopers suffer over 25% losses even with air superiority after the RAF pulled out.

Britain held the Med. Fighting against the Luftwaffe, Regina Aeronautica, Italian and French navies. Malta never fell, and the Royal Navy constantly disrupted Afrika supply lines.

Rommels initial arrival to Africa made good use of the British stretched lines, after smashing the 6:1 advantage Italians while capturing 130,000 with a loss of 1200 men dead or injured. Rommel was lucky on countless occasions, and failed three times to take Tobruk.

The German Army had a numerical superiority in all thearters, against the British, they engaged in. The Germans did have superior tactics but even against those odds the British held on.
The fight across the channel is far different from the armour operations across France, Greece and North Africa. You have to get the tanks to Britain first, how? The Royal Navy could easily destroy the Kreigsmarine and invasion fleet. For a start, the Royal Navy had aircraft carriers something the Germans did not have. The Germans would have been slaughtered on the beaches, full stop.

Honestly, I don't see how they'd ever have gotten to the beaches. The river barges and rafts they intended to use were unable to withstand anything above stage 2 seas, ie: 10 knots and 2 foot waves. They could only move at 2-3 knots in a current 5 knots strong. They were to be released far to the north of the target beaches, and then over 30 hours cross 65-85 miles through the channel.

First off, the chances were good that after launching this flotilla in seas calm enough to do so, the conditions of the channel which are known to change without warning would simply have swamped them sometime along their 30 hour journey, resulting in a near total loss. Second, all it would take would be one or two fast moving destroyers or torpedo boats to get in amongst the barges and their wakes would swamp them, again resulting in a near total loss.

The Luftwaffe' could not defend them, they could not operate effectively at night against naval vessels. U-boats cannot stop fast moving surface ships at night either. The Kreigsmarine surface fleet was badly outnumbered, they could never have stopped them either.

I really think the whole thing was a fantasy to start with and had no chance of success. But, if we want to discuss a "what if" scenario where it somehow did succeed, we have to assume the only way it could do so would be if the Germans simply kept throwing bodies into the Sea until they somehow succeeded.

Finally, had such a thing happen I'm pretty sure FDR would have entered the war and sent troops to England as fast as possible.

One thing I am absolutely sure of is that the British would have found a way to make Hitler pay dearly for every inch of British soil.

=S=

Lunatic

The British plans to turn the invasion beaches into flaming wrecks would have been murderously effective as well. IMO, the Wermacht was far superior to the British Army in 1940. The Royal Navy was far superior to the Kriegsmarine. And the RAF had (at worst) fought the Luftwaffe to a stand still. Personally, I think the Germans would might have had some success had they landed a sizable force on the English shores. That being said, I think there is little chance of the Germans supplying that force considering the bulk of the RAF and RN would be doing everything they could to deny that. And in the event the Germans managed to take England, they would have been left far to weak to fend off any other opponent.

LG,

All I can say is read the details of Seelowe:

http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/althist/seal1.htm

How were they going even get troops ashore in force to start with?

=S=

Lunatic

thanks for banking me up guys

Lightning Guy said:

The British plans to turn the invasion beaches into flaming wrecks would have been murderously effective as well. IMO, the Wermacht was far superior to the British Army in 1940. The Royal Navy was far superior to the Kriegsmarine. And the RAF had (at worst) fought the Luftwaffe to a stand still. Personally, I think the Germans would might have had some success had they landed a sizeable force on the English shores. That being said, I think there is little chance of the Germans suppyling that force considering the bulk of the RAF and RN would be doing everything they could to deny that. And in the event the Germans managed to take England, they would have been left far to weak to fend off any othe opponent.

Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with what you are saying but at I also agree with RG_Lunatic that it would have been very difficult to get the troops required to England (and with the plan they had using barges more then likely impossible) and had they been able to do so, the almost impossible task of logistics and resupply. I also think though had Germany launched Sealoewe und succeded that Stalin would have siezed the opportunity and invaded Germany and there would have been no chance of Germany fighting off the Russians then.

Is anyone forgetting the paratroops that could have been dropped in prior to invasion??? Its not like the coast of England was heavily defended.....

Drop the paras in behind lines at key communications and control centers and effectivly cut Englands coastal heart.... Distract Britians attention from a seaborne attack....

It could happen.... ANother big what if...

Very good point, but that still does not solve the logistical problem.

And you've obviously never watched Dad's Army...........

whose army?

lesofprimus said:

Is anyone forgetting the paratroops that could have been dropped in prior to invasion??? Its not like the coast of England was heavily defended.....

Drop the paras in behind lines at key communications and control centers and effectively cut England's coastal heart.... Distract Britain's attention from a seaborne attack....

It could happen.... Another big what if...

Click to expand...

Germany didn't have nearly enough paratroopers, nor enough planes to deliver them. And they would have been facing:

2 Territorial Divisions
1 Brigade from India
1 Brigade from new Zealand
1 Armoured Division
1 Canadian Division
1 Army Tank Brigade

The British had the forces above all within the immediate vicinity of the invasion region. That's almost 5 divisions not counting militia and reservists. They had more in other parts of Britain.

I think that qualifies as "heavily defended", don't you?

=S=

Lunatic

Going on the lessons from Crete, where only 3 AA batteries guarded the whole island, you have to recognise the massive losses the Luftwaffe would have taken to their Ju-52s. The paratroopers on Crete suffered over 25% losses, some stats reaching 50%...imagine that against a well dug-in army...ready to defend every inch! The Fallschirmjager would have been slaughtered.

PLUS, the Germans had nothing to destroy the Matilda except the 88. So, they would have had to be one of the first things ashore or Matilda IIs would have been sweeping away any German armour. The 88 was the only thing that stopped the British on so many occassions in Africa.

And I doubt FDR would have sent troops, if Britain had suffered defeats, that's a waste of manpower and they would have never reached Britain in time anyway. But I'll let you keep to your fantasy that America is the saviours...

LG, you are correct that the British Army was tactically inferior on the divisional level. However British equipment was, on a whole, superior to German equipment and the British soldier was just as good a warrior as a German man.
Look at the campaign in North Africa in detail, Rommel on many occasions was extremely lucky to not be destroyed by British forces. On a few occasions he was encircled but British caution got the better of them. I don't think the Germans would have been able to take Britain because, unlike in Fall Gelb, Britain would be in overall command. There would be no joint command.

I think FDR would have sent troops immeadiately upon hearing a German invasion of Britain was imminent. FDR was commited to saving the British, and if he'd had to thow away re-election possibilities in 1944 he'd have done so. The USN could have had ships in place to support the RN almost immeadiately if the Germans had been staging for an invasion. It's not a savior fantasy, you can see FDR's intentions in his writings of the time.

88's? The German's had no way to deploy 88's until they captured a functioning port. You cannot send 88's ashore on barges and rafts!

=S=

Lunatic

I know FDR was a great man, with a lot of sense. As with China, he saw Britain as a line of defence before Americas borders. It's not a case of getting the men ashore, it's a case of keeping them well supplied. Plus a raw recruit army against an experienced force would not stand much of a chance. The American forces had a lot of time to prepare for D-Day, they'd have had no time to prepare for the defence of Britain. Plus the amount of time to get them to Britain in the first place, in large numbers, would be too long. It's a fantasy.

I know. That's ANOTHER reason why the German invasion plan would fail, only their 88s would be capable of stopping British armour. But there would be no way of bringing it ashore. That was my point!

Another thing with the paratroops, if a sea-borne invasion without air-superiority is full-hearty, an air-borne invasion without it is suicide. The Ju-52 was a fine transport, but, like most transports, it was hardly suited to an actuall air battle. And then how would you supply them?

U would have to establish air superiority first.... This plan is contingent upon winning the BoB in the air, with no change to civilian targets.....

Yes there would have been no way for the Germans to even launch Seeloewe unless they had won the BoB. Without air supremecy it deffinatly would have failed.

plan_D said:

I know FDR was a great man, with a lot of sense. As with China, he saw Britain as a line of defence before Americas borders. It's not a case of getting the men ashore, it's a case of keeping them well supplied. Plus a raw recruit army against an experienced force would not stand much of a chance. The American forces had a lot of time to prepare for D-Day, they'd have had no time to prepare for the defence of Britain. Plus the amount of time to get them to Britain in the first place, in large numbers, would be too long. It's a fantasy.

I know. That's ANOTHER reason why the German invasion plan would fail, only their 88s would be capable of stopping British armour. But there would be no way of bringing it ashore. That was my point!

Click to expand...

Troops on British soil was not even necessary. FDR had the US Navy at his command. That was: 15 battleships, 6 aircraft carriers, 37 cruisers, 185 destroyers, 64 submarines, 19 PT boats, and 36 mine warfare ships.

The British had moved into Iceland in 1940 after the fall of Denmark, to prevent the German's from taking it. All they had to do was hand this over to the USA (which they did anyway in 1941) and FDR could have stationed several warships at this base, just 1000 miles north-northwest of Dover, and then US ships would have patrolled to the south of that point, putting them within easy striking distance of any German invasion. Just their presence would have been enough to prevent Hitler from invading, the USA would not even have had to officially enter the war.

And, as you know, I agree - the German's had no way to deploy any heavy equipment of any kind until after they secured an operation port. Since the British would surely have destroyed such a port before leaving it, and probably mined the waters near it, and the RN could shell it at night rather easily, it would have taken a long time for the Germans to establish an operational port.

=S=

Lunatic

Plan_D:

Thank you very much for showing who the real dazzed lost individual is.


The Germans were defeated at the Battle of Arras? No kidding!
It is funny you mention a local setback suffered by the Germans to attempt proving I have no clue on the battlefield facts!!

What was the benefit of the so called British "victory" at the Battle of Arras, when the bulk of the BEF arrived to England in shock and in trousers, escaping simply because Hitler allowed them to do so?

You can have your lollypop when you ve beaten nearly to death, with both your eyes deeply bruised and badly swollen lips.

Very funny Plan_D!!!!

Are you trying to suggest the British/Greek garrison at Crete did not have superior firepower to combat the German fallschirmjager?
Well mister, that is your very own problem.

Furthermore, no one ever said the German paratroopers did not have very high casualty rates; still those who touched the ground and unloaded their weapons were better lead, smarter and ferocious enough to bring the British and their allies down on their knees.

The German paratroopers had a very high casualty rate "even when the Luftwaffe had air superiority"? What does that have to do with anything at all?

The allied soldiers shot many paratroopers while they were hanging in their parachutes and several Ju52s were hit by antiaircraft fire while being loaded with the troopers.

So there is no connection AT ALL, between the high casualty rate of the German paratroopers in Crete and the air superioriy of the Luftwaffe in the area.

Since you believe you are very good at statisctics, can you tell the losses of the Royal Navy during Crete? How many cruisers and destroyers were destroyed by the Luftwaffe, plus those with several degrees of damage?

You trying to suggest Crete was only a minor issue for the British in terms of casualties?

Malta never fell? What about that?
Did the Germans ever try to seize it? They just ordered the Luftwaffe to bomb it, and during such time, the island experienced a very black period.

The German army had numerical superiority over the British everywhere they clashed??? This deserves a monument Plan-D. So you are suggesting during Fall Gelb the Germans outnumbered the allies?

As I said before, just like the British enjoyed the benefits of the very short range od the Bf109 during the Battle of Britain, the Germans enjoyed the benefits of each battlefield were they clashed with the British. The rule also applies for Germany.

The arguments you displayed make no point in taking substance to my comments and are only explanations to justify the British defeats.

I did say Seelowe was not launched because Hitler was not interested in doing so; if you read well, I also said, Seelowe, if launched, might well have failed.

Hitler´s fundamental interest was placed EAST, and would not waste valuable men in such a venture.