The airplane that did the most to turn the tide of the war.

[Shortround6]

In With Wings Like Eagles, Michael Korda speculates that during the chaos of Dunkirk, if the Germans had pushed an airborne landing immediately, and secured a field and port, perhaps it could have been followed by reinforcements by sea. But its all speculation, dangerous for a historian to do.

Me thinks he was smoking a bit of the wacky weed.

Hundreds of Ju 52s were lying wrecked in Holland, plus a fair percentage of the assault gliders (plus the 150 or so Ju 52s lost in Norway) The Germans had no large amount of air lift capacity to either move the paratroops/air assault troops they did have or to keep them supplied until sea communications can be established.

The RAF was far from smashed after Dunkirk meaning that whatever air field/s or port/s the Germans try to seize under this scenario are going to come under heavy air attack (the British did NOT lose very many medium bombers in France).

And as usual, the scenario requires the Royal Navy to sit in port drinking rum and taking no active part in stopping the invasion or transportation of supplies.
The Comparison is often made to Crete but the number of days the RN operated in the waters around Crete is glossed over. What is also ignored is the fact that Crete is around 370 miles from Alexandria which is the supply point for the RN for things like fuel and anti aircraft ammunition. It is only around 200 miles from Crete to Athens and perhaps 100 miles or so to parts of the Peloponnesian Peninsula (Crete is 160 miles long and 37 miles wide at the widest point) so operating ships for several days at a time in waters around Crete is rather different than operating ships in the English channel where they can be resupplied ever night or every other night.

It also assumes the German Navy (or Army) can organize even a small supply operation in early to mid June (late June???) of 1940. Most of the German navy is in Germany being repaired after Norway. They don't even have the small steam torpedo boats, trawlers/minesweepers available in Dutch, Belgian, French ports that they would have in Sept (they didn't even try to bring in anything the size of a destroyer during those summer months.

 

[Navalwarrior]

My take on Operation Sea Lion is that its like having a customer who wants you to do something but you don't want the business. So the German Navy came up with Sea Lion, an invasion on a broad front. I've read it, what a laugh, its the ultimate suicide mission. In which case, we can scrub the Hurricane and Spitfire off the list in the BoB.

Resp:
An asset of the German ground forces is that it could move so fast, particularly in France. This same asset, as in Dunkirk is that it out ran its own resources. Yes, England could have been invaded by various forces shortly after Dunkirk . . . but how long could it hold out w/o proper ground forces and air support? Yes they had the momentum . . . but did Hitler really have a plan at that time, other than a 'thought of an invasion? I believe that the German leadership realized that they would loose precious men and equipment if they did not achieve 'air supremacy' first. Wasn't it the Romans that over extended themselves into defeat. Great fighters, but actually couldn't get men and equipment resupplied/reinforced?
Take the 'Battle of the Bulge' for an example. There they deployed the Tiger tank. A tank that was very hard to defeat when it went toe to toe with allied armor. However, Hitler needed speed to achieve his objective, but the Tiger's attribute wasn't speed. It also required firm roads or extremely hard ground to operate. Neither was widely available in the Ardennes.
The window for an invasion after Dunkirk that could be held just wasn't there. Just my 'two cents.'

 

[GrauGeist]

If the Germans were actually serious abut Operation Sealion, they would not have allowed the bulk of the BEF escape the beaches of Dunkirk...

 

[Kevin J]

If the Germans were actually serious abut Operation Sealion, they would not have allowed the bulk of the BEF escape the beaches of Dunkirk...

If the Germans had been serious, which I doubt, about Operation Sea Lion, they would have needed all the ships of the French Navy to cover the landings, and Churchill made sure that they didn't get them.

 

[GrauGeist]

Going to be brutally honest here: the Germans allowed well over a quarter million British and Allied troops to escape Dunkirk - if they were serious about invading Britain, they would have started by sacking over 10 divisions of infantry sitting on a French beach waiting to be plucked like a ripe fruit.

Capturing or killing the BEF and Allies at Dunkirk would have put Britain in a precarious position because of their manpower numbers and given them (the Germans) an upper leg...in spite of whatever anecdotes everyone comes up with.

The fact remains, that 340,000+ is a considerable amount of manpower and they were all transported to safety in Britain and would be available to assist in repulsing any invasion attempts.

Had they been sacked on the beach of Dunkirk, that would be 340,000+ less to help repulse an invasion, no matter how the Germans intended to invade...

 

[buffnut453]

I'd say so, yes. Boots on the ground, which wasn't going to happen.

I'd strongly recommend you read John Lukacs' book "Ten Days in London: May 1940" to illustrate the deep divisions among political leaders of the wisdom of pursuing the fight against Germany. We need to be very careful of accepting Churchillian rhetoric as being representative of all of the UK, least of all the entirety of Parliament, indeed there were many serious, and well-regarded, politicians who believed that continuance of the fight was foolish and would lead to the ruination of Britain and loss of its Empire. Also, consider that Hitler only invaded places he needed to invade in order to achieve his strategic objects. Take Vichy France, for example. Although France writ large surrendered in June 1940, German troops did not "invade" Vichy France for another 2.5 years.

The potential for Churchill to be replaced by a more appeasement-minded leader coupled with the established precedent of Vichy France convinces me that Hitler didn't need to invade Britain. The window for such action was small and the opening narrowed over time as the Battle of Britain proceeded into August and September of 1940. However, the opportunity was there if Hitler and Goering had taken their chance. The Luftwaffe needed to hammer 11 Group and the supporting radar and fighter control assets. The fact that Hitler didn't prosecute such a campaign is, in part, due to sheer dumb luck (or Providence if you prefer), but also due to the robust defence put up by Fighter Command.

 

[buffnut453]

Going to be brutally honest here: the Germans allowed well over a quarter million British and Allied troops to escape Dunkirk - if they were serious about invading Britain, they would have started by sacking over 10 divisions of infantry sitting on a French beach waiting to be plucked like a ripe fruit.

Capturing or killing the BEF and Allies at Dunkirk would have put Britain in a precarious position because of their manpower numbers and given them (the Germans) an upper leg...in spite of whatever anecdotes everyone comes up with.

The fact remains, that 340,000+ is a considerable amount of manpower and they were all transported to safety in Britain and would be available to assist in repulsing any invasion attempts.

Had they been sacked on the beach of Dunkirk, that would be 340,000+ less to help repulse an invasion, no matter how the Germans intended to invade...

True enough but that was 340,000+ without artillery or any heavy equipment, and re-equipping would take time.

The reasons for the German pause on 21 and 23 May 1940 remain a contentious topic for historians. It seems the halt was caused, in part, due to a robust counter-attack by British tanks and infantry on 21 May, followed by complaints on the German side that the tanks were outstripping both their logistic chain and their own infantry, leading to the second pause on 23 May. Those 2 key pauses allowed the BEF to shore up the defences around Dunkirk.

The above actions took place after Churchill had been in power for less than 2 weeks. His position was vulnerable (see my other post and John Lukacs' book). In 1945, Hitler is reported to have said that he did Churchill a favour in May 1940 but Churchill never reciprocated. It seems pretty clear that Hitler never really wanted to invade Britain. He just wanted Britain out of the war, hence his overtures to preserve the British Empire.

 

[Kevin J]

I'd strongly recommend you read John Lucaks' book "Ten Days in London: May 1940" to illustrate the deep divisions among political leaders of the wisdom of pursuing the fight against Germany. We need to be very careful of accepting Churchillian rhetoric as being representative of all of the UK, least of all the entirety of Parliament, indeed there were many serious, and well-regarded, politicians who believed that continuance of the fight was foolish and would lead to the ruination of Britain and loss of its Empire. Also, consider that Hitler only invaded places he needed to invade in order to achieve his strategic objects. Take Vichy France, for example. Although France writ large surrendered in June 1940, German troops did not "invade" Vichy France for another 2.5 years.

The potential for Churchill to be replaced by a more appeasement-minded leader coupled with the established precedent of Vichy France convinces me that Hitler didn't need to invade Britain. The window for such action was small and the opening narrowed over time as the Battle of Britain proceeded into August and September of 1940. However, the opportunity was there if Hitler and Goering had taken their chance. The Luftwaffe needed to hammer 11 Group and the supporting radar and fighter control assets. The fact that Hitler didn't prosecute such a campaign is, in part, due to sheer dumb luck (or Providence if you prefer), but also due to the robust defence put up by Fighter Command.

Hmm, well I guess if you can't successfully invade, get a change of leader, or decisively beat the Brits then there is the fourth option, send Hess over to negotiate a sort of truce, whereby we send bombers over Germany to maybe not even get close to their targets, say 5% within 5 miles will do chaps, plus a France Air Offensive where you kill off the cream of your skilled fighter pilots. Sorry, I'm just being cynical here. Maybe even delay the invasion of Europe for as long as possible.

 

[buffnut453]

Hmm, well I guess if you can't successfully invade, get a change of leader, or decisively beat the Brits then there is the fourth option, send Hess over to negotiate a sort of truce, whereby we send bombers over Germany to maybe not even get close to their targets, say 5% within 5 miles will do chaps, plus a France Air Offensive where you kill off the cream of your skilled fighter pilots. Sorry, I'm just being cynical here. Maybe even delay the invasion of Europe for as long as possible.

Sorry, Kevin, but you lost me there. I can't understand the point you're trying to make. Not being snarky...I genuinely can't follow the thought train.

 

[Kevin J]

Sorry, Kevin, but you lost me there. I can't understand the point you're trying to make. Not being snarky...I genuinely can't follow the thought train.

Point 1. The Germans can't invade without a navy to support them. The RN has put out of action the German Navy in Norway, later the French in Oran.
Point 2. Operation Sea Lion is no more than a suicide mission drawn up to put everyone off from carrying it out.
Point 3. Nobody likes the Bolsheviks so why not get the Brits to let the Germans give the Soviets a drubbing. So you send Hess across to negotiate.
Point 4. After the Germans attack Russia, the RAF engages in an offensive in which its bombers fail to hit their targets at night and where the lives of its fighter pilots are wasted by day. Everyone is happy as its looks like something is being done. Also, no invasion of France in the near future.
Like I said, I'm being cynical. Unfortunately, the IJN attacks Pearl Harbour and the Americans are drawn into the war and they really want to get on with the invasion of France, like asap. Without that attack, maybe a successful invasion of Russia then, and only then would Churchill be replaced and a peace deal struck.

 

[buffnut453]

Point 1. The Germans can't invade without a navy to support them. The RN has put out of action the German Navy in Norway, later the French in Oran.
Point 2. Operation Sea Lion is no more than a suicide mission drawn up to put everyone off from carrying it out.
Point 3. Nobody likes the Bolsheviks so why not get the Brits to let the Germans give the Soviets a drubbing. So you send Hess across to negotiate.
Point 4. After the Germans attack Russia, the RAF engages in an offensive in which its bombers fail to hit their targets at night and where the lives of its fighter pilots are wasted by day. Everyone is happy as its looks like something is being done. Also, no invasion of France in the near future.
Like I said, I'm being cynical. Unfortunately, the IJN attacks Pearl Harbour and the Americans are drawn into the war and they really want to get on with the invasion of France, like asap. Without that attack, maybe a successful invasion of Russia then, and only then would Churchill be replaced and a peace deal struck.

Point 1: Agree on the first point but I don't think the Kriegsmarine was out of action after Norway. That said, it was still insufficient to undertake Sealion without some dramatic change to the balance of power (eg massive attacks on the RN, preferably while in port, as a precursor).

Point 2: Concur that Sealion was highly unlikely to succeed...but maybe it was drawn up to add pressure to the British Government? Again, there are more ways to exert influence than at the end of a bayonet. It's always preferable to persuade your enemy to quit before you attack.

Point 3: Hitler absolutely believed that Britain and Germany should see the USSR as a common foe. Whether Hess's abortive mission was part of that is very much open to debate.

Point 4: You really lost me here. If Britain sued for peace in 1940, why go on the offensive after Germany subdues the USSR? After all, Britain would get to keep its Empire, could rebuild its armed forces and was relatively secure given the problems of a cross-Channel invasion.

Your last part really confuses me. The Americans were drawn into the war some 18 months after the fall of France. Not sure how relevant that is to whether Churchill's government could have been toppled in `1940....unless you're saying that Churchill was somehow immune from internal political strifes? If so, I again refer you to the Lukacs book.

 

[ykickamoocow]

Point 3: Hitler absolutely believed that Britain and Germany should see the USSR as a common foe. Whether Hess's abortive mission was part of that is very much open to debate.

Agreed. I think Hitler very much wanted Britain to be an ally against the Soviet Union and was probably convinced that he could make Britain see his way of thinking about the thread of the Soviets. Of course we know that Britain did not like the Soviets at all, but they liked Hitler even less. Had a moderate been in charge of Germany then perhaps Germany could have even got the British on side.

 

[michael rauls]

Point 1. The Germans can't invade without a navy to support them. The RN has put out of action the German Navy in Norway, later the French in Oran.
Point 2. Operation Sea Lion is no more than a suicide mission drawn up to put everyone off from carrying it out.
Point 3. Nobody likes the Bolsheviks so why not get the Brits to let the Germans give the Soviets a drubbing. So you send Hess across to negotiate.
Point 4. After the Germans attack Russia, the RAF engages in an offensive in which its bombers fail to hit their targets at night and where the lives of its fighter pilots are wasted by day. Everyone is happy as its looks like something is being done. Also, no invasion of France in the near future.
Like I said, I'm being cynical. Unfortunately, the IJN attacks Pearl Harbour and the Americans are drawn into the war and they really want to get on with the invasion of France, like asap. Without that attack, maybe a successful invasion of Russia then, and only then would Churchill be replaced and a peace deal struck.

An interesting tidbit in your post. I have also read that the U.S. wanted to retake France almost imediatly upon entering the war but it was the Brits that convinced them to wait.
If this is true I think the British really did the allies a favor. As costly as D- day was can you image if we had tried to pull that off in say the fall of 42.

 

[Navalwarrior]

I'd strongly recommend you read John Lukacs' book "Ten Days in London: May 1940" to illustrate the deep divisions among political leaders of the wisdom of pursuing the fight against Germany. We need to be very careful of accepting Churchillian rhetoric as being representative of all of the UK, least of all the entirety of Parliament, indeed there were many serious, and well-regarded, politicians who believed that continuance of the fight was foolish and would lead to the ruination of Britain and loss of its Empire. Also, consider that Hitler only invaded places he needed to invade in order to achieve his strategic objects. Take Vichy France, for example. Although France writ large surrendered in June 1940, German troops did not "invade" Vichy France for another 2.5 years.

The potential for Churchill to be replaced by a more appeasement-minded leader coupled with the established precedent of Vichy France convinces me that Hitler didn't need to invade Britain. The window for such action was small and the opening narrowed over time as the Battle of Britain proceeded into August and September of 1940. However, the opportunity was there if Hitler and Goering had taken their chance. The Luftwaffe needed to hammer 11 Group and the supporting radar and fighter control assets. The fact that Hitler didn't prosecute such a campaign is, in part, due to sheer dumb luck (or Providence if you prefer), but also due to the robust defence put up by Fighter Command.

Resp:
I believe the effects of WWI hindered a clear decision by the leadership on whether to fight another War. Fortunately for much of the world, they did decide to fight . . . and fight they did.

 

[Schweik]

First of all, I've got to say - the notion that the Germans allowed the British to retreat from Dunkirque is absurd and really creepy and conspiratorial in it's implications. I don't buy that at all - I'll stop there.

Second, some of the discussion above presumes the English is making substantial air attacks - what I was asking is what would have happened if the Germans had defeated the RAF as it seemed they came close to doing on a couple of occasions.

Yes they still face a severe disadvantage in naval forces but my question is really how effectively could the Royal Navy fight without air power in a narrow channel dominated by German air power? I brought up the Prince of Wales and the Repulse disaster in the Pacific. I'd also point out the dismal results of many convoy battles in the Med, Atlantic, North Sea etc., and that usually included some friendly air support. I'd also point out the relative success of the "Kanalkampf" operations within the English Channel by the Luftwaffe (sinking 35 British merchant ships and 4 destroyers in spite of fairly heavy British air opposition).

The Germans may have had a tiny fighting navy but I'm not convinced all the (French etc.) merchant ships were gone. And they still had the U-boat fleet and mines to help control the Channel if it came down to it. They certainly demonstrated the capability and willingness to win a bloody invasion with air power alone in Crete, defeating 40,000+ troops just with their paratroopers. That might be sufficient to secure a bridgehead.

Still, if the Germans didn't have any torpedo planes functional yet (what about Ju 88s? when did the A-17 come out?) I would say that could make it harder to sink British Capitol ships. Which would have made it an interesting battle!

 

[Shortround6]

First of all, I've got to say - the notion that the Germans allowed the British to retreat from Dunkirque is absurd and really creepy and conspiratorial in it's implications. I don't buy that at all - I'll stop there.

Second, some of the discussion above presumes the English is making substantial air attacks - what I was asking is what would have happened if the Germans had defeated the RAF as it seemed they came close to doing on a couple of occasions.

Still, if the Germans didn't have any torpedo planes functional yet (what about Ju 88s? when did the A-17 come out?) I would say that could make it harder to sink British Capitol ships. Which would have made it an interesting battle!

Please read or skim the other thread so we don't have to repost every thing here.

Some people seem to think that the Luftwaffe defeating the RAF in the BoB means the British are able to fly two Tiger Moths somewhere south of the The Forth and Clyde canal and east of the Isle of Man. All other British aircraft having retreated to Northern Ireland and the Shetland Islands, pulled their propellers off and never to fly over England again.

Somewhat sarcastic.

 

[Kevin J]

First of all, I've got to say - the notion that the Germans allowed the British to retreat from Dunkirque is absurd and really creepy and conspiratorial in it's implications. I don't buy that at all - I'll stop there.

Second, some of the discussion above presumes the English is making substantial air attacks - what I was asking is what would have happened if the Germans had defeated the RAF as it seemed they came close to doing on a couple of occasions.

Yes they still face a severe disadvantage in naval forces but my question is really how effectively could the Royal Navy fight without air power in a narrow channel dominated by German air power? I brought up the Prince of Wales and the Repulse disaster in the Pacific. I'd also point out the dismal results of many convoy battles in the Med, Atlantic, North Sea etc., and that usually included some friendly air support. I'd also point out the relative success of the "Kanalkampf" operations within the English Channel by the Luftwaffe (sinking 35 British merchant ships and 4 destroyers in spite of fairly heavy British air opposition).

The Germans may have had a tiny fighting navy but I'm not convinced all the (French etc.) merchant ships were gone. And they still had the U-boat fleet and mines to help control the Channel if it came down to it. They certainly demonstrated the capability and willingness to win a bloody invasion with air power alone in Crete, defeating 40,000+ troops just with their paratroopers. That might be sufficient to secure a bridgehead.

Still, if the Germans didn't have any torpedo planes functional yet (what about Ju 88s? when did the A-17 come out?) I would say that could make it harder to sink British Capitol ships. Which would have made it an interesting battle!

First, you're only talking about defeating Fighter Command in the day time, not any other of the RAF commands or the RN at night. In appalling conditions with virtually the entire Soviet fighter force inferior in quality the Soviets threw the Germans back an average of 100 km at Moscow, so who needs superior fighters. We also had about 224 Curtis Mohawks at our disposal in the event of an invasion in maintenance units, and I'm sure that at the time, all grammar school boys like me, had we been in the RAF would have been able to master a plane using French instruments because we were all taught French in those days. The invasion barges would have taken an average of 20 hours to cross the channel so there would have been plenty of time to launch night attacks on them by bomb and machine gun equipped Lysanders. At sea there would have been RN Swordfish crews trained in night attacks. Our submarine bases were at Portland and Chatham would be ready to take on German destroyers and cruisers, and there were fleet bases at Plymouth and Portsmouth for our cruisers and destroyers to sortie out from. Then there were the naval guns along our South Coast. Of course for a suicide attack the Germans could have attacked Dover or Folkestone on a much shorter crossing. If the Germans had really wanted to get ashore, might I suggest either Slapton Sands or Weymouth bay or perhaps a parachute assault on the Isle of Wight, so you're looking at a 15 hour overnight crossing. The problem next is resupply. They can land but I don't think they would have got resupplied and by then most of their capital ships would have been sunk, not that they had many, any way.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Gents,

I don't know that any one plane turned the tides of war. Even if we came up with a list of one that we would agree unanimously. Nature of the beast in our discussions.

Instead of saying turn the tide, I'm going with biggest contribution. With that in mind, I nominate the T-6 and the DC-3 / C-47. The former trained nearly all the Allied pilots in WW2. It was a pilot maker. Second is the aerial tractor trailer, or DC-3 / C-47. Literally delivered the goods, day or night. Not bad.

Cheers,
Biff

In terms of logistics the Liberty Ship was by far more important cargo carrier of WWII. For that matter the GMC 2 1/2 ton truck dwarfed the contributions of the C-47.

 

[Navalwarrior]

In terms of logistics the Liberty Ship was by far more important cargo carrier of WWII. For that matter the GMC 2 1/2 ton truck dwarfed the contributions of the C-47.

Resp:
Duly noted.
Tell that to the French people/the Germans on June 5/6 1944 when paratroopers landed at Normandy, and in Burma 1944 when the Chindits needed supplies. l believe we were speaking of significant aircraft contributions.

 

[Navalwarrior]

In terms of logistics the Liberty Ship was by far more important cargo carrier of WWII. For that matter the GMC 2 1/2 ton truck dwarfed the contributions of the C-47.

Resp:
I was thinking the same thing; many, many aircraft played a vital role. Many were discussed at length.