What if the LW had adopted a different doctrine/strategy?

Gixxerman said:

I think it comes down to, irrespective of whichever tactic is used, that you can't be a medium sized European country pick a quick succession of fights ending up with rest of the whole world as your enemy and expect it to go well in the long-run.
Even with most of Europe over-run it just can't be assimilated into the war economy efficiently fast enough.

It is also not helped by Germany being on the verge of bankruptcy in 1939 (which I suspect had a knock-on effect of ensuring that they were incapable of matching the British tactic of buying up years of vital strategic resource supply from certain neutral countries).

The quick 'smash grab' idea was I suppose fine as long as the war(s) were always short easily won but in a world where the combatants have comparable technologies then the instant it got drawn out and engaged in multiple theatres I just do not see how they could ever expect to win.

An interesting idea might be what would have happened if the British had been persuaded to declare war against Germany's then ally Russia after the attack on Finland.
I suspect they would have come to terms following a German attack on Russia but if that had not happened then (like the idea of a Japanese attack on Russia not the USA) things might have been different in Europe at least.....although how the Japanese cope with the US blockade in those circumstances is another question.

Click to expand...

All true, based on the purely historical model. However, WWII for Germany is a story of lost opportunity, mismanaged resources, and malevolent leadership mesmerized by its own propaganda. The question is, did Germany have the potential to win the war? My opinion, is possibly.

Far from being a middle sized power, Germany was the second most powerful economy in the world in the late 30's, and one of the most, if not the most powerful country militarily. Diplomatically she was on the offensive. Things were on the up for the Nazis. Within three years she was faced by an unstoppable grand alliance ranged against her, with no hope for victory. What happened? And was this sitaution avoidable. Basically they blew it, and yes it was avoidable

Its a sad combination....overconfidence, supreme arrogance, mismanagement of both domestic and occupied resources....questions of "unfinished business'...these and many other things played their part in delvering defeat from victory for the germans

"....Things were on the up for the Nazis. Within three years she was faced by an unstoppable grand alliance ranged against her, with no hope for victory. What happened? And was this sitaution avoidable. Basically they blew it, and yes it was avoidable"

If Germany had been able to resist the slide into anti-semitism - and focused on currency-earning technology exports - the leadership could have bought the time to build a well-rooted economy (that would have had to include massive effort in AGRICULTURE because that sector was a disaster from Bismarks's time forward). But the blow-back and chill that set in as potential economic partners saw where Germany was heading drove the German planners into schemes that were more and more self defeating.

MM

parsifal said:

All true, based on the purely historical model. However, WWII for Germany is a story of lost opportunity, mismanaged resources, and malevolent leadership mesmerized by its own propaganda. The question is, did Germany have the potential to win the war? My opinion, is possibly.

Far from being a middle sized power, Germany was the second most powerful economy in the world in the late 30's, and one of the most, if not the most powerful country militarily. Diplomatically she was on the offensive. Things were on the up for the Nazis. Within three years she was faced by an unstoppable grand alliance ranged against her, with no hope for victory. What happened? And was this sitaution avoidable. Basically they blew it, and yes it was avoidable

Its a sad combination....overconfidence, supreme arrogance, mismanagement of both domestic and occupied resources....questions of "unfinished business'...these and many other things played their part in delvering defeat from victory for the germans

Click to expand...

that's a good post and probably hits the nail squarely on the head.

Thanks for the reply parsifal. Some very good points raised.

parsifal said:

Far from being a middle sized power, Germany was the second most powerful economy in the world in the late 30's, and one of the most, if not the most powerful country militarily.

Click to expand...

This is the one element I'd question.
It is true in the sense of where things started from, of course (and hence the 'happy time' for Germany at the beginning of the war....although even there losses which were at that stage difficult to replace if not impossible were beginning to be noticeable if one looked).

But compared to the potential of the adversaries - soon to be realised - she was facing Germany was, as I think I fairly described, a middle sized European power - something Britain was to become later with the loss of Empire but had not at that stage reached - and all dwarfed by the productive monsters the USSR USA were to become.

I wouldnt say the the USSR was ever an industrial superpower. In terms of raw industrial potential, the USSR lagged badly behind the germans. Their great accomplishment during the war was to work to their strengths....using the best elements of the command economy, they turned all the spare capacity in their economy from butter to guns. In this they were very effective....hence the illusion from the production figures that the USSR was a superior economic powerhouse. She had greater access to natural resources, she had a greater population, and her territory was far more expansive, which conferred on her certain inherent advantages over the Germans. But in basic industrial potential, only the US was stronger, albeit by a very wide margin.

It is from the lessons they learnt during the war, that probably led to the demise of the USSR. After the war they continued with their austerity measures, to present the illusion of being an industrial equal to the US. Thats why they never published figures about their GDP during the cold war, or the proportion of their budgets spent on defence. Turns out the Russian economy is still a lot less than that of germany, and they were spending about 50% of their government revenues on defence, compare that to less than 10% for the US .

The US was a massive economic and military power, but in terms of continental power....the ability to field mass land armies, the US was always just a moderate player. During the war, she fielded about 100 divs, of which 74 saw European service. The majority of these did not get into action until well after normandy. At the time of Normandy, I think the US had 34 front line Divs (or something like that number). Just in France alone, the Germans at that time had over 40 divs, and about 300 overall

I'm not an aircraft guy but my $.02 Germany could have most certainly won a limited war.
"Battle of Britain" The RAF was on the ropes until a german bomber jettisoned its bombs over a british city, the outraged brits then bombed Berlin and german air tactics changed (politically motivated) and allowed the RAF to rebuild. Had the Germans continued to pound the coastal radar and RAF fields the RAF would have been in very deep water and the Germans would have had air superiority
Attack on Russian major error #2 instead of fully supporting Rommel and taking the mid-east oil fields where Monty had been pushed almost to Suez
On LW tactics i'm not sure it matters if your enemy has the production capability to out-produce you by 10 to 1, has almost unlimited resources to draw upon, and has factories you can't touch.

In the time of BoB, the Fighter Command was one of the finest organizations, while their opposite number were not up to the task.
As for backing up Rommel, that would include taking Malta, securing the sea lines (by Italian Navy...), building the rail road from Benghazi to Alexandria, while Commonwealth is falling back on their bases... Tricky issue indeed.

It needs more than that if Rommel is going for the oil. I believe the oil was actually in Iran/Iraq? with pipe lines bringing to to the Mediterranean coast.

Getting to the Suez was one thing, staying there or getting to where the oil wells are is another.

But consider that Rommel did all that with something like 6 divisions only 2 of which were German. what could he have done if the resources applied to Barbarossa were given to him? Monty could have been eliminated. The Mid-East kingdoms would have just as easily dealt with the Nazi as they did with the english and the biggest plus, no two front war.
Much like the original Blitzkrieg across France and Belgium where the English army was allowed to escape. they left their equipment which is easily replaceable while trained soldiers are not

".... The RAF was on the ropes until a german bomber jettisoned its bombs over a british city, the outraged brits then bombed Berlin and german air tactics changed"

Huge oversimplification. Did you bother reading the BoB thread that ran on this site until the end of October? Radar ... the Brits had it ... hardly on the ropes. Sectored air defence ... the Brits had it ... hardly on the ropes. A great aero engine and 2 outstanding fighter airframes ... the Brits had them ... and the means to produce them in great quantity ... hardly on the ropes.

The Germans might have been able to win a "limited war" - in fact they won a couple of them, but they were unable to defeat England, and they couldn't take Malta or "own" the Med. They couldn't take Moscow, Leningrad or Stalingrad.

The facts, Mike, just the facts , no "what if's". And coming close don't count.

MM

mikewint said:

But consider that Rommel did all that with something like 6 divisions only 2 of which were German. what could he have done if the resources applied to Barbarossa were given to him? Monty could have been eliminated. The Mid-East kingdoms would have just as easily dealt with the Nazi as they did with the english and the biggest plus, no two front war.
Much like the original Blitzkrieg across France and Belgium where the English army was allowed to escape. they left their equipment which is easily replaceable while trained soldiers are not

Click to expand...

Have to raise issue here. Firstly, there were more than just two divs of germans engaged. Just off the top of my head I can think of 15 and 21st Panzer Divs, 90 Light, 164 Light, Ramcke Brigade. later there was the 10Pz added.

More importantly was the amount of Logstic support needed to keep their army supplied. The amjority of the time the Germans had the 2 Panzer Divs, two Italian armoured Divs, and around 5 unmotorized Italian Divs (with an average strength of around 6500 men). This force deployment absorbed as many trucks for supply as were engaged to keep the whole of Army Gropup South supplied in 1942.

Increasing the numbers of Frontline troops isnt the only issue. You will need to increase the logisitc support as well, and in the desert that means trucks....lots of em. Double the numbers of Panzer Divs, and you will come close to bankrupting the German truck park.

And remeber this, the british never really worked up a sweat when it came to defending the delta. They were unwilling to commit more troops than they did, for the same reasons as the germans didnt increase their force structure....logisitcs. But if the germans are threatening Suez, then the logisitc issues are no longer a concern. Given that there were about 18 Divs deployed to Egypt until th end of 1942, how well do you seriously think 4 german Divs would go against 18 British Divs.

The equation is much harder than most people realize

"... Given that there were about 18 Divs deployed to Egypt until th end of 1942, how well do you seriously think 4 german Divs would go against 18 British Divs."

And Lend Lease had kicked in , to boot ....

MM

I stand corrected on the numbers:
The DAK (Deuches Afrika Korps)was formed, on February 19, 1941, after OKW had decided to send an expeditionary force to Libya to support the Italian army, which had been routed, by the British 8th Army's counteroffensive Operation Compass. The German expeditionary force with only three German divisions (the 5th Light – later christened the 15th – the 20th, and 90th Light Divisions), plus six Italian divisions of varying degrees of quality, the Afrika Corps was able to push back a superior Commonwealth force from Tripoli to within a few hundred miles of the Suez Canal, almost ejecting the British from North Africa and its rich oil reserves in the process .
And, despite its defeat, the Afrika Corps tied down the equivalent of more than twenty Commonwealth divisions for a period of two years – nearly half of Britain's operational strength.
Michael- if you read my entire post, I stated that if the Germans had Maintained Phase I of BoB, i.e. continued to hit the coastal radar, RAF bases, and kept the fighters in a state of 24/7 air battles something in the RAF would have cracked. With partial air superiority the Germans could have brought in bombers to hit factories and begun to choke off war material. At the beginning of BoB the Germans had a 4 to 1 superiority in aircraft and experienced combat pilots fresh from the Spanish civil war. By the time the Germans switched tactics the RAF was pulling its bases back to deeper in country and advertising in American papers for experienced pilots. The switch to civilian targets gave the RAF exactly what it needed the time to reorganize, rest and rebuild.
Further more, in my opinion the Germans did not need to defeat Britian just neutralize it.
So I stand pat, a limited war. Consolodate Europe, keep the russian non-aggression pact, fully support Rommel and take the mid-east oil fields and neutralize Britian

Mike there were no big oilfields in N Africa, have a look at a map and see how far it was from El Alamein to the oil fields of Persia. Its a long long long way across horrendous terrain with few transport links. Taking the Suez canal would have been a blow to the allies but all Rommel has got is a big ditch in the desert.

As for the BoB the RAF wasnt on the ropes 11 Group was under pressure but the RAF wasnt just 11 Group. The Luftwaffe changed tactics because they realised they couldnt stand the casualties they took in the august and early september battles, the Luftwaffe was losing the numbers game not the RAF.

The only thing RAF's FC was somewhat lacking were trained pilots, but LW was even in bigger problems in that category. Plus the fact that every LW plane destroyed equaled to a pilot/crew lost - not the case for RAF.
Another thing is that LW had to have bombers in play (= produce them, train the crews...), while RAF was concentrating on fighters, therfore LW was not able to have substantial numerical superiority in fighter vs. fighter game. Then we have the unsuitability of LW fighter types for a campaign that was unfolding... Not good prospects to turn BoB into German victory. And even such a victory would not have guaranteed successful invasion of Britain.

fastmongrel said:

Mike there were no big oilfields in N Africa, have a look at a map and see how far it was from El Alamein to the oil fields of Persia. Its a long long long way across horrendous terrain with few transport links. Taking the Suez canal would have been a blow to the allies but all Rommel has got is a big ditch in the desert.

Click to expand...

The terrain might not have been very nice but the Germans had friends in the area. Turkey wasn't exactly pro British, Vichy in Syria and German supported revolts in Iraq.

The big problem for the Germans in North Africa was ports. Tripoli, their main base, was 1,200 miles from Alexandria. Most of that distance there was only a single road available.

To put that distance in perspective, the distance from Brest Litovsk on the Nazi/Soviet border, to Moscow was 600 miles.

It's no good sending more divisions to North Africa when the ones already there couldn't be supplied adequately due to deficiencies in the ports and roads.

I stated that if the Germans had Maintained Phase I of BoB, i.e. continued to hit the coastal radar, RAF bases, and kept the fighters in a state of 24/7 air battles something in the RAF would have cracked.

Click to expand...

And what would have happened to the Luftwaffe?

At the beginning of BoB the Germans had a 4 to 1 superiority in aircraft and experienced combat pilots fresh from the Spanish civil war.

Click to expand...

And by 7 September, when the Luftwaffe switched to attacking London?

Number of operational aircraft (serviceable and with pilots):

13 August
Luftwaffe
Bf 109 - 853
Bf 110 - 189
Level bombers - 1,008
Dive bombers - 286

RAF
Spitfires and Hurricanes - 579

7 September
Luftwaffe
Bf 109 - 658
Bf 110 - 112
Level bombers - 798
Dive bombers - 133

RAF
Spitfires and Hurricanes - 621

The Luftwaffe had a large advantage in July. They squandered that advantage in July and August. The city bombing of September wasn't an accident, it was a direct result of the Luftwaffe having to change tactics to reduce their losses.

By the time the Germans switched tactics the RAF was pulling its bases back to deeper in country

Click to expand...

It wasn't. The RAF had to abandon 2 small satellite airfields early in the battle because they were too close to the coast and received no warnings of attack. But they remained in all their major bases.

This is a highly loose and generally innaccurate description of the ground forces engaged (for both sides). Those 9 divs you refer to never engaged 20 allied Divs. There were twenty divs available in the Middle Eastern Command, and the majority of these stayed in the Delta, doing squat, but this is not being engaged by the Axis forces.

At the time of the German counterattack into Cyrenaica, in terms of units enaged, it was far from the allies outnumbering the Axis.

Here are the details of the forces available for operations at the time of Rommels counterattack, within the operational area of Cyrenaica and the western desert.

British/CW

32Arm X, 2nd Spt group, 1st Tower Hamlet Rifle Bn, KD Gd II, 102 AA (2nd Arm XX), The unit lacked proper Infantry and artillery support. It was destroyed ar Mersa Brega

3 Ind Mtr X (Indpendant X), Not sure what happened to this unit

24/9, 20/9 26/9 X, 9 Cav II, 2/3 AT II, 2/2 MG II, 2/7 2/8 Arty III, 2/1 Pioneer II, 2/3 AA II (9 Aus XX) (was concentrated around Benghazi -managed to escape to Tobruk
2, 9, 15, 57, AA II (independant).

There were approximately 1.5 IIs of other independant units, for example a coy of Free French Motor Marine and the LRDG special forces units

7 Armd XX (the desert rats) was in Egypt replacing losses. After the defeat at Mersa Brega it was rushed to the Egyptiona frontier. However it was not initially available. I can give some idea of its force structure if required

The Axis forces were built around:

33 Aufklarungs IIs, 33 Pj II, 104 Schutzen III ( detached from15 Schutzen X, not yet arrived) 33 Pionere II, 33 Arty III, 140 Arty III(15 Pz XX), 200 Schutzen III was detached, supporting the Italians, 115 Schutzen III (15 Schutzen X , 15 Pz XX) 8 Panzer III, were enroute, but had not yet arrived

5 Pz III, 2 MG II, 39 MG II, 39, 605 Pj II, 75 Arty II, 606 flak II, 3 Aufklarungs IIs, 200 Pionere II (5 Lt XX),

580 Recce II, 190 AT II, 613 flak II, 155 Schutzen III, 255 347 Schutzen IIs ( curently independant, but later att to 90 Light XX...HQ did not arrive until after the camapign started),
These units were supporting the Italians,

149, 155 Arty III (independant) were supporting the Italians
362, 408 528 Arty IIs (independant) were available, but I have not located their precise positions

approximately 4 Koys of 300 Oasis Bn were in the gneral comabt zone. unsure of their locations

Combat units directly attached to DAK and operating as a strategic reserve

707, 708 schwInf Koy, 13 Brandenburger Koy 778 Naval Engineer Koy

132 Arm III, 8 Bersaglieri III, 2 AT II, NizCav Recon Bn, 132 Arty III(132 Ariete Armd XX)

19, 20 Inf III, 27 MG II, 27 Eng II, 57 Arty III (27 Brescia Div) 33 56 CCNN II att

39, 40 Inf III, 25 MG II, 25 AT II, 25 Eng II, 10 Arty III, (25 Bologna Div) 32 CCNN att

61, 62 mot Inf III, 7 Bers III, 551 MG II, 102 AT Bn, 51 Eng II, 102 AA II, 46 Arty III (102Trieste Mot Div)

15, 16 Inf III, 55 MG II, 55 AT II, 55 Eng II, 12 Arty III (55 Savona Div) 7 CCNN X att

2, 5, 6, 12 13 Ind Inf Bns of the Oasis Protection Group, Genova Ind MG Bn, III (Med) II (Lt) Tk II

I dont believe it can be claimed that the Germans were engaging 20 Allied Divs at this, or any subsequent time, and at this time they were not outnumered, either in terms of units engaged, men engaged, or material poured into the battle

".... the Germans did not need to defeat Britain just neutralize it."

Gain air superiority of the British Isles? Successfully cut Britain's sea lanes from Canada?
Physically occupy GB?

Any TWO of those might neutralize Britain. Germany didn't manage to achieve ONE.

MM

The British saw the inital German attacks and the BoB as part of the opening moves in the Invasion of this island. Not as an end itself.

We didnt have to shoot down every He 111 but stop German invasion force boots touching Blighty.

Of course...we like the stories of Sqn Ldr so and so giving Jerry a burst...but it was about the invasion...As long as the RAF could continue operating until winter arrived then thats what it was all about.