Jump to content
Admiral_Thrawn_1

How could Battle of Britain been different?

275 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,268
[RKLES]
Members
7,197 posts
8,955 battles

Thought this might be a fun topic for discussion. How could the Battle of Britain been fought differently if Germany were to have won it? We know Germany only had X amounts of resources so question is how to use them to better fight the battle. And came up with the idea for this thread after hearing how different branches of German Armed Forces in WWII would often argue over what resources should be used where. And might as well throw in the  Mediterranean in here as well since the idea is how they could defeat allies or get amistace and keep Europe under Axis control.

Keep up the pressure of bombing the airfields and Radar station, instead of terror bombing London? 

Built fewer planes and instead have built more U-Boats?

Built fewer planes and invested more heavily in V-1 and V2 research and production? Or built fewer U-Boats to do this and keep plane production?

Built more U-Boats and fewer aircraft? Or built fewer U-boats and more aircraft?

Or something else like completing Atlantic Wall before D-Day or making millions of Flak guns to stop the enemy bombers more effective, tried doing Jet Aircraft earlier and greater numbers, or something entirely different...

Will be intersting to hear what everyone thinks and comes up with for answers.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,459
[REVY]
Members
6,104 posts
5,104 battles
17 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Thought this might be a fun topic for discussion. How could the Battle of Britain been fought differently if Germany were to have won it? We know Germany only had X amounts of resources so question is how to use them to better fight the battle. And came up with the idea for this thread after hearing how different branches of German Armed Forces in WWII would often argue over what resources should be used where. And might as well throw in the  Mediterranean in here as well since the idea is how they could defeat allies or get amistace and keep Europe under Axis control.

Keep up the pressure of bombing the airfields and Radar station, instead of terror bombing London? 

Built fewer planes and instead have built more U-Boats?

Built fewer planes and invested more heavily in V-1 and V2 research and production? Or built fewer U-Boats to do this and keep plane production?

Built more U-Boats and fewer aircraft? Or built fewer U-boats and more aircraft?

Or something else like completing Atlantic Wall before D-Day or making millions of Flak guns to stop the enemy bombers more effective, tried doing Jet Aircraft earlier and greater numbers, or something entirely different...

Will be intersting to hear what everyone thinks and comes up with for answers.

 

 

I have to ask Thrawn, why all these scenarios where the Nazis win?  It is a disgusting thought.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
469 posts
12,428 battles

These discussions all come down to "What if..."

Germany was doomed when it did two incredibly stupid things:

It attacked Russia while still under a non-aggression pact with Britain still in the fight (two fronts).

It declared war on the USA when it did not need to. The pact signed with Italy and Japan guaranteed a party would go to war if another party was attacked. With Japan striking the first blow Hitler did not need to declare war on the USA. With isolationists all over the states Roosevelt would have had to concentrate on Japan and not do a lot more that it was doing before December 7th.

Any discussion about a single battle, and that battel swaying the course of the war, needs to put the question in that context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
493
[LOU1]
Members
3,023 posts
8,125 battles

A pivotal point in the Battle of Britain was when they switched targets from the airfields to London and cities.  The RAF was on its last legs up until that point.  Targeting cities allowed the RAF to rebuild its strength.  While the loss in civilian life unfortunately increased, the respite allowed Britain to successfully defend herself as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,262
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,797 posts
15,191 battles
43 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Thought this might be a fun topic for discussion. How could the Battle of Britain been fought differently if Germany were to have won it?

Fatso Goering could have ignored Adolph's somewhat insane tactical decisions, stuck to hitting the RAF on the ground, in the air, and destroying their support facilities like radar stations and such, rather than abandoning a winning strategy to bomb English cities in retaliation for the RAF bombing a German one, thus giving the RAF time to recover and blow the Luftwaffe out of the air. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
95 posts
3,354 battles

the only way that the Nazis win the Battle of Britain... ever is if Winston Churchill capitulated at Dunkirk. The moment Churchill says "We will fight on the beachs, and we will never surrender" it becomes impossible for the Nazis to win. even if they had kept up with bombing the airfields they only had the range to bomb the airfields at the south of the British isles. the RAF could relocate to airfields up north and still be able to cover southern England and the channel  in the event of a invasion. 

an invasion, mind you, that would have been conducted primarily with barges. the Germans have no dedicated landing craft, so getting a army with tanks, all the relevant supplies, and everything else across the channel would have already been a feat even if the Kriegsmarine were up for it. which they were not. with a significant proportion of their destroyer force laid to waste at the battles of Narvik, and only a few capital ships at their disposal (Scharnhorst and Geniesenau) and a smattering of cruisers the Royal Navy would have had all the advantages against a fleet covering the invasion force. you may reach for U Boats, but let me remind you that the Royal navy had more subs in 1940 than the Kriegsmarine. so even if the germans did reach a point where they believed they could invade the most likely outcome would have been the destruction of the Kriegsmarine and the sinking of the Wehrmacht or the stranding of them, without supplies, in a country filled with people who would want to kill and capture them.  it would have made the battle of Stalingrad look comparatively like a major German victory with respect to how big an [edited]-kicking it would have been.  

in conclusion, there is literally no way that I can think of where the Nazis win the Battle of Britain militarily. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,262
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,797 posts
15,191 battles
49 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Keep up the pressure of bombing the airfields and Radar station, instead of terror bombing London? 

Built fewer planes and instead have built more U-Boats?

Built fewer planes and invested more heavily in V-1 and V2 research and production? Or built fewer U-Boats to do this and keep plane production?

Built more U-Boats and fewer aircraft? Or built fewer U-boats and more aircraft?

Build more U-Boats AND airplanes while ignoring the ego-stroking builds like battleships which did nothing but sit around and draw fire or pie-in-the-sky dream projects like the V-1 and V-2 weapons which really only hurt civilians and cemented their resolve to bury Hitler, the Nazis, and all their works.

He could NOT have attacked Russia but instead attacked the middle east, thus gaining the arab oil and giving him a secure supply and resupply route to his armies in Africa. while keeping his major economic trading partner intact and with a clear and unobstructed route which could not have been touched by the Allies. 

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 he could have pretended shock, withdrawn from the Axis over it, and cut off diplomatic relations with Japan, thus allowing the United States to concentrate it's forces in the Pacific and giving himself a much better situation in Europe. 

What you would have had then is a one front war in Europe, with Germany keeping it's best economic trading partner (Russia) and it's enemies getting little or no help from America until the situation in the Pacific was resolved. Think Germany could have won that war before the USA finished Japan off? I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,459
[REVY]
Members
6,104 posts
5,104 battles
1 minute ago, Umikami said:

Build more U-Boats AND airplanes while ignoring the ego-stroking builds like battleships which did nothing but sit around and draw fire or pie-in-the-sky dream projects like the V-1 and V-2 weapons which really only hurt civilians and cemented their resolve to bury Hitler, the Nazis, and all their works.

He could NOT have attacked Russia but instead attacked the middle east, thus gaining the arab oil and giving him a secure supply and resupply route to his armies in Africa. while keeping his major economic trading partner intact and with a clear and unobstructed route which could not have been touched by the Allies. 

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 he could have pretended shock, withdrawn from the Axis over it, and cut off diplomatic relations with Japan, thus allowing the United States to concentrate it's forces in the Pacific and giving himself a much better situation in Europe. 

What you would have had then is a one front war in Europe, with Germany keeping it's best economic trading partner (Russia) and it's enemies getting little or no help from America until the situation in the Pacific was resolved. Think Germany could have won that war before the USA finished Japan off? I do.

Even if FDR was not committed with fighting with Germany, he was committed with having the British fight the German for him.  If the British fell, FDR knew that the Germans would make war with America eventually which is why he callously used Churchill as he did.  The British would have gotten the Arsenal of Democracy regardless and have made the Germans pay for every grain of sand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,262
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,797 posts
15,191 battles
On 15.07.2018 at 1:53 AM, Commissar_Carl said:

they only had the range to bomb the airfields at the south of the British isles.

Explain the Condor bombers to me then as I think they definitely had the range to hit any and all of England.

On 15.07.2018 at 1:53 AM, Commissar_Carl said:

an invasion, mind you, that would have been conducted primarily with barges. the Germans have no dedicated landing craft, so getting a army with tanks, all the relevant supplies, and everything else across the channel would have already been a feat even if the Kriegsmarine were up for it. which they were not.

Actually, all Germany really needed to do was take one English Channel port and bring everything over in freighters, under cover of the Luftwaffe which would then be stationed on both sides of the channel.

On 15.07.2018 at 1:53 AM, Commissar_Carl said:

there is literally no way that I can think of where the Nazis win the Battle of Britain militarily. 

There are MANY ways Germany could have beaten England; the war Hitler started that he never could have won was the one against Russia.

On 15.07.2018 at 1:58 AM, Sventex said:

Even if FDR was not committed with fighting with Germany, he was committed with having the British fight the German for him.  If the British fell, FDR knew that the Germans would make war with America eventually which is why he callously used Churchill as he did.  The British would have gotten the Arsenal of Democracy regardless and have made the Germans pay for every grain of sand.

That all sounds good, but in reality FDR had to make everything go through the American congress, which would have been focused on JAPAN, especially if Germany had disassociated itself from the IJNs actions at Pearl Harbor. Congress fought FDR tooth and nail over everything he tried to give England; how much harder would they have fought if they were warring against Japan, and Germany had stayed clear of it all? Not to mention the resources Hitler could have called upon by NOT engaging the USSR and by dropping his "SUPERWEAPONS" in favor of aircraft and U-Boats. America made TREMENDOUS sacrifices to engage in a two front war; if confronted with a one front war they would have concentrated their resources against Japan first and Britain would have gotten little or nothing from there on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,459
[REVY]
Members
6,104 posts
5,104 battles
5 minutes ago, Umikami said:

That all sounds good, but in reality FDR had to make everything go through the American congress, which would have been focused on JAPAN, especially if Germany had disassociated itself from the IJNs actions at Pearl Harbor. Congress fought FDR tooth and nail over everything he tried to give England; how much harder would they have fought if they were warring against Japan, and Germany had stayed clear of it all? Not to mention the resources Hitler could have called upon by NOT engaging the USSR and by dropping his "SUPERWEAPONS" in favor of aircraft and U-Boats. America made TREMENDOUS sacrifices to engage in a two front war; if confronted with a one front war they would have concentrated their resources against Japan first and Britain would have gotten little or nothing from there on.

A fair point, FDR was not dictator.  But one thing to note was that the US had a massive amount of war production, but only moderate amounts of manpower.  At some point, Churchill could appeal to Congress while reports of massive surpluses sitting in warehouses could make Congress look really bad.  Especially for defying FDR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
95 posts
3,354 battles
31 minutes ago, Umikami said:
36 minutes ago, Commissar_Carl said:

they only had the range to bomb the airfields at the south of the British isles.

Explain the Condor bombers to me then as I think they definitely had the range to hit any and all of England.

oh  yeah, I forgot about all the formations of Condors that took part in bombing London and the airfields in southern England. oh, wait, I didn't, because the Condor wasn't used  in that role ever because its payload was pathetic (less than half of the He-111. also, not a German fighter in existence could escort it, so they would have taken HUGE casualties flying unescorted up the length of Britan.

 

31 minutes ago, Umikami said:
36 minutes ago, Commissar_Carl said:

an invasion, mind you, that would have been conducted primarily with barges. the Germans have no dedicated landing craft, so getting a army with tanks, all the relevant supplies, and everything else across the channel would have already been a feat even if the Kriegsmarine were up for it. which they were not.

Actually, all Germany really needed to do was take one English Channel port and bring everything over in freighters, under cover of the Luftwaffe which would then be stationed on both sides of the channel.

lets just assume that the British are dumb and don't completely trash the channel ports in the face of imminent invasion, rendering them useless. those freighters still have to cross the channel, a channel swarming with 60 submarines, at least, and the kriegsmarine would have precious few ships that could actively combat that (you know, with half of their destroyers down). 

Build more U-Boats AND airplanes while ignoring the ego-stroking builds like battleships which did nothing but sit around and draw fire or pie-in-the-sky dream projects like the V-1 and V-2 weapons which really only hurt civilians and cemented their resolve to bury Hitler, the Nazis, and all their works.

once the war started they abandoned building battleships for u-boats, and their aircraft production scheme was so screwed up  that by the time they were able to build aircraft at a rate where they wern't losing more than they were building they had lost most of their experienced pilots. 

  I stand by my opinion that the Nazis really had no way to invade the UK and force them out of the war.

 

Edited by Commissar_Carl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
555
[CVA16]
Members
2,751 posts
6,390 battles
1 hour ago, Prothall said:

These discussions all come down to "What if..."

Germany was doomed when it did two incredibly stupid things:

It attacked Russia while still under a non-aggression pact with Britain still in the fight (two fronts).

It declared war on the USA when it did not need to. The pact signed with Italy and Japan guaranteed a party would go to war if another party was attacked. With Japan striking the first blow Hitler did not need to declare war on the USA. With isolationists all over the states Roosevelt would have had to concentrate on Japan and not do a lot more that it was doing before December 7th.

Any discussion about a single battle, and that battel swaying the course of the war, needs to put the question in that context.

Should have also waited another 5 years and had all their "super" weapons. Finish off Europe. Leave the Soviets and US alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,268
[RKLES]
Members
7,197 posts
8,955 battles
15 minutes ago, Sventex said:

I have to ask Thrawn, why all these scenarios where the Nazis win?  It is a disgusting thought.

 

Because we know that thankfully the Allies won and it would be a terrible world if they had lost to the Axis Powers. But part of staying ahead of an enemy or problems we encounter in life sometimes, is to be practiced in examining all the possibilities to be able to beat the next situation you find yourself in. If we only said of course we won, and just assumed the enemy had absolutely no chance from the start, then that sets us up for dangerous level of arrogance.

I play in  State, National, and International chess tournaments when I get the opportunities to do so. And while I carefully examine why I lost a game often with friends helping analyze the results, I also do so when I win. Because if I got on a winning streak and never saw  or simply inpgnorec any chances the opponent could have done different or even beaten me, then at some point I will take some hard losses seemingly out of the blue. 

This thread is meant to be another fun strategy excercise or game, since we know Germany and Japan for that matter had some options they did not use or used too late.  I have heard arguments for various aspects that I have combined into this thread to reach a conclusion more quickly. Just like Germany was developing Nukes, and thankfully Allies put a stop to that in time. But would be intersting to understand if  Germans had any other feasible options. The infighting that German high command often went through did squander a lot of resources, and certainly saved a lot of lives. And knowing the full capabilities of the enemy also helps us appreciate how well the allies had to fight and plan as well as the sacrifices they had to make to provide us with the freedom we enjoy today.

Hope this clarifies things a bit, it’s NOT that I like things that are evil. I just like knowing how close the world could have been to disaster and appreciate the fact we did not fall.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,459
[REVY]
Members
6,104 posts
5,104 battles
1 minute ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Because we know that thankfully the Allies won and it would be a terrible world if they had lost to the Axis Powers. But part of staying ahead of an enemy or problems we encounter in life sometimes, is to be practiced in examining all the possibilities to be able to beat the next situation you find yourself in. If we only said of course we won, and just assumed the enemy had absolutely no chance from the start, then that sets us up for dangerous level of arrogance.

I play in  State, National, and International chess tournaments when I get the opportunities to do so. And while I carefully examine why I lost a game often with friends helping analyze the results, I also do so when I win. Because if I got on a winning streak and never saw  or simply inpgnorec any chances the opponent could have done different or even beaten me, then at some point I will take some hard losses seemingly out of the blue. 

This thread is meant to be another fun strategy excercise or game, since we know Germany and Japan for that matter had some options they did not use or used too late.  I have heard arguments for various aspects that I have combined into this thread to reach a conclusion more quickly. Just like Germany was developing Nukes, and thankfully Allies put a stop to that in time. But would be intersting to understand if  Germans had any other feasible options. The infighting that German high command often went through did squander a lot of resources, and certainly saved a lot of lives. And knowing the full capabilities of the enemy also helps us appreciate how well the allies had to fight and plan as well as the sacrifices they had to make to provide us with the freedom we enjoy today.

Hope this clarifies things a bit, it’s NOT that I like things that are evil. I just like knowing how close the world could have been to disaster and appreciate the fact we did not fall.

Well that's good to hear, learning why somebody lost is an important learning experience.  But since all these threads were about if Germany won something, I was starting to get nervous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
347
[ZIPPO]
Members
1,555 posts
3,539 battles
1 hour ago, ExploratorOne said:

A pivotal point in the Battle of Britain was when they switched targets from the airfields to London and cities.  The RAF was on its last legs up until that point.  Targeting cities allowed the RAF to rebuild its strength.  While the loss in civilian life unfortunately increased, the respite allowed Britain to successfully defend herself as a whole.

This is it, what would have happened after that is that Britain would have been forced to sign a peace treaty because not only what you wrote, the U boats were essentially starving everyone also. I doubt Germany would have done anything about USA since we're on the other side if the worked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
176
[70]
Members
973 posts
3,846 battles

All possibilities of the Germans being better at the BoB end in one of Winston Churchill's speeches by IIRC HMS Pinafore on the Navweaps Boards:

"They came. We won."

Hitler absolutely would not have been able to resist going for an invasion.

 

Even building U-boats takes a while, with enough time and sophistication in the process that cheap ramshackle escorts could be cobbled together faster. And that was a great deal of why the U-boats lost.

Besides, if the British ever got really desperate they could still drain the Eastern Fleet for escorts.

Edited by Guardian54

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,789
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,056 posts
14,457 battles

The only way Germany wins the Battle of Britain was if the Royal Navy was abducted en-masse by Martians.

 

Even if the Royal Air Force was subdued, the Royal Navy was there and would absolutely have crushed any landing attempts.  The Germans were not ready at all to conduct contested landings with a Navy as powerful as the Royal Navy there to say, "Not today, Jerry."

 

Allied landings in WWII took years of doctrine perfection, practice, lots of proper ships.  It also helped having naval and air power sufficient to contest at the bare minimum, if not outright superiority.  Germany had none of that if it wanted to invade the UK.

 

It actually kind of annoys me, even as an American, that the RN doesn't get credit for shielding Britain from invasion, as if they didn't exist at all at this time, and that the RAF was the only thing defending them.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
764
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,239 posts
1,822 battles
3 hours ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Thought this might be a fun topic for discussion. How could the Battle of Britain been fought differently if Germany were to have won it? We know Germany only had X amounts of resources so question is how to use them to better fight the battle. And came up with the idea for this thread after hearing how different branches of German Armed Forces in WWII would often argue over what resources should be used where. And might as well throw in the  Mediterranean in here as well since the idea is how they could defeat allies or get amistace and keep Europe under Axis control.

Keep up the pressure of bombing the airfields and Radar station, instead of terror bombing London? 

Built fewer planes and instead have built more U-Boats?

Built fewer planes and invested more heavily in V-1 and V2 research and production? Or built fewer U-Boats to do this and keep plane production?

Built more U-Boats and fewer aircraft? Or built fewer U-boats and more aircraft?

Or something else like completing Atlantic Wall before D-Day or making millions of Flak guns to stop the enemy bombers more effective, tried doing Jet Aircraft earlier and greater numbers, or something entirely different...

Will be intersting to hear what everyone thinks and comes up with for answers.

 

 

Germany could not have won it.  The Brits talk it up as though it was a close run thing, when in fact it was nigh impossible for the Germans to have won.  Every single time it has been gamed out in West Point or Sandhurst, starting with the presumed defeat of RAF Fighter Command, it ends with the British inventorying their new "Made in Germany" tanks and guns and building large prisoner of war camps for the captured German armies.  The problem is that the RAF cannot be destroyed, just pulled back and held in reserve to cover the Royal Navy as best they can when the RN sorties against the invasion.  The Luftwaffe's effectiveness against ships was far below the IJN's effectiveness at that time, as demonstrated at Dunkirk.  Yes, the RN takes losses, but it wholesale slaughters the invasion barges and shuts the channel to the Germans.  The Luftwaffe, as at Stalingrad, promises to supply the armies by air, and like at Stalingrad it cannot as it lacks the lift capacity, even without the Ju52s being shot down by Spitfires and Hurricanes.  The German army runs out of ammo, fuel and food and is forced to surrender to the British.

The only way Germany could have defeated Britain, and it would have happened latter, is in the Battle of the Atlantic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
76 posts

One of the issues that the British had was that while they were on the down and out, they did a lot of work around the clock to make it look like they were in it to the end to win it.  When Germany decided to shift their targets to the cities and started to terrorize the people of London, the British took it personally.  With the shift in where they were attacking the British at it allowed them to turn it up to 11 and made them fight harder and smarter.

There are many historians that have argued about if the German's didn't invade Russia if Great Britain would have fell or if the Germans could have even pulled off an actual invasion to finish them off even if the Battle Of The Atlantic hadn't choked them off any earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,262
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,797 posts
15,191 battles
On 15.07.2018 at 2:13 AM, Sventex said:

A fair point, FDR was not dictator.  But one thing to note was that the US had a massive amount of war production, but only moderate amounts of manpower.  At some point, Churchill could appeal to Congress while reports of massive surpluses sitting in warehouses could make Congress look really bad.  Especially for defying FDR.

Look at it like this; the USA did indeed have a massive industrial potential but in 1941 it was certainly not fully realized. It took the nation until 1943 to really get things fully organized and streamlined for full wartime production. 1943. And that was using many women to replace the trained men who were going to war. The most important items were naval vessels, naval support vessels, and merchantmen to transport American goods to where they were needed. On December 8th ALL these started producing at full speed, however, ships, support ships, and Liberty ships take TIME. Meanwhile, German production, no longer hampered by much of it's workforce going to Russia, has been building for an invasion of England since Dunkirk ended in June of 1940. Hitler is not losing planes or men in Russia, indeed, he is getting supplies FROM Russia, who in 1939 and 1940 WAS GERMANYS BIGGEST ECONOMIC TRADE PARTNER. Germany might not have had any landing craft, but they certainly did have paratroops (used to great benefit during the invasion of Greece) and if they can secure even one channel port you can bet Hitler will have troop transports standing by ready to crash themselves into the docks or piers of whatever English town the paratroops take. Even a small merchant vessel can hold a division of combat troops who are more than ready to live off the English countryside. Once a bridgehead is established, the Luftwaffe and the U-Boats work overtime keeping it secure and free of the RN and the RAF. 

While this is happening FDR and the Americans are building up their resources for their first onslaught against the Japanese; America was in a crap state to go to war in 1941. Canada might have tried to help, but without escort ships the U-Boats will have a field day, escort ships which the USA supplied. Also, both India and Australia would also try to help, but the situation with them is even worse than it is for Canada because the route is longer and there are more hazards along the way. Japan still wants British bases in Asia so they will certainly be at war, and the Med will still be full of German and Italian raiders.

Whether the USA has surpluses sitting in warehouses or not, she doesn't have anywhere near the tonnage of ships necessary to get them to Europe, especially when she has just been attacked in Asia. The Philippines will still fall, and Singapore, and Indonesia; the Indian ocean will still be threatened, and the US Navy will still be recovering.

Yeah, that war was definitely winnable, and Germany could certainly have invaded England.

On 15.07.2018 at 4:24 AM, Helstrem said:

Germany could not have won it.  The Brits talk it up as though it was a close run thing, when in fact it was nigh impossible for the Germans to have won.  Every single time it has been gamed out in West Point or Sandhurst, starting with the presumed defeat of RAF Fighter Command, it ends with the British inventorying their new "Made in Germany" tanks and guns and building large prisoner of war camps for the captured German armies.  The problem is that the RAF cannot be destroyed, just pulled back and held in reserve to cover the Royal Navy as best they can when the RN sorties against the invasion.  The Luftwaffe's effectiveness against ships was far below the IJN's effectiveness at that time, as demonstrated at Dunkirk.  Yes, the RN takes losses, but it wholesale slaughters the invasion barges and shuts the channel to the Germans.  The Luftwaffe, as at Stalingrad, promises to supply the armies by air, and like at Stalingrad it cannot as it lacks the lift capacity, even without the Ju52s being shot down by Spitfires and Hurricanes.  The German army runs out of ammo, fuel and food and is forced to surrender to the British.

Read the above ... what barges?

 

On 15.07.2018 at 2:29 AM, Commissar_Carl said:

lets just assume that the British are dumb and don't completely trash the channel ports in the face of imminent invasion, rendering them useless. those freighters still have to cross the channel, a channel swarming with 60 submarines, at least, and the kriegsmarine would have precious few ships that could actively combat that (you know, with half of their destroyers down). 

The British WERE facing what they thought was an imminent invasion; this is why they formed the Geezer Guard or whatever other name they had for the battalions of old vets from the First World War that they had guarding the countryside and other tasks they hadn't the manpower for. Yet they didn't trash ANY of their channel ports because the ports were too important when it came to feeding the nation. Sorry, but I can't accept this point as history doesn't support it.

On 15.07.2018 at 2:29 AM, Commissar_Carl said:

oh  yeah, I forgot about all the formations of Condors that took part in bombing London and the airfields in southern England. oh, wait, I didn't, because the Condor wasn't used  in that role ever because its payload was pathetic (less than half of the He-111. also, not a German fighter in existence could escort it, so they would have taken HUGE casualties flying unescorted up the length of Britan.

All planes improve with time, and if the Condors could carry the fuel to perform massive sweeps of the Atlantic and Arctic oceans, they could have loaded less fuel, at 6.3 pounds per gallon, and loaded more bombs. The types of ordinance needed to destroy aircraft are quite light, comparatively; nothing like the heavy ordinance required to bust concrete emplacements. And as far as fighter support goes, drop tanks could be used, twin engine fighters could be used, and this is not the Eighth Air Force trying to bomb Germany; we're talking about an extra one hundred miles or so each way to cover ALL of England. The Allies certainly overcame these same difficulties when we began bombing Fortress Europa, and I'm sure the Germans could have come up with something workable.

On 15.07.2018 at 2:29 AM, Commissar_Carl said:

once the war started they abandoned building battleships for u-boats, and their aircraft production scheme was so screwed up  that by the time they were able to build aircraft at a rate where they wern't losing more than they were building they had lost most of their experienced pilots.

They wouldn't be losing any planes in Russia, they wouldn't be losing any pilots in Russia, they wouldn't need any equipment or manpower in Russia; this influx of logistics alone makes the invasion possible. Compared to what the Germans used against Britain, Russia was a bottomless pit for both men and equipment, all of which Hitler would have had access to. Yeah, I'm sure this war is more than winnable ... for the Germans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,459
[REVY]
Members
6,104 posts
5,104 battles
32 minutes ago, Umikami said:

Look at it like this; the USA did indeed have a massive industrial potential but in 1941 it was certainly not fully realized. It took the nation until 1943 to really get things fully organized and streamlined for full wartime production. 1943. And that was using many women to replace the trained men who were going to war. The most important items were naval vessels, naval support vessels, and merchantmen to transport American goods to where they were needed. On December 8th ALL these started producing at full speed, however, ships, support ships, and Liberty ships take TIME. Meanwhile, German production, no longer hampered by much of it's workforce going to Russia, has been building for an invasion of England since Dunkirk ended in June of 1940. Hitler is not losing planes or men in Russia, indeed, he is getting supplies FROM Russia, who in 1939 and 1940 WAS GERMANYS BIGGEST ECONOMIC TRADE PARTNER. Germany might not have had any landing craft, but they certainly did have paratroops (used to great benefit during the invasion of Greece) and if they can secure even one channel port you can bet Hitler will have troop transports standing by ready to crash themselves into the docks or piers of whatever English town the paratroops take. Even a small merchant vessel can hold a division of combat troops who are more than ready to live off the English countryside. Once a bridgehead is established, the Luftwaffe and the U-Boats work overtime keeping it secure and free of the RN and the RAF. 

While this is happening FDR and the Americans are building up their resources for their first onslaught against the Japanese; America was in a crap state to go to war in 1941. Canada might have tried to help, but without escort ships the U-Boats will have a field day, escort ships which the USA supplied. Also, both India and Australia would also try to help, but the situation with them is even worse than it is for Canada because the route is longer and there are more hazards along the way. Japan still wants British bases in Asia so they will certainly be at war, and the Med will still be full of German and Italian raiders.

Whether the USA has surpluses sitting in warehouses or not, she doesn't have anywhere near the tonnage of ships necessary to get them to Europe, especially when she has just been attacked in Asia. The Philippines will still fall, and Singapore, and Indonesia; the Indian ocean will still be threatened, and the US Navy will still be recovering.

Yeah, that war was definitely winnable, and Germany could certainly have invaded England.

Read the above ... what barges?

One bridgehead can't work.  Locally the German forces would be totally outnumbered by the British Forces.  They would be pushed back into the sea in short order.  The Germans would need to create multiple footholds simultaneously to take the initiative away from the British land forces, and I just don't see that happening with just U-Boats and barges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,262
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,797 posts
15,191 battles
1 minute ago, Sventex said:

One bridgehead can't work.  Locally the German forces would be totally outnumbered by the British Forces.  They would be pushed back into the sea in short order.  The Germans would need to create multiple footholds simultaneously to take the initiative away from the British land forces, and I just don't see that happening with just U-Boats and barges.

Actually, I disagree with that assessment, though I will admit that the initial shock troops would certainly sustain severe casualties. It certainly would depend on the Luftwaffe's ability to interdict English attempts to bring in more troops, and again you make a good point about how the invading forces would be outnumbered by the local forces; however, the local forces would be mostly untrained or poorly trained militia during the first phases of the re-enforcement, and civilian help would be of dubious value at best. Also, you will need to take into account the clogging of local roads by refugees fleeing the invasion and slowing down attempts to get new and fresh troops into the combat area. 

In other words, it would be a confused nightmare. Remember the photos of the road leading out of Kuwait City when the coalition troops fired on retreating Republican guard units trying to escape? Imagine that, but with 1930s vehicles strafed by 109s and 190s and bombed by Heinkels, with horse drawn carts and hand pushed carts strewn throughout. That would have been the situation in and out of the target city, and it works in the invaders favor, giving them time to bring in troops by air and sea. And, of course, not all those troops would have made it; but would Hitler and Goering have worried about that? Stalin certainly didn't when he was bolstering Stalingrad.

No battle is ever a "sure thing"; anyone foolish to believe that need only look to the battle of Midway for proof positive of that fact. The English might be able to assemble and re-enforce by rail if the Luftwaffe doesn't remove the rail lines. They might just decide to march their troops in by night as they had done time and time again during WW1. They might even break out the Fleet and re-enforce by Sea if they thought they could bully their way through. But it is definitely possible for the Germans to successfully invade; whether or not they can hold and exploit that invasion is another matter entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
493
[LOU1]
Members
3,023 posts
8,125 battles

We also have to keep in mind there was someone who frequently overruled effective military tactics, doctrine or plans based on a "whim".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
764
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,239 posts
1,822 battles
Just now, Umikami said:

Look at it like this; the USA did indeed have a massive industrial potential but in 1941 it was certainly not fully realized. It took the nation until 1943 to really get things fully organized and streamlined for full wartime production. 1943. And that was using many women to replace the trained men who were going to war. The most important items were naval vessels, naval support vessels, and merchantmen to transport American goods to where they were needed. On December 8th ALL these started producing at full speed, however, ships, support ships, and Liberty ships take TIME. Meanwhile, German production, no longer hampered by much of it's workforce going to Russia, has been building for an invasion of England since Dunkirk ended in June of 1940. Hitler is not losing planes or men in Russia, indeed, he is getting supplies FROM Russia, who in 1939 and 1940 WAS GERMANYS BIGGEST ECONOMIC TRADE PARTNER. Germany might not have had any landing craft, but they certainly did have paratroops (used to great benefit during the invasion of Greece) and if they can secure even one channel port you can bet Hitler will have troop transports standing by ready to crash themselves into the docks or piers of whatever English town the paratroops take. Even a small merchant vessel can hold a division of combat troops who are more than ready to live off the English countryside. Once a bridgehead is established, the Luftwaffe and the U-Boats work overtime keeping it secure and free of the RN and the RAF. 

While this is happening FDR and the Americans are building up their resources for their first onslaught against the Japanese; America was in a crap state to go to war in 1941. Canada might have tried to help, but without escort ships the U-Boats will have a field day, escort ships which the USA supplied. Also, both India and Australia would also try to help, but the situation with them is even worse than it is for Canada because the route is longer and there are more hazards along the way. Japan still wants British bases in Asia so they will certainly be at war, and the Med will still be full of German and Italian raiders.

Whether the USA has surpluses sitting in warehouses or not, she doesn't have anywhere near the tonnage of ships necessary to get them to Europe, especially when she has just been attacked in Asia. The Philippines will still fall, and Singapore, and Indonesia; the Indian ocean will still be threatened, and the US Navy will still be recovering.

Yeah, that war was definitely winnable, and Germany could certainly have invaded England.

Read the above ... what barges?

You are no longer discussing the Germans winning the Battle of Britain and Operation Sea Lion.  You've gone way, way out of scope.

And even then it is doubtful the Germans could do it.  The German economy was only capable of producing a fraction of what the US could produce, about the same as what the UK could produce.  It took the US and UK combined until mid-1944 to have the resources to invade mainland Europe, and this included getting practical experience at Dieppe and in the Pacific.

You may not be aware of it, but the British produced more airplanes during the Battle of Britain than the Germans did.  There is no feasible, non-fantasy way the Germans could have invaded the UK.  Starved it into capitulation with a win in the Battle of the Atlantic?  Sure, but invaded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,459
[REVY]
Members
6,104 posts
5,104 battles
6 minutes ago, Umikami said:

Actually, I disagree with that assessment, though I will admit that the initial shock troops would certainly sustain severe casualties. It certainly would depend on the Luftwaffe's ability to interdict English attempts to bring in more troops, and again you make a good point about how the invading forces would be outnumbered by the local forces; however, the local forces would be mostly untrained or poorly trained militia during the first phases of the re-enforcement, and civilian help would be of dubious value at best. Also, you will need to take into account the clogging of local roads by refugees fleeing the invasion and slowing down attempts to get new and fresh troops into the combat area. 

In other words, it would be a confused nightmare. Remember the photos of the road leading out of Kuwait City when the coalition troops fired on retreating Republican guard units trying to escape? Imagine that, but with 1930s vehicles strafed by 109s and 190s and bombed by Heinkels, with horse drawn carts and hand pushed carts strewn throughout. That would have been the situation in and out of the target city, and it works in the invaders favor, giving them time to bring in troops by air and sea. And, of course, not all those troops would have made it; but would Hitler and Goering have worried about that? Stalin certainly didn't when he was bolstering Stalingrad.

No battle is ever a "sure thing"; anyone foolish to believe that need only look to the battle of Midway for proof positive of that fact. The English might be able to assemble and re-enforce by rail if the Luftwaffe doesn't remove the rail lines. They might just decide to march their troops in by night as they had done time and time again during WW1. They might even break out the Fleet and re-enforce by Sea if they thought they could bully their way through. But it is definitely possible for the Germans to successfully invade; whether or not they can hold and exploit that invasion is another matter entirely.

It depends on the situation.  The Enigma machine was already cracked so it's unlikely that poorly trained militia would confront the invasion force unless Dunkirk went an alternate path and because a complete disaster.  Even if it meant tipping their hand over Enigma, defeating the invasion would be Britain's highest priority and they would entrench their best troops to defeat the Germans before a foothold could be established.

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×