Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
How could Hitler have won WW2?
Comments
-
riffmongous wrote: »The Germans never developed a torpedo bomber did they?
I think they could drop them from ju88 and he1110 -
Just doing a quick check and it seems the German's did lack armour penetrating bombs that would of been good against shipping. Think it was simply down to lack of training, ships are moving targets, warships can be quite agile and can fire back at you.
I think it was combination of air and submarine attacks against the Arctic and Mediterranean convoys. The Fritz X I think was only available from 1943 onwards.
Good description of an attack here...
https://www.armouredcarriers.com/illustrious-malta-operation-excess-january-10-19410 -
I’ve always thought the Japanese cost them the war.
Bringing the Americans into the war by bombing Pearl harbour was insanity. America had repeatedly refused to get directly involved.
Without the American involvement there would have been no successful push back, or it would have been too slow allowing Hitler regroup.
The Japanese attack on Pearl Habour meant war between the USA and Japan but that did not automatically mean war with between the USA and Germany/Italy. Both Germany and Italy declared war on America, Italy actually declaring it first. Whether America would of joined in the war in Europe had Germany and Italy not declared war is a matter of debate.
Its very hard to know what would of happened had America not being in the European war. I do believe Russia could of just about won on their own, but it would of been even more costly for them.0 -
-
I’ve always thought the Japanese cost them the war.
Bringing the Americans into the war by bombing Pearl harbour was insanity. America had repeatedly refused to get directly involved.
Without the American involvement there would have been no successful push back, or it would have been too slow allowing Hitler regroup.
FDR was desperate to get America into the war in Europe. American ships and convoys keeping Britain supplied were already fighting the U boats in the Atlantic before the formal declaration of war in December 1941.
If Halifax was PM and he sued for peace in May 1940 after the fall of France the Americans would have had to go to war with the combined British French German and Italian fleets to get a foothold in North West Europe.0 -
The Germans should of concentrated on North Africa, knocked the allies out of the theatre there, that's your southern theatre you have not to worry about. Hitler was a fan of the Muslims he could of increased his army with new recruits to be in his armies. There was a lot of Bosnian Muslims in the waffen SS. This would of added the much needed manpower when they eventually invaded the soviet Union. Conscript from North Africa, they would of gotten possibly millions of soldiers from there, have the clerics on your side saying its a holy war, make it that they are there to save them from communism, have them believe the soviet Union will invade them and make them renounce their religion. Court Turkey, as they were an ally of Germany in WW1 you have ties there. If you have them on your side when you eventually invade the soviet Union there you have the extra manpower of possibly 2 more German armies. You can invade up from Georgia with one of them coming up from the south, the other army could land divisions along different points of the black sea in the soviet Union while at the same time as happened during operation barbarossa the invasion from nazi held territory would still happen. So instead of 3 German armies you would of had 5 the one coming up from Georgia could advance on the oil fields in the caucasus, the other army around black sea could of advanced quickly and taken stalingrad, other 3 army groups would still try and take leningrad, Moscow, and Southern army group linked up with the new army group that has captured stalingrad and these advance north to help capture Moscow with army group centre. Now this wouldn't of happened in 1941 possibly late 40s so would of been up against a stronger soviet Union. If you wanted to drain them of some of their manpower in the years before you invaded them you could of come to a secret arrangement with them saying that they could have all of Finland and Sweden but had to have invaded them say within 5 years so let's say 1945, they would of lost millions of soldiers in the process, through injury and death. Less the Germans and their allies would of had to fought when they invaded, plus you you of had Sweden and the Finns as allies then, you could of secretly supplied them with weapons to inflict as much damage on the soviet forces invading. Now with Japan I would of tried to have made them invade the Soviets from the far east just to tie soviet forces down there and then USA wouldn't of been dragged in at that point, deal with them later down the line. In regards to Britain I would have launched an airborne invasion of Ireland and informed the Irish government that we were not at war with them and just diverted their forces up to Northern Ireland and taken that. Make England even more land locked away from other countries. You could of set up air fields up in Northern Ireland and bombed British shipping from there. Hitler should of made Franco put pressure on Great Britain to say that they will be joining the war on the nazi side unless they hand over the rock of Gibraltar, I say in 1940/1941 if they had of they may have gotten this as Britain didn't need anymore against them even this Spain was in no state they still could of supplied manpower to the war effort. But what if what if hindsight is a great thing.0
-
Yes I was on the HMS Belfast when I was young but I barely remember it.
The bulk of the Royal Navy's home fleet was based up in Scapa Flow up not patrolling the channel or based in ports along the south, south west cost of England (as they would of been targets for the Luftwaffe). It would of taken some time for them to get down from Scapa Flow to contest the landings.
2-3 light Cruisers would not have been sufficient to deal with the entire invasion fleet, they would of got the intention of the surface ships of the Kreigsmarine, U-Boats, have had to avoided the German minefields and probably attracted the attention of significant German air power.
Think about what your saying for second, 2-3 cruisers would never have enough ammunition to sink 100 ships, even assuming they where 100% accurate with their gunnery (which they where no where near).
The invasion would only have gone ahead assuming air superiority making it difficult for the RAF to carry out reconnaissance over the many ports the German's where assembling the invasion fleet in. The Royal Navy patrol ships if they spotted part of the invasion fleet can't magically summon the rest of the fleet from Scapa Flow. Again assuming the German's had won air superiority wouldn't they make ever effort to sink any patrol ships along the inttended route the invasion force was planing to use weeks in advance. Even if the British had advanced warning that the invasion fleet was assembling (which wasn't coming from one location but across multiple locations), do they send the home fleet down from Scapa Flow close to the channel to await the invasion and give the Luftwaffe days to bomb them in advance, you think the German's wouldn't have notice them and sent every aircraft they had over and over at them to do as much damage before invasion began. The German's would of halted the invasion force and kept bombing the home fleet until it dispersed.
The German's had no chance of successfully invading Britain, but I don't think the British where in a position to stop the landings, the distance was too short and it would taken too long for the British to assemble the home fleet inforce. But once they had done that the German's had no way of stopping them from cutting off the landing zone and destroying any attempt at resupply via sea.
From what I've read from the German's point of view, they where confident they could land in Britain, but had no confidence in the navy being able to resupply the invasion force. So yes the invasion was a fantasy but not in a bit different manner than you suggest.
Submarines operated mostly with their deck guns and 8 to 12 torpedos. They had 1 deck gun and could sink multiple ships in a convoy with them and that was with extremely limited storage space.
Cruisers had space to carry multplies of hundreds of times what a submarine could, they were designed to help capital ships engage enemy capital ships and carried more than enough ammuntion for sinking hundreds of unarmoured merchant ships. They carried 300 rounds per gun. So I have thought about what I was saying. Yes the main British battlefleet was in Scarpa flow. There was also the channel fleet, smaller but still much larger then the German navy which was bottled in the Baltic by the Scarpa flow fleet.
I specifically said it would require a tiny portion of the royal navy fleet to stop an invasion. There would been no requirement for the main battle fleet from Scarpa flow, unless the entire German and Italian plus the Vichey French Navy (sunk at anchor by the British) by some magical feat managed to converge on western France, then the main battle fleet would have been required.0 -
The Germans should of concentrated on North Africa, knocked the allies out of the theatre there, that's your southern theatre you have not to worry about. Hitler was a fan of the Muslims he could of increased his army with new recruits to be in his armies. There was a lot of Bosnian Muslims in the waffen SS. This would of added the much needed manpower when they eventually invaded the soviet Union. Conscript from North Africa, they would of gotten possibly millions of soldiers from there, have the clerics on your side saying its a holy war, make it that they are there to save them from communism, have them believe the soviet Union will invade them and make them renounce their religion. Court Turkey, as they were an ally of Germany in WW1 you have ties there. If you have them on your side when you eventually invade the soviet Union there you have the extra manpower of possibly 2 more German armies. You can invade up from Georgia with one of them coming up from the south, the other army could land divisions along different points of the black sea in the soviet Union while at the same time as happened during operation barbarossa the invasion from nazi held territory would still happen. So instead of 3 German armies you would of had 5 the one coming up from Georgia could advance on the oil fields in the caucasus, the other army around black sea could of advanced quickly and taken stalingrad, other 3 army groups would still try and take leningrad, Moscow, and Southern army group linked up with the new army group that has captured stalingrad and these advance north to help capture Moscow with army group centre. Now this wouldn't of happened in 1941 possibly late 40s so would of been up against a stronger soviet Union. If you wanted to drain them of some of their manpower in the years before you invaded them you could of come to a secret arrangement with them saying that they could have all of Finland and Sweden but had to have invaded them say within 5 years so let's say 1945, they would of lost millions of soldiers in the process, through injury and death. Less the Germans and their allies would of had to fought when they invaded, plus you you of had Sweden and the Finns as allies then, you could of secretly supplied them with weapons to inflict as much damage on the soviet forces invading. Now with Japan I would of tried to have made them invade the Soviets from the far east just to tie soviet forces down there and then USA wouldn't of been dragged in at that point, deal with them later down the line. In regards to Britain I would have launched an airborne invasion of Ireland and informed the Irish government that we were not at war with them and just diverted their forces up to Northern Ireland and taken that. Make England even more land locked away from other countries. You could of set up air fields up in Northern Ireland and bombed British shipping from there. Hitler should of made Franco put pressure on Great Britain to say that they will be joining the war on the nazi side unless they hand over the rock of Gibraltar, I say in 1940/1941 if they had of they may have gotten this as Britain didn't need anymore against them even this Spain was in no state they still could of supplied manpower to the war effort. But what if what if hindsight is a great thing.
Hitler was not interested in North Africa and the Middle East except as a sideshow. He was prepared to leave the Mediterranean to the Vichy French and the Italians. He was primarily obsessed with living space in Eastern Europe and European Russia - grabbing the Caucasus oil fields the agricultural land of Ukraine and exterminating the Slavs before repopulating his conquests with Germans.
German faced an acute oil crisis in 1941. The Nazis had one shot to capture Leningrad Moscow - decapitating the Soviet system - and the Caucasus before reaching a line from Archangel to Astrakan.0 -
Ohh I know that but if he had of done that and concentrated there 1st and made allies with Turkey the war could of turned out much different for them. Turkey gave them a much quicker avenue to the oilfields just concentrate a field army advancing from there also into soviet Union as same time as army group north, centre and south. Could of been a game changer for them.0
-
Advertisement
-
Ohh I know that but if he had of done that and concentrated there 1st and made allies with Turkey the war could of turned out much different for them. Turkey gave them a much quicker avenue to the oilfields just concentrate a field army advancing from there also into soviet Union as same time as army group north, centre and south. Could of been a game changer for them.
Hitler was Hitler not some imaginary dictator who never existed so I am basing my hypothetical timeline on the real man and his ideological beliefs and goals to try and plausibly imagine a scenario that could have led to victory.0 -
Samsonsmasher wrote: »Hitler was Hitler not some imaginary dictator who never existed so I am basing my hypothetical timeline on the real man and his ideological beliefs and goals to try and plausibly imagine a scenario that could have led to victory.
Of course the 1st problem they had was Hitler.0 -
Samsonsmasher wrote: »Hitler was Hitler not some imaginary dictator who never existed so I am basing my hypothetical timeline on the real man and his ideological beliefs and goals to try and plausibly imagine a scenario that could have led to victory.
I have 1 plausible scenario. It involves not going to war with the west at all. If they had destabilized France in the mid 1930s by secretly funding and arming the communist party there causing a French civil war (a real possibility in France at that time) and then rolled in with help from Italy and the UK to rescue France from communism. Thus binding the UK and France not in an alliance but co-operation, they would have had a free hand in the east with secure oil imports from the Atlantic.
I can see no other way that Germany, Italy, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania could prevail against France, UK, USA and USSR.
I still suspect they would have needed some British and French troops fighting with them in the USSR to be certain of victory.0 -
The Nazis could of let the soviet Union invade Poland 1st, so the Germans hold off tell the Soviets they will invade on same date but dont, SOVIET UNION invade on 17th September 1939. Germans go to Britain and France and say they would happily declare war on soviet Union with them as both France and Great Britain have treaty to go Poland's defence. These 3 declare war on soviet Union. Afterwards Germany can go to war with them, once they deal with the Soviet Union. Just a matter of tricking Soviets into invading Poland 1st.0
-
Submarines operated mostly with their deck guns and 8 to 12 torpedos. They had 1 deck gun and could sink multiple ships in a convoy with them and that was with extremely limited storage space.
Cruisers had space to carry multplies of hundreds of times what a submarine could, they were designed to help capital ships engage enemy capital ships and carried more than enough ammuntion for sinking hundreds of unarmoured merchant ships. They carried 300 rounds per gun. So I have thought about what I was saying. Yes the main British battlefleet was in Scarpa flow. There was also the channel fleet, smaller but still much larger then the German navy which was bottled in the Baltic by the Scarpa flow fleet.
I specifically said it would require a tiny portion of the royal navy fleet to stop an invasion. There would been no requirement for the main battle fleet from Scarpa flow, unless the entire German and Italian plus the Vichey French Navy (sunk at anchor by the British) by some magical feat managed to converge on western France, then the main battle fleet would have been required.
Am aware cruisers have considerable more firepower than U-Boats but I haven't heard of any naval engagement where any ship has ever sunk 100's of anything,
Do you really think with the very survival of Britain on the line the British where just going to send a small part of their available navy to deal with it. From what I've read from historians and military experts seem to agree that the British would of sent the bulk of its capital ships to deal with the invasion.
I'm pretty certain its on record that's what the British intended.
Anyway why would take they take the risk, the Germans still had some military ships, at least 2 cruisers and 4 destroyers, likely dozens of U-Boats and a very big air-force to offer protection as well as protection via mines. Its also not like the British would of known exactly how big the invasion force was or how many naval escorts it had. No I don't think Sea Lion had a prayer of succeeding but I think the German's could of landed some troops, the crossing wasn't that far, could of been started at night and the British naval forces directly opposing them while capable of doing considerable damage was probably not strong enough to halt the invasion in its entirety though its absolutely not beyond the realms of impossibility they could of done enough damage to call the force the Germans to call it off, however there is absolutely no way you could know for certain that those naval forces would of definitely been capable of stopping it.0 -
Am aware cruisers have considerable more firepower than U-Boats but I haven't heard of any naval engagement where any ship has ever sunk 100's of anything,
Do you really think with the very survival of Britain on the line the British where just going to send a small part of their available navy to deal with it. From what I've read from historians and military experts seem to agree that the British would of sent the bulk of its capital ships to deal with the invasion.
I'm pretty certain its on record that's what the British intended.
Anyway why would take they take the risk, the Germans still had some military ships, at least 2 cruisers and 4 destroyers, likely dozens of U-Boats and a very big air-force to offer protection as well as protection via mines. Its also not like the British would of known exactly how big the invasion force was or how many naval escorts it had. No I don't think Sea Lion had a prayer of succeeding but I think the German's could of landed some troops, the crossing wasn't that far, could of been started at night and the British naval forces directly opposing them while capable of doing considerable damage was probably not strong enough to halt the invasion in its entirety though its absolutely not beyond the realms of impossibility they could of done enough damage to call the force the Germans to call it off, however there is absolutely no way you could know for certain that those naval forces would of definitely been capable of stopping it.
There is a very good reason you never heard of it, because no-one was ever stupid enough to try put hundreds of of unescorted troop transports up against cruisers. The scenarios you have read about all put the German Capital ships with the transports. I have always had a problem with that, how do German capital ships get to France?
They tried with the bismark and graf spee and they were sunk.
This is the scenario on land. German army tries to send 100 soft top opel trucks with soldiers in them over open ground with a small squad of t34s. No escorts or anti-tank, the distance required takes 12 hours. The t34s have seen the assembly of the trucks for days with recognizance.
Except each t34 can carry about 500 rounds of ammunition and is 3 times faster than the opel trucks.0 -
Advertisement
-
More immediately available were ten destroyers at the south coast ports of Dover and Portsmouth, a cruiser and three destroyers at Sheerness on the River Thames, three cruisers and seven destroyers at the Humber, nine destroyers at Harwich, and two cruisers at Rosyth.
Sorry that is a copy from wiki, its the disposition of the royal navy in the channel in July 1940.0 -
The channel was a battleground for MGB and MTB and EBoats, costal convoys. It was crisscrossed by rescue launches.
The start of the Battle of Britain was attacking the costal convoys.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain#Channel_battles
Later in the war, EBoats attacked US Landing craft practising for D-Day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_Tiger0 -
The Germans, did have semi and full armour piercing bombs. They could and did pierce armour decks.The armour piercing bomb shown was prefixed SD (Sprengbombe Dickwandig). They came is various sizes from 50, 250, 500 to 1,700kg and due to their penetration qualities were used primarily against ships and concrete emplacements. The PC (Panzerbombe Cylindrich) armour piercing bomb had a thicker nose and shell with only 20% of the total weight being explosive; these were used against ships and fortifications.
https://www.armouredcarriers.com/illustrious-malta-operation-excess-january-10-19410 -
Believe it was just the He-111 that could drop torpedos.
There was ju88 A4/ Tor variant also.
https://en.topwar.ru/164863-boevye-samolety-junkers-ju-88-universalnyj-ubijca.html
I don't know much about them tbh.0 -
Not really about winning the war ,but winning in russia , better logistics.
If the Germans had planned to rebuild/ reuse the Russian rail system at lightning speed ,they wouldn't have been as dependant on trucks (which were in short supply and had complicated logistics because of using german/ french / czech / austrian machines ) and that would have freed up fuel for the panzers too.
I don't think the soviet union would of just collapsed had the Germans taken moscow , but the moral blow as well as loosing such a huge rail hub and population /industry centre would have been significant ,
The Russians were pulling back industry behind the urals but in truth that's well beyond the Russian heart land....
Also the japanese not attacking in the east allowed resources be used in the west ...Slava ukraini 🇺🇦
0 -
Advertisement
-
Markcheese wrote: »Not really about winning the war ,but winning in russia , better logistics.
If the Germans had planned to rebuild/ reuse the Russian rail system at lightning speed ,they wouldn't have been as dependant on trucks (which were in short supply and had complicated logistics because of using german/ french / czech / austrian machines ) and that would have freed up fuel for the panzers too.
I don't think the soviet union would of just collapsed had the Germans taken moscow , but the moral blow as well as loosing such a huge rail hub and population /industry centre would have been significant ,
The Russians were pulling back industry behind the urals but in truth that's well beyond the Russian heart land....
Also the japanese not attacking in the east allowed resources be used in the west ...
Stalin and his gang fleeing or committing suicide or being captured in or around Moscow would have brought down the Soviet Union in 1941. No question about it.
It was a very real prospect - Stalin fell into a funk just like Hitler would in 1945 - just before the Germans were forced to retreat.0 -
There is a very good reason you never heard of it, because no-one was ever stupid enough to try put hundreds of of unescorted troop transports up against cruisers. The scenarios you have read about all put the German Capital ships with the transports. I have always had a problem with that, how do German capital ships get to France?
They tried with the bismark and graf spee and they were sunk.
This is the scenario on land. German army tries to send 100 soft top opel trucks with soldiers in them over open ground with a small squad of t34s. No escorts or anti-tank, the distance required takes 12 hours. The t34s have seen the assembly of the trucks for days with recognizance.
Except each t34 can carry about 500 rounds of ammunition and is 3 times faster than the opel trucks.
They where never going to be unescorted. As I already said the German would of layed mines along the flanks of the invasion force, they would have a limited number of destroyers, possibly some cruisers as well, U-Boats and a large amount of plane providing air cover.
This scenario specifically did not factor in German capital ships, as it was acknowledge these where not in an operational state at the likely time of a German invasion.
Also I take your point on Bismark and Graff Spree, but on paper the Channel Dash had no chance of succeeding either but they caught the British with there pants down on that one.
I take the point you trying to make but your land analogy isn't a good one. You're picking the tank with one of the worst visibility capabilities meaning there pretty awful at reconnaissance, but even if they do find out where the enemy Opel's are and start advancing towards them at least a third of tanks break down or collide with each other. Then when they finally get there since they lack radio, they all start targeting the same vehicles as the squad leader because of this, they are also missing a whole lot due to lack of training. They are also not as fast the Opel trucks either. Actually the most likely scenario is the infantry would of just got out of the trucks and dealt with the the handful of tanks but there isn't an equivalent to that on water.0 -
More immediately available were ten destroyers at the south coast ports of Dover and Portsmouth, a cruiser and three destroyers at Sheerness on the River Thames, three cruisers and seven destroyers at the Humber, nine destroyers at Harwich, and two cruisers at Rosyth.
Sorry that is a copy from wiki, its the disposition of the royal navy in the channel in July 1940.
Only the destroyers at Dover and Portsmouth are available to quickly engage the invasion fleet the rest are several hours away from at best and could of been delayed further by mines. Assuming the German's start at night they would likely be a good part of the way across the channel before being detected.
I don't think 10 destroyers is an over whelming force when your facing off against possibly dozen of U-Boats which are targeting those destroyers, the U-Boats might be able to torpedo some of them and if the destroyers are forced to go after the U-Boats well that takes time away from intercepting the invasion force. They couldn't just ignore the U-Boats and let them have free shots at them. The German's would likely have its handful of destroyers present as well, not to mention 100's of aircraft targeting these destroyers, again even if don't do much actual damage they would likely disrupt the destroyers ability to interfere in the landings.
I completely agree that a successful Operation Sea Lion is a total fantasy but I don't think its plausible that the German's where not capable of at least landing some troops a shore if they tried.0 -
Markcheese wrote: »Not really about winning the war ,but winning in russia , better logistics.
If the Germans had planned to rebuild/ reuse the Russian rail system at lightning speed ,they wouldn't have been as dependant on trucks (which were in short supply and had complicated logistics because of using german/ french / czech / austrian machines ) and that would have freed up fuel for the panzers too.
I don't think the soviet union would of just collapsed had the Germans taken moscow , but the moral blow as well as loosing such a huge rail hub and population /industry centre would have been significant ,
The Russians were pulling back industry behind the urals but in truth that's well beyond the Russian heart land....
Also the japanese not attacking in the east allowed resources be used in the west ...
From my understanding the German's did rebuild and use the Russian rail system as quickly as they could, it simply wasn't capable of providing the capacity for supplies needed and as Russia is so fast simply didn't go to all the locations the German's would have needed it to go.
Only 3 of the 18 divisions freed up for the Moscow counter attack came from Siberia when Richard Sorge the Soviet Spy Tokyo advised Japan would not attack "unless the Soviet Union redeployed significant forces in the east of the Soviet Union to the west".0 -
They where never going to be unescorted. As I already said the German would of layed mines along the flanks of the invasion force, they would have a limited number of destroyers, possibly some cruisers as well, U-Boats and a large amount of plane providing air cover.
This scenario specifically did not factor in German capital ships, as it was acknowledge these where not in an operational state at the likely time of a German invasion.
Also I take your point on Bismark and Graff Spree, but on paper the Channel Dash had no chance of succeeding either but they caught the British with there pants down on that one.
I take the point you trying to make but your land analogy isn't a good one. You're picking the tank with one of the worst visibility capabilities meaning there pretty awful at reconnaissance, but even if they do find out where the enemy Opel's are and start advancing towards them at least a third of tanks break down or collide with each other. Then when they finally get there since they lack radio, they all start targeting the same vehicles as the squad leader because of this, they are also missing a whole lot due to lack of training. They are also not as fast the Opel trucks either. Actually the most likely scenario is the infantry would of just got out of the trucks and dealt with the the handful of tanks but there isn't an equivalent to that on water.
Thats why I changed the analogy of t34s being 3 times faster than the trucks, destroyers and light cruisers were 3 times faster than merchant ships. Also you are again making a couple of assumptions in your 2nd post about Germany assembling a fleet and going at night, that was not going to happen. Why?
100k troops, even if you had ships large enough to carry 1,000 troops each that is 100 ships, an attempt to assemble such a group of ships in a French port or ports would have been spotted weeks in advance. The British had complete recognizance of French ports.
Weather conditions would have dictated when a German fleet could have launched, and the knowledge of those weather conditions and the presence of an assembled fleet and army in a French port would have put the channel fleet on alert. There were a further 50 destoyers in the western approaches and in August 1940 the British moved 3 Battleships to the south coast.
I said unescorted because the simple fact was that the ships available to the RN were about 10 to 1 in the channel and your point about German submarines must be tempered by the fact that the British submarine fleet actually outnumbered the German ones slightly. The 4 or 5 destroyers available to Germany had no chance of beating off 50 RN submarines.
The German destroyer fleet had already been effectively wiped out by the RN during the invasion of Norway, where the RN sank 12 german destroyers (in what was essentially German home waters).0 -
Just seeing this thread...
Not attacking the Soviet Union (do a deal with the Soviets for oil - you can have all of Poland), but continuing with the Battle of Britain to conclusion instead. And to really throw the cat amongst the pigeons... after Pearl Harbour, declare war on Japan.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Just seeing this thread...
Not attacking the Soviet Union (do a deal with the Soviets for oil - you can have all of Poland), but continuing with the Battle of Britain to conclusion instead. And to really throw the cat amongst the pigeons... after Pearl Harbour, declare war on Japan.
Again this thread is about plausible scenarios.
Hitler did not believe in trading with other countries because he believed in the zero sum game when it came to economics.
If Germany traded with Russia then the Russians would have benefitted and in time the Germans would become dependent on the Soviets weakening National Socialism. The free movement of people would have led to a dilution of the blood of the Volk.
Instead Hitler believed in wars of aggression and annihiliation. The German Volk would conquer the East or perish in the attempt.
The Reich needed oil food and land in the East and the Slavs had to make way for the German master race.
There was always going to be a war against the Soviet Union and the West therefore.
The Anglo Americans and the French were always going to have to be fought too because in Hitler's view Russia was controlled by Jewish Bolsheviks while the West with its cosmopolitanism especially the United States a melting pot ruled by Jewish capitalists was doomed to degenerate and collapse with the ruins ruled by Jewish Bolsheviks who were parasites feasting on the bodies of failed nations. If the Aryan Germans cleansed themselves of the Jews purified their blood and conquered the lands they were destined to rule they would be masters of the earth.0 -
The German's would not have invaded unless they had air superiority making reconnaissance of French ports much more difficult. I'm assuming the Battle of Britain had been won by the German and the RAF had withdrawn to the North of England. Had this not happened the invasion doesn't go ahead.
Even if you know the invasion fleet is assembling you still don't know the exact time. True you can put your ships on alert if the weather conditions are suitable for invasion but you still don't know the exact time, routes taken, it still takes time to get those ships to the location needed to intercept even from alert status.
Same with submarines, how would actually capable of intervening before the German's got across in the first wave.
As I said I know of no historian or military expert that believe Sea Lion could of worked, but the at the same time I don't know of any of them who categorically ruled out the German's being unable to get across in the first wave.
Apparently the German plans where for almost 4,000 vessels to be used in the invasion fleet.
Almost everything outside the channel is not going have the time to intervene so its really a question are the resources the Royal Navy channel enough to stop the invasion on their own. I don't think you can answer the conclusively either way.
Not to nit pick but I believe the Germans lost 10 destroyers in Norway, am aware the Germans had air cover and where closer to Norway than the British but that doesn't mean it was effectively home waters for the Germans)0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Just seeing this thread...
Not attacking the Soviet Union (do a deal with the Soviets for oil - you can have all of Poland), but continuing with the Battle of Britain to conclusion instead. And to really throw the cat amongst the pigeons... after Pearl Harbour, declare war on Japan.
The Germans did trade with the Soviet Union for oil right up till they attacked them. Wasn't enough though.0 -
The Germans did trade with the Soviet Union for oil right up till they attacked them. Wasn't enough though.
Did they offer them the rest of Poland*?
Ultimately Hitler (thankfully) was in too much of a hurry. * It would only have been a loan. He could have got back to expanding East... after helping the US defeat the Japanese.0 -
Advertisement
-
Re continuing the battle of Britain instead of attacking the Soviets (no point in claiming Hitler's fate was sealed by his ideology and continue with the thread)... he could have committed all resources on the blitz (he wanted his aircraft for Russia) and either won or at least got the English to agree to a peace deal, probably over Churchill's dead body or ousting.0
-
It doesn't matter if the German's win the Battle of Britain or continue with the Blitz, neither of them knock Britain out of the war. Germany at no point had the means to successfully invade Britain. Increasing the size of the U-Boat fleet to cut off Britian supply lines and knock them out of the war would of taken too long.
In reality the German's effectively run out of oil in October 1941. Yes a huge chunk of that was consumed during Barbarossa and they could of traded with Russia for oil for longer but even so it was still running out for the Germans even without major military operations. Any delay going into Russia and the oil crisis is even worse and Russia is Hitler's overall objective, if he didn't have that objective there might have been no war in the first place.0 -
It doesn't matter if the German's win the Battle of Britain or continue with the Blitz, neither of them knock Britain out of the war. Germany at no point had the means to successfully invade Britain. Increasing the size of the U-Boat fleet to cut off Britian supply lines and knock them out of the war would of taken too long.
I think it would have been possible to get the British to the peace table. Hold off attacking Russia, where then was the need for all the oil? Bide your time to regroup, you've just conquered a good chunk of Western Europe.0 -
Just wondering if the Germans had of parachuted a force of say 100 paratroopers say within 2/3 kms of each airfield that they knew of in Britain that they could reach at night time and their sole objective was to destroy as much aircraft that was on the ground and kill as many airmen at each of these. You could of had them landing while their was a diversion attack on each of these airfields. At the end of the day it wasn't as much a suicide run and you could inform the soldiers taking part that if they were captured they will be released soon as what they are doing is preparing for their main invasion in a few weeks /months time. Their mission was basically kill as many of the airmen on the ground so less in the sky for the luftwaffe to deal with. Takes a long time to train a pilot then make a plane. Just grind the British down, deal with airforce then deal with the navy from the air. Push back the invasion for a year, once you have the RAF out of the question so much easier to deal with the navy, have the u boats lurking just for the royal navy engage them not merchant shipping at same time. Just throw the luftwaffe at the navy then bomb them out of the sea as there wouldn't be many RAF to fight back.0
-
The British know that even if the lose the Battle of Britain they still have a massive superiority at sea and can stop an invasion. The Blitz did not come close to breaking Britain's resolve nor did a much larger bombing campaign by the British and Americans come close to breaking the Germans later on.
The Soviet Union/Communism/Slavs are Hitlers ideological and racial foes. Britain and France are not, they are merely a force that had to be dealt with to allow Hitler to achieve his true goals of wiping out communism and his racial enemies, achieving living space in the east as stated in Mein Kampf and achieving complete autarky for Germany. Hitler had a rather weird view of economics that resulted in him not wanting Germany dependent on any trade at all, the simplified jist of it being Hitler believed technically superior countries like Germany should not trade with less developed nations as that would eventually allow these countries to gain parity with Germany. The trade Hitler did with the Soviet Union after Germany and the Soviet Union invaded people was only a temporary means to an end for Hitler and he never attended to maintain that trade indefinitely.
So you could say sure, Germany should defeat Britain and resume overseas trade temporarily to alleviate the oil crisis the Germans where under to allow for a better chance to conquer Russia.
The problem this is delays Barbarossa by anything from a year to multiple years. This gives the Soviet Union more time to prepare. They won't be caught redeploying from the interior of the Soviet Union to Poland like they where in Operation Barbarossa, they will have completed that, the Red Army has more time to recover from the purges, they will better trained and better equipped and better prepared around. With Britain out of the war Stalin will almost certainly be less likely to be taken by surprise as a major factor him in being taken by suprise when the Germans invaded is he couldn't believe the German's would attack while still at war with Britain but in this scenario its not longer the case.0 -
I would of also invested heavily in gas for shells etc. I would of used these on the Eastern front. Imagine having these when the Russians countered attacked at the gates of Moscow it more then likely would of stopped their counter attack and you could of shelled Moscow with these. I doubt Stalin would of stayed put in Moscow if these were being fired into Moscow and the panic it would of created. Also with Leningrad surrounded they could of shelled the city with gas shells etc. The city would of fallen thus you release army group north to help with advance to Moscow. Any resistance in cities or towns by red army shell them with gas shells. You would of killed tens of thousands of red army personnel. Sowed panic in Moscow when you shell there. Made Leningrad fall. Probably stopped the Moscow counter attack in its tracks and then you continue your advance into Moscow in the spring from positions that the red army couldn't of pushed you back from that did happen.0
-
I would of also invested heavily in gas for shells etc. I would of used these on the Eastern front. Imagine having these when the Russians countered attacked at the gates of Moscow it more then likely would of stopped their counter attack and you could of shelled Moscow with these. I doubt Stalin would of stayed put in Moscow if these were being fired into Moscow and the panic it would of created. Also with Leningrad surrounded they could of shelled the city with gas shells etc. The city would of fallen thus you release army group north to help with advance to Moscow. Any resistance in cities or towns by red army shell them with gas shells. You would of killed tens of thousands of red army personnel. Sowed panic in Moscow when you shell there. Made Leningrad fall. Probably stopped the Moscow counter attack in its tracks and then you continue your advance into Moscow in the spring from positions that the red army couldn't of pushed you back from that did happen.
I just had a quick look and it seems one of the main theories why gas wasn't ever seriously used was the principle of mutual destruction, if the Germans had used gas they would have opened up their own cities up to attack from Allied planes dropping gas bombs.0 -
riffmongous wrote: »I just had a quick look and it seems one of the main theories why gas wasn't ever seriously used was the principle of mutual destruction, if the Germans had used gas they would have open their own cities up to attack from Allied planes dropping gas bombs.
I saw that but don't use it on the West like Britain etc. use it just on the east on the soviet Union and only when you reach Moscow, Leningrad etc. Since wasn't used in the western front until then and used just then again the soviet forces Stalin wouldn't of been expecting it. I say would of caused Moscow to fall and Leningrad to have fallen. It wouldn't of meant Britain would of started to use it on the Germans etc. They would think the Nazis would use it on us then. Use it on sovirt union when Leningrad surrounded and at gates of Moscow. I couldn't see them both not falling then. Your own soldiers would of been prepared with gas masks etc. But since wouldn't of been used by the Nazis by that point of time in battle I don't think red army would of been prepared for it.0 -
Are we saying Hitler was too caring to use gas, even if it meant the destruction of his own cities?
Also, if Britain lost the Battle of Britain they would have lost air superiority and their stronger navy would have been very vulnerable.0 -
Advertisement
-
I saw that but don't use it on the West like Britain etc. use it just on the east on the soviet Union and only when you reach Moscow, Leningrad etc. Since wasn't used in the western front until then and used just then again the soviet forces Stalin wouldn't of been expecting it. I say would of caused Moscow to fall and Leningrad to have fallen. It wouldn't of meant Britain would of started to use it on the Germans etc. They would think the Nazis would use it on us then. Use it on sovirt union when Leningrad surrounded and at gates of Moscow. I couldn't see them both not falling then. Your own soldiers would of been prepared with gas masks etc. But since wouldn't of been used by the Nazis by that point of time in battle I don't think red army would of been prepared for it.
Doing things like bombing civilians in towns and cities and torpedoing neutral shipping really backfired on Germany. Likewise their treatment of Russians. I can only imagine how using gas would have backfired.0 -
Doing things like bombing civilians in towns and cities and torpedoing neutral shipping really backfired on Germany. Likewise their treatment of Russians. I can only imagine how using gas would have backfired.
Well if they have Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow from using it and possibly millions more Russians dead and having saved countless German soldiers I don't think it would of mattered. Pushed the red army further east bombed them from the air with aerial gas bombs. I think would of ended the Russian threat in the east in the end. Problem the Germans had were the Americans coming into the war, maybe had an agreement with the Japanese to not attack America but to attack other countries in the far East like British territories which they did but to not attack America or where American troops etc were. Deal with them after other enemies dealt with if Japan does go to war with America in 1941 don't you declare war on them and have Italy do the same. It might just save you from going to war with America while you deal with soviet Union and Britain.0 -
Well if they have Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow from using it and possibly millions more Russians dead and having saved countless German soldiers I don't think it would of mattered. Pushed the red army further east bombed them from the air with aerial gas bombs. I think would of ended the Russian threat in the east in the end. Problem the Germans had were the Americans coming into the war, maybe had an agreement with the Japanese to not attack America but to attack other countries in the far East like British territories which they did but to not attack America or where American troops etc were. Deal with them after other enemies dealt with if Japan does go to war with America in 1941 don't you declare war on them and have Italy do the same. It might just save you from going to war with America while you deal with soviet Union and Britain.
The problem for Japan was that the US was in the Philippines, right in the middle of things and far too close to Japan. If the US joined the brits later on the Philippines would have been a massive problem.
Regarding the gas, the Germans did not expect a lot of city fighting, rather short very mobile campaigns where gas would not be required.0 -
Well if they have Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow from using it and possibly millions more Russians dead and having saved countless German soldiers I don't think it would of mattered. Pushed the red army further east bombed them from the air with aerial gas bombs. I think would of ended the Russian threat in the east in the end. Problem the Germans had were the Americans coming into the war, maybe had an agreement with the Japanese to not attack America but to attack other countries in the far East like British territories which they did but to not attack America or where American troops etc were. Deal with them after other enemies dealt with if Japan does go to war with America in 1941 don't you declare war on them and have Italy do the same. It might just save you from going to war with America while you deal with soviet Union and Britain.
Germany didn't have the strategic bombing resources to do that. Russia could and did retreat beyond their reach. By 1943 the Germans had arguably lost air superiority. It would never win the war. Stalin didn't care about his losses anyway.0 -
I saw that but don't use it on the West like Britain etc. use it just on the east on the soviet Union and only when you reach Moscow, Leningrad etc. Since wasn't used in the western front until then and used just then again the soviet forces Stalin wouldn't of been expecting it. I say would of caused Moscow to fall and Leningrad to have fallen. It wouldn't of meant Britain would of started to use it on the Germans etc. They would think the Nazis would use it on us then. Use it on sovirt union when Leningrad surrounded and at gates of Moscow. I couldn't see them both not falling then. Your own soldiers would of been prepared with gas masks etc. But since wouldn't of been used by the Nazis by that point of time in battle I don't think red army would of been prepared for it.
Hitler was the victim of gas in World War I hence he never authorized it to be used although secret Nazi programs to develop stocks of gas including nerve agent were industrial in scale.
As I said in a previous comment we are dealing here with the historical Hitler not an imaginary figure who could have been more or less evil intelligent strategic etc0 -
I'm not how he could of otherwise, maybe finish off the British at Dunkirk with land forces instead of trying from the air, kept at Britain instead of turning east when he did. I wonder if they had of held off invading Russia for another year and kept at the British and then when Japan attacked America and Germany declared war on America would his generals of said we have to postpone the invasion of Russia until we defeat America and Britain the war may not of happened on the Eastern Front. Another thing they could of done and it was easy to do was just have the Italian army trained as well as the German army, have their soldiers as well trained, offer assistance in regards to this, have officers from Italy trained in Germany in regards to this and then train their soldiers to the same standard as the Germans. The Germans could of used a stronger ally in this regard. If the Italian army had of fought harder against the British in North Africa maybe this would of fallen to the axis before America arrived on the scene and maybe the invasion of Greece wouldn't of turned out the way it did with the Italians.Samsonsmasher wrote: »Hitler was the victim of gas in World War I hence he never authorized it to be used although secret Nazi programs to develop stocks of gas including nerve agent were industrial in scale.
As I said in a previous comment we are dealing here with the historical Hitler not an imaginary figure who could have been more or less evil intelligent strategic etc
Also quite simple thing was an agreement with Germans and Italians was if one of the countries was planning on invading a different country to inform each other of this, I'm sure if the Germans knew Italy was going to invade Greece before hand they would of told them not to. Greece was very close to Germany and might have joined the axis if they weren't invaded and offered things in return.0 -
Advertisement
-
A couple of factors weighed on the German's when considering using chemical/gas weapons.
Firstly they assumed the Allies would retaliate with similar weapons if the Germans used them first.
On the Western front wind conditions where generally not favorable, mostly the wind would be blow it back towards the Germans. But I think Goering said the main reasons was the German's could not invent gas masks to go on horses and the Germans where hugely reliant on horses for supply and mobility. If gas/chemical weapon usage became widespread they would have no way of protecting their horses.
Italian troops where actually not that badly trained. Rommel held a favorable opinion of them once they where his under command as opposed to Italian leadership. Its more they where badly lead and very poorly equipped. In North Africa no amount of training or leadership improvement would help them deal with the fact that their enemy was completely mechanized and could simply drive rings around them. What armour the Italians had was no match for British tanks or no problem for British anti tank guns to deal with.0 -
I'm not how he could of otherwise, maybe finish off the British at Dunkirk with land forces instead of trying from the air, kept at Britain instead of turning east when he did. I wonder if they had of held off invading Russia for another year and kept at the British and then when Japan attacked America and Germany declared war on America would his generals of said we have to postpone the invasion of Russia until we defeat America and Britain the war may not of happened on the Eastern Front. Another thing they could of done and it was easy to do was just have the Italian army trained as well as the German army, have their soldiers as well trained, offer assistance in regards to this, have officers from Italy trained in Germany in regards to this and then train their soldiers to the same standard as the Germans. The Germans could of used a stronger ally in this regard. If the Italian army had of fought harder against the British in North Africa maybe this would of fallen to the axis before America arrived on the scene and maybe the invasion of Greece wouldn't of turned out the way it did with the Italians.
Also quite simple thing was an agreement with Germans and Italians was if one of the countries was planning on invading a different country to inform each other of this, I'm sure if the Germans knew Italy was going to invade Greece before hand they would of told them not to. Greece was very close to Germany and might have joined the axis if they weren't invaded and offered things in return.
Hitler was not interested in any of this. His sights were on Russia. After the defeat of France and the retreat of the British from Dunkirk he was confident they would accept a peace offer in July 1940 which Churchill rebuffed in favour of doggedly holding out - he was prepared to sacrifice the resources of the Empire to do it wheres Halifax would probably have readily taken the deal. Churchill would not accept England as a second rate power in 1940 but was forced to in 1945. It was not until Anthony Eden was humiliated by the Suez Crisis that British imperialists realized the Empire was on its last legs and the process of decolonization encouraged by both the US and USSR began in earnest.
With a Britain led by Halifax and an agreed peace Germany could concern itself totally with the war in the East.
The delay in attacking Russia in 1941 caused by the Balkans campaign proved fatal because the stiffer than expected resistance encountered at Smolensk convinced Hitler to delay the drive on Moscow because he was anxious to secure the Caucasus oil. He was not convinced of the importance of decapitating the regime by capturing Moscow by Guderian who he actually persuaded to support the priority of the southern sector of the Barbarossa campaign. The renewed drive toward Moscow began in October but had stalled by December when it was thrown back by the Soviet counter offensive with Siberian division freed up due to the Soviet Japanese non aggression pact which was not broken until 1945 after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs and the opportunity to invade Manchuria presented itself.
Hitler aim was to conquer Russia as he imagined the Indians had been conquered by the British and America had been conquered by the white man.
Had he secured a peace deal with Britain it is likely America would have given up trying to intervene militarily in Europe.0 -
Samsonsmasher wrote: »Hitler was not interested in any of this. His sights were on Russia. After the defeat of France and the retreat of the British from Dunkirk he was confident they would accept a peace offer in July 1940 which Churchill rebuffed in favour of doggedly holding out - he was prepared to sacrifice the resources of the Empire to do it wheres Halifax would probably have readily taken the deal. Churchill would not accept England as a second rate power in 1940 but was forced to in 1945. It was not until Anthony Eden was humiliated by the Suez Crisis that British imperialists realized the Empire was on its last legs and the process of decolonization encouraged by both the US and USSR began in earnest.
With a Britain led by Halifax and an agreed peace Germany could concern itself totally with the war in the East.
The delay in attacking Russia in 1941 caused by the Balkans campaign proved fatal because the stiffer than expected resistance encountered at Smolensk convinced Hitler to delay the drive on Moscow because he was anxious to secure the Caucasus oil. He was not convinced of the importance of decapitating the regime by capturing Moscow by Guderian who he actually persuaded to support the priority of the southern sector of the Barbarossa campaign. The renewed drive toward Moscow began in October but had stalled by December when it was thrown back by the Soviet counter offensive with Siberian division freed up due to the Soviet Japanese non aggression pact which was not broken until 1945 after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs and the opportunity to invade Manchuria presented itself.
Hitler aim was to conquer Russia as he imagined the Indians had been conquered by the British and America had been conquered by the white man.
Had he secured a peace deal with Britain it is likely America would have given up trying to intervene militarily in Europe.
While different leadership in Britain could of led Britain to coming to terms with the Germans, British leadership however was not something within the German's control.
As I said before most historians do not believe the Balkan campaign significantly effected Barbarossa's outcome, the original start date of the 15th of May could not have been met by the Germans even without the Balkan campaign. An usually wet spring in 1941 meant river flood plains where still flooded at this point in some of the area's the Germans would need to pass through and the Germans/Axis allies had not completed the construction of the adequate airfields/logistics needed for the invasion. It probably could of gone ahead sooner than it did without the Balkans campaign maybe up to a week or two earlier, but the delay wasn't what stopped them from taking Moscow as they had already been stopped before winter arrived, it was the collapse of their logistics system and the casualties the Russian's had inflicted on them.
Also the offensive that drove them back had 18 Russian divisions, only 3 of which came from Siberia. The soldiers involved came from all over Russia with the Volga region of Russia providing more than other region.
If Britain and Germany where allies there is no way America gets involved in Europe, however there is a massive difference between Britain signing a peace agreement with Germany as opposed to actually becoming Allies. If Germany declared war on America in the wake of Japan attacking America, I can't see Britain also doing the same. Its possibly if Germany declared war on America, Britain would of reneged on its peace deal with the Germans and rejoined the war on the American side.0 -
Just wondering in regards the Eastern front. How many more soldiers would the axis have needed to have won there if they had of had them at the start of operation Barbarossa? Would another quarter of a million done? Half a million or more then this? Was always curious how many more they needed to win there. By win I mean make the Soviets sue for peace.0
-
Just wondering in regards the Eastern front. How many more soldiers would the axis have needed to have won there if they had of had them at the start of operation Barbarossa? Would another quarter of a million done? Half a million or more then this? Was always curious how many more they needed to win there. By win I mean make the Soviets sue for peace.
I think the Russians would have kept falling back rather than Sue for peace. It's not like the leadership had regards for the civilians, and Russia is massive.0 -
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement