Author Topic: Northern empire-theoretical discuss (Read 3274 times)

agent 009 · « **Reply #75 on:** May 05, 2005, 10:53:37 PM »

"(The RN would likely sink all of them, or so many as to make no substantive difference from sinking all of them. I think you are greatly underestimating the trauma that battleships and battlecruisers can inflict to transports at point blank range.)"

Not that simple, most would travel at night & some like the marinefahrprahm would be small & very maneuverable, easily outmaneuver large warships. enough of them & it would be impossible to sink most of em. Pure fantasy to think anywhere near all of em. Destroyers likewise very maneuverable fast as well. & remember what happened to Brit navy in greek waters. sitting ducks.

Landing Crafts

The landing craft of the Kriegsmarine are a often neglected part of German naval history, although the over 700 crafts build played multiple roles during World War II.

Operation Sealion never took place, but the so called Marinefährprahme (MFP) were build. They proved to be as vehicles with a universal use - besides transport and supply operations in all theaters of war, they could be operating as gun boats, mine layers or Sperrbrecher.

Marinefährprahm

The Naval Landing Crafts - called "Marinefahrprahm" in German were the largest landing craft used by the Kriegsmarine. Although required for Operation Sealion (Invasion of England) in 1940, the first of this transport ships were delivered in 1941. The development of this ship went through several Types (A-D), whose size and armament grew from class to class. They were mainly used for transport and supply duties and not for their initial invasion role and could transport 200 Soldiers or 140 tons of equipment, including Tiger tanks. Marinefahrprahme were used in almost all Kriegsmarine operational areas: the British Channel, the North sea, the Baltic, the Mediterranean and the Caspic and the Black sea

Very shallow draft as well which made it impervious to torpedo attack.

Pongo · « **Reply #76 on:** May 06, 2005, 01:25:12 AM »

click.

Overlag · « **Reply #77 on:** May 06, 2005, 07:35:15 AM »

agent 9

by the time the Germans had built up the force to do anything about england (id say around 1941/2), england itself would be defended well enough to make it impossible.

IF they had got accross in 1940 it could have well been possible to defeat a unprepaired UK. But Germany had no resources either.

humble · « **Reply #78 on:** May 06, 2005, 10:13:56 AM »

009....

You obviously have a very limited understanding of warfare....so let me fill in the blanks for you.

Land war depends on two distinct variables....seperate from any other factor these almost invariabley determine the outcome of all major modern engagements....

The 1st is logistics....The US army was #1 in both WW2 and today primarily because of its logistics capabilities. Germany had no ability to project a forward logisitcs capability to england. Regardless of the ability to actually land a soldier in England (non existant in my mind) any cohesive force that did land would be combat ineffective within 48hours simplybased on logistics.

2nd is Artillery...

Did you know that no german position in WW2 was ever defeated while its artillery was functional. Again the US was the #1 armyin the world (then and now) with regard to artillery capability. Without significant capital ships you you have no capability to provide counter battery fire during the initial phase of an invasion. Again no chance to survive initial counterattacksand maintain your beachhead....

With regard to your totally ignoarant comments on ship survivability....youneed to look no farther then the japanese efforts to supply guadalcanel. The japanese had a large naval force complete with air assets. A well thought out logistics capability including fast transports that were converted destroyers and they were unable to maintain a supply line inspite of inflicting massive losses on the Allied navy. Meanwhile you think the germans can maintain a sealift capability with no capital ships, no siginifacnt sealift capability and no seaborne airpower....

You leave the decimal point of that IQ?

Westy · « **Reply #79 on:** May 06, 2005, 10:30:52 AM »

"But Germany had no resources either."

Bzzzt. WRONG!

In 1940 the Germans would have had aircraft carriers, ME-262's, fleets of B2 bomb__, er Gotha jets that could strike NYC if they wanted, the Tiger tank, STG44 assault rifles and V2's ready for the nuclear bomb which would have almost been ready. IF.....

(Ich bin sorry. Alas Meinen Gott im Himmler I'm getting all verklempt and misty eyed just thinking about it all... Ach du Leibe!!! )

(lol Humbles last line hit the bullseye)

Blammo · « **Reply #80 on:** May 06, 2005, 10:44:09 AM »

You know, I'm coming into this late, but it seems like you're saying "If they could do it, could they do it?" which is circular.

Could they hold it? Well, you are making a great deal of assumptions to start with which, while you can brush away by saying they are not part of the question, are indeed material. You can't possible hold something if you can't first take it.

Posing questions like this where you ignore all sorts (not just a few) causally related events is like saying:

What if Germany had the A Bomb in 1940?

What if Japan had not attacked the US?

What if Poland had allied with Nazi Germany?

I mean, once you upturn the can of beans, you can't choose which ones spill out.

Also, it is important to consider causal relationship when you suggest Hitler mount the conquest of England and not France. Why would he attack one and not the other? For that matter, why would he not engage in a war with Soviet Russia? All of these answers will determine 1) How Germany was able to carry out a successful conquest of the areas you describe and 2) If they would be able to hold it indefinitely. Also, why are you restricting it to only Canada and the U.S. intervening?

I would back up and look at the whole scenario from an earlier point of view. Then, use prewar historical data to help determine reactions to Germanies actions. Also, you will need to look at political and diplomatic relations between all of the involved nations. From there, propose minor changes in history and project their long term effect. You will better be able to get an answer to your question if you construction a reasonable and feesible scenario first.

Just my meanderings...pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

humble · « **Reply #81 on:** May 06, 2005, 01:04:17 PM »

Blammo...

The biggest misjudgement is the perception France would not have done anything. France had a basic strategy of defense in depth. Basically we'll let them attack us and bleed them out. This played into the german strategy nicely. Had Germany moved aggressively on England France would have attacked the German flank. Additionally, the French navy which had no role in a land conflict would have been active in support of the Royal navy as well....

Probably the single least winnable scenario the germans could have faced....

Pongo · « **Reply #82 on:** May 06, 2005, 01:23:20 PM »

And the expese of developeing evan an attempt at the capability would have meant way less tanks, planes, arty etc.

Blammo · « **Reply #83 on:** May 06, 2005, 01:44:35 PM »

humble:
I completely agree with you. That's why I am asking 009 to develop a better premise for how Germany could be in the position he described, but have avoided any other conflict in the meantime. Without that, this is just an academic discussion with little to no merit. As I said, once you throw out a "what if" that ignores a mound of other actions and reactions, anything is fair game.

agent 009 · « **Reply #84 on:** May 06, 2005, 02:05:58 PM »

Yes Humble I'm familiar with guadalcanal. The difference is distance. Which gave the allies Much more time to not only pinpoint these convoys but attack as well. & we had radar & they didn't. Very different scene. Thanks for lovely insults. Also Japanese did not use craft similar to the marinefahrprahm.

So far noone has answered the question of what if France & England didn't declare war over Norway? Germany retains central europe & scandinavia-minus Iceland, & deals with Joe later.

& I have gone over the France question once or twice already. Blammo I cover the Russia question above regarding a baltic skirmish. & I didn't "anywhere" say that if England were attacked that France wouldn't intervene.

Overlag · « **Reply #85 on:** May 06, 2005, 02:55:31 PM »

who is insulting anyone?

Karnak · « **Reply #86 on:** May 06, 2005, 03:49:44 PM »

009,

Japan's night optics, which they'd put quite some effort into, were superior to the radar we had in 1942.

On more than one occasion US and Japanese task forces interpolated before detecting one another. That should tell you something about the limitations of both sides detection capabilities.

Add to that the fact that Japan's task was vastly simpler and easier to accomplish than Germany's would have been and you get an idea of how doomed any such German effort would have been.

To me, a more interesting "What if" would be asking what would have happened if the British had tried to sucker the Germans into actually launching Operation Sealion? They pull RAF fighters back to match the German claims (presumably the Germans made press claims too), pretended to have practically no production capability like the Germans believed, hid the effectiveness of the RDF system, put decoy fighters on the ground to be destroyed to inflate German claims and kept the Royal Navy ready to slam the door after the Germans commit. What would that have done to the rest of the war?

Overlag · « **Reply #87 on:** May 06, 2005, 04:02:19 PM »

yeah....

if that had happend it would have failed....then, the the war would have been over by 1942 at the most......and that would have ment the cold war never happend......

agent 009 · « **Reply #88 on:** May 06, 2005, 04:18:45 PM »

The key to destroying Japanese transports was radio decoding. US knew in advance when a Japanese convoy would sail. This was more than anything else what doomed their supply of Guadalcanal. Not to mention the scant air cover they had for these convoys.

Germans in cross channel operation would have substantial air cover & much shorter distance to cross. & unlike Japanese on Guadalcanal, germans could launch paratroop landings on southern airfields. Apples & oranges. Would they succeed? who knows. No such thing as a foregone conclusion.

Overlag,Who is insulting? well good question. I could mention the exeptionally dumb comparison Humble makes between Guadalcanal & the English channel or his obviously ignorant understanding of Germany's ability to make hardware, explained below, but it isn't neccessary, it's obvious. But then who's insulting?

As for being able to build the Marinefahrprahm & 323's by 1940. well that one is easy to answer. They did build these 1 yr later. Almost from scratch. Didn't take very long & with an advance building program beginning 33, they would have had loads of em. Neither of these would have detracted from building panzers. & yes I know 321 & 323 were unwieldy craft, but 321 was 1 way ride.

humble · « **Reply #89 on:** May 06, 2005, 05:22:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by agent 009
Yes Humble I'm familiar with guadalcanal. The difference is distance. Which gave the allies Much more time to not only pinpoint these convoys but attack as well. & we had radar & they didn't. Very different scene. Thanks for lovely insults. Also Japanese did not use craft similar to the marinefahrprahm.

So far noone has answered the question of what if France & England didn't declare war over Norway? Germany retains central europe & scandinavia-minus Iceland, & deals with Joe later.

& I have gone over the France question once or twice already. Blammo I cover the Russia question above regarding a baltic skirmish. & I didn't "anywhere" say that if England were attacked that France wouldn't intervene.

1st,

The japanese had radar in 1942 (not operationally deployed...but they knew the capabilities it brought), however radar played no significant role at all. Most actions were at night and favored the japanese who inflicted significant loses. While radar is effective vs planes its very limited for surface engagements...the distance actually gave advantages to the japanese as well since they had more area to "hide" in...
http://www.star-games.com/exhibits/japaneseradar/japaneseradar.html

The real points to consider here however you completely ignore.

1st) The japanese were excellent sailors with a robust navy which was proactive in screening the supply lines.

2) The japanese had significant naval logistics and knew how to use them

3) they had dedicated naval air assets in place

4) They had significant army aviation assets with suitable range to provide complete aircover over the supply route

5) They were well entrenched at the target destination and had secure landing area's...

As for your "other" points...England and France did declare war over Poland and would over Norway as well. However your original post indicated Norway as a stepping stone to England...which I take it you now concede as impossible.