Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: oakranger on November 09, 2009, 01:45:00 AM
-
Instead of Germany invading Poland first, what if, Hitler invaded France first. How much would WWII operations in European Theater change.
-
What if Hitler slipped on a bar of soap during a shower and died then and there? You can what if this to death and still never have all the answers, only speculations. :old:
-
Good question.
Perhaps a disaster for Hitler, perhaps the same outcome with the countries swapped in time. Perhaps (and I think it's a srong possibility) Stalin would have gobbled up Poland on his own, with the Germans busy on the other side.
-
Better question....What if the South won The Battle at Ghettysburg?
I think there is a book about it somewhere :salute
-
Naaa, that's a puny question. No nazis. :old:
-
Better question....What if the South won The Battle at Ghettysburg?
I think there is a book about it somewhere :salute
I think I've seen that book--At the time, a goodly % of the North was quite over the war....had the battle gone better, an alliance with Britain would have been possible (to that end, Churchill wrote an essay about it, condensed here (http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/siteinfo/newsround/iflee.html)) and pressure would have mounted on Lincoln for a truce. (I grew up in Manassas, and after the first battle, the south could have actually CAPTURED D.C....would have been a hoot :lol) but they failed to press their advantage
-
No a good "what if" question is .. What if Poland invaded Germany????
-
Better question....What if the South won The Battle at Ghettysburg?
I think there is a book about it somewhere :salute
Lee attacked a Ghetto?
-
Lee attacked a Ghetto?
Ive been playing alot of rap lately give me a break :aok
-
Better question....What if the South won The Battle at Ghettysburg?
I think there is a book about it somewhere :salute
There is a great show about that on PBS: CSA: Confederate State of America. You tube it.
-
Better question....What if the South won The Battle at Ghettysburg?
I think there is a book about it somewhere :salute
I like what Shelby Foote said about the Civil War and the industrialized north....... ( from memory) Quote-- " I think the North fought that war with one hand behind its back, if the war was in fear of being lost by the North, I think the north would have just pulled its other hand out"
In a nut shell, while the South had many exceptional victories, with it being an "agriculturally" based economy, and the north being an industrial based economy, the North could have out manufactured the South. Also, with the population differences, the north could replace its losses on the battlefield, whereas the South could not.
A real question ive always wondered is, What if the British came to the aid of the South, started another front down from Canada etc..........
*I dont want anyone to think that im "bashing" the South, these were very brave, hard fighting, (extremely) well led soldiers. While some of what they were fighting for was wrong ( ie Slavery ) . Their bravery and resolve should never be challenged.
I enjoy "What If" questions, usually fosters intresting discussions
<S>
Mbailey
-
Instead of Germany invading Poland first, what if, Hitler invaded France first. How much would WWII operations in European Theater change.
In the overall scheme of things, why would you think they would change?
I don't see where the order of events would have led to a different result.. i.e.. Europe occupied up to the Soviet border.. unless the Soviets took that opportunity to expand westward.
Maybe I don't know enough about the military capabilities and psychological factors of the time-period.
-
Better question....What if the South won The Battle at Ghettysburg?
I think there is a book about it somewhere :salute
Gettysburg really didn't decide anything. Lee's army wasn't destroyed in detail, and the Army of the Potomac was just as battered by the end of the engagement. It didn't hasten the end of the war. Any opportunity Meade may have had to finish off Lee was largely lost by allowing him to escape back across the border, in large part because his own army was in no more condition to press another fight than was Lee's.
Most importantly: Any news of the loss at Gettysburg would have been IMMEDIATELY overshadowed by the much more significant victory at Vicksburg the following day. If the Union had lost Gettysburg all it likely would have meant is that Grant would have been transferred to the Eastern Theater and taken control of the war there that much sooner
-
Can't help grinning when I see how quickly an interesting historical speculation on European history turned into a re-fight of the 'War Between The States'. ;)
Hitler was always going to concentrate on the gaining of 'Lebensraum' in Eastern Europe - read 'Mein Kampf' - and Poland was 'Part One' of that ambition. He regarded the French as a spent force and the British government as a bunch of weaklings, especially after Chamberlain sold Czechoslovakia down the river at Munich in September 1938. Deeply shocked when he occupied all of that sad country in early 1939 and Chamberlain's Tory UK government reversed its policy of appeasement and declared it would support Poland if that volatile country was invaded, he accelerated German re-armament, negotiated the cynical pact with Stalin that secretly divided Poland between them, then went hell-for-leather to grab all the territory he could. Once he'd established a buffer zone out of the western part of Poland and realised the weakness of France, he couldn't resist the opportunity to avenge Germany's defeat in 1918 and so invaded.
Poland had fought for its existence in 1918-19 against the Bolsheviks and regarded the USSR as its main enemy. While not averse to gaining some territory from smaller, weaker neighbours, no way was it ever going to invade Germany at the expense of weakening the defences on its eastern frontier. If Germany had invaded France first instead of Poland, Stalin would probably have invaded Poland instead of or in addition to Finland. The Norwegian campaign would not have happened because France would have been defeated in 1939 just as it was in 1940, Britain would have fought on, and the German attack in the east would eventually have happened just the same, with Army Group Centre's start-line positioned at the western boundary of Soviet-occupied Poland instead of the eastern frontier of Nazi-occupied Poland.
As ever, 'what if' is fantasy but fun. Thanks for asking the question and getting this ol' cat's li'l grey cells working again.
:cool:
-
I like what Shelby Foote said about the Civil War and the industrialized north....... ( from memory) Quote-- " I think the North fought that war with one hand behind its back, if the war was in fear of being lost by the North, I think the north would have just pulled its other hand out"
In a nut shell, while the South had many exceptional victories, with it being an "agriculturally" based economy, and the north being an industrial based economy, the North could have out manufactured the South. Also, with the population differences, the north could replace its losses on the battlefield, whereas the South could not.
A real question ive always wondered is, What if the British came to the aid of the South, started another front down from Canada etc..........
*I dont want anyone to think that im "bashing" the South, these were very brave, hard fighting, (extremely) well led soldiers. While some of what they were fighting for was wrong ( ie Slavery ) . Their bravery and resolve should never be challenged.
I enjoy "What If" questions, usually fosters intresting discussions
<S>
Mbailey
The whole out come of the war would change. If Hitler had a mass army in France, and then maybe, just maybe, BoB could been a lot uglier.
-
Gettysburg really didn't decide anything. Lee's army wasn't destroyed in detail, and the Army of the Potomac was just as battered by the end of the engagement. It didn't hasten the end of the war. Any opportunity Meade may have had to finish off Lee was largely lost by allowing him to escape back across the border, in large part because his own army was in no more condition to press another fight than was Lee's.
Most importantly: Any news of the loss at Gettysburg would have been IMMEDIATELY overshadowed by the much more significant victory at Vicksburg the following day. If the Union had lost Gettysburg all it likely would have meant is that Grant would have been transferred to the Eastern Theater and taken control of the war there that much sooner
I have to disagree, If Lee would have won that battle, he would have got good supplies while he was north and could have fought there for probably a year before having to withdraw back accross. This in itself would have slowed the Mississippi campaign down heavily since the North would have been working to get Lee out. And as already mentioned the people were already getting tired of war in the north. I think in the book I mentioned the two countries ended up joining together during the World Wars and the future wouldnt have been much different :salute
-
I have to disagree, If Lee would have won that battle, he would have got good supplies while he was north and could have fought there for probably a year before having to withdraw back accross. This in itself would have slowed the Mississippi campaign down heavily since the North would have been working to get Lee out. And as already mentioned the people were already getting tired of war in the north. I think in the book I mentioned the two countries ended up joining together during the World Wars and the future wouldnt have been much different :salute
Actually, Lee was 1000 yards from the union main supplies at Gettysburg. They did not know at the time.
-
BOB would have been over in a trice if Hitler had invaded France first
the year stop gap (phoney war) gave us (UK) time to prepare our defences
the spitfire came out just in time replacing bi planes , if Hitler had taken France instead of poland
and attacked us next, we would have been defending in planes, ...nuff said
the sound of jackboots would have been resonating down whitehall
-
Hitler's Blitz through Poland was much more primitive than what he launched at W-Europe. One of the main attacking aircraft was a Bipe (Henchel), and the army was largely horse-drawn. The firebombing on Warshaw was done with JU-52's where they shovelled incendiaries out the cargo doors.
My point is, that both parties came a long way before 1940, not just the British.
FYI, Spitfires claimed the first LW victim in 1939, over Edinburgh. Was a bit of a shock to the Germans....
-
Ive been playing alot of rap lately give me a break :aok
you like sensless noise that much?
-
BOB would have been over in a trice if Hitler had invaded France first
the year stop gap (phoney war) gave us (UK) time to prepare our defences
the spitfire came out just in time replacing bi planes , if Hitler had taken France instead of poland
and attacked us next, we would have been defending in planes, ...nuff said
the sound of jackboots would have been resonating down whitehall
i do believe the hurricane had a bit more to do with englands victory in the bob.
-
I have to disagree, If Lee would have won that battle, he would have got good supplies while he was north and could have fought there for probably a year before having to withdraw back accross. This in itself would have slowed the Mississippi campaign down heavily since the North would have been working to get Lee out. And as already mentioned the people were already getting tired of war in the north. I think in the book I mentioned the two countries ended up joining together during the World Wars and the future wouldnt have been much different :salute
It would have had NO effect on the Mississippi campaign, because the capitulation of Vicksburg THE NEXT DAY gave the Union full control of the river. Pemberton's surrender to Grant was not dependent at all on what Lee was doing and Lee winning Gettysburg would not have convinced Pemberton to hold out longer, because there wasn't a damn thing Lee could have done to dislodge Grant from around the city in the first place.
-
BOB would have been over in a trice if Hitler had invaded France first
the year stop gap (phoney war) gave us (UK) time to prepare our defences
the spitfire came out just in time replacing bi planes , if Hitler had taken France instead of poland
and attacked us next, we would have been defending in planes, ...nuff said
the sound of jackboots would have been resonating down whitehall
You really think that Britain would have the same defensive system as they did in BoB?
-
Do you really think the Germans would have had the same attack force to bomb Britain into submission as they had in 1940?
1 September 1939 wouldn't leave much of a BoB to be fought anyway. With 6 weeks in France, which probably would have been more due to the French being closer to the German strength than in 1940 (I know it was clumsy of them), would perhaps have left the LW at readyness in late October. That means all sorts of weather, and being to late for a cross-channel invasion. It also means a short window of daylight for operations, which makes the defender's work easier if anything. And in 1939 the LW did nowhere nearly have the night bombing equipment of what they posessed a year later....
Me thinks that a Ju-52 over London in daylight in October 1939 would have been....a plane I'd rather not have been riding.
-
Do you really think the Germans would have had the same attack force to bomb Britain into submission as they had in 1940?
1 September 1939 wouldn't leave much of a BoB to be fought anyway. With 6 weeks in France, which probably would have been more due to the French being closer to the German strength than in 1940 (I know it was clumsy of them), would perhaps have left the LW at readyness in late October. That means all sorts of weather, and being to late for a cross-channel invasion. It also means a short window of daylight for operations, which makes the defender's work easier if anything. And in 1939 the LW did nowhere nearly have the night bombing equipment of what they posessed a year later....
Me thinks that a Ju-52 over London in daylight in October 1939 would have been....a plane I'd rather not have been riding.
Agree. there is no way they could have achieve air supericy over England in 1939. In fact, Germany could not have achieve anything, as far as invading Engalnd, with what they had. However, Germany taking France in 1939 would change the whole course of the war and Russia may have end it quickly too.
-
Agree. there is no way they could have achieve air supericy over England in 1939. In fact, Germany could not have achieve anything, as far as invading Engalnd, with what they had. However, Germany taking France in 1939 would change the whole course of the war and Russia may have end it quickly too.
Sorry, but I'm having trouble following you. My understanding is that England wasn't on Hitler's priority list to start with. Even if France fell first, Hitler probably would have gobbled up everything else, too.. just in a different order, except, perhaps, those areas that the Soviets might have taken first. There was a non-aggression pact between Germany and the Soviets, so I don't think the Soviets would have attacked Germany.
So.. we're back to where we were before Barbarosa kicked off. The big question is if Poland would have been under self or Soviet control. Either case, it shouldn't have been a major influence on Hitler proceeding to invade the Soviets and getting wiped out by attrition/weather later on.
-
Better question....What if the South won The Battle at Ghettysburg?
I think there is a book about it somewhere :salute
If your interested theres a series of books telling what the author thinks would have happened had the U.S. lost the battle of Antitem, and England, and France recognized the C.S.A.
They're writen by Harry Turtledove, first one you should read is "How Few Remain" since it gives a lot of background info.
Theres actually 3 seperate series, The Great War, American Empire, and Settling Accounts.
-
better question:
What is France & the U.K. pressed an invasion into germany while the nazi's invaded poland and the 2-3 months afterwards? They had a very high numbers advantage on the western front during the polish campaign.
-
NEVER PLAY FROM THE IF DECK. :)
-
I cant follow this thread. One minute Im in Europe, next Im in the Civil War.
-
Instead of Germany invading Poland first, what if, Hitler invaded France first. How much would WWII operations in European Theater change.
Considering Germany invaded Poland under the assumption that the weren't going to go to war with France and Britain because of it in the first place (remember that France and Britain declared war on Germany) I don't really see how that's a valid scenario in the first place.
-
Sorry, but I'm having trouble following you. My understanding is that England wasn't on Hitler's priority list to start with. Even if France fell first, Hitler probably would have gobbled up everything else, too.. just in a different order, except, perhaps, those areas that the Soviets might have taken first. There was a non-aggression pact between Germany and the Soviets, so I don't think the Soviets would have attacked Germany.
So.. we're back to where we were before Barbarosa kicked off. The big question is if Poland would have been under self or Soviet control. Either case, it shouldn't have been a major influence on Hitler proceeding to invade the Soviets and getting wiped out by attrition/weather later on.
I post the question and see what you all think how the out come would be like. Would Russia invade Poland and then Germany or not?
-
I post the question and see what you all think how the out come would be like. Would Russia invade Poland and then Germany or not?
Ok, fair enough. I think the Soviets might invade Poland, between Stalin's cleansings, but I seriously doubt they would have attacked Germany.
-
Ok, fair enough. I think the Soviets might invade Poland, between Stalin's cleansings, but I seriously doubt they would have attacked Germany.
Here is a question that i am dare enough that i do not know. Why did Russia invaded Poland?
-
Ok, fair enough. I think the Soviets might invade Poland, between Stalin's cleansings, but I seriously doubt they would have attacked Germany.
There is some evidence that the USSR planned for a war with Germany in 1942. But they had already decided on the split-up of the Baltic countries and Poland. So the USSR actualli DID invade Poland in 1939 and met up with the Germans. Then they split as agreed.
Had the Germans done nothing, I am pretty sure the Russians would have gobbled up Poland on its own.
I am not sure if the British and the French would have declared war on both. They would inevitably be at war with Germany had Germany invaded France. But getting at the USSR would be a hard task.
In real life, Nazi Germany was actually supported by the USSR in their war against W-Europe and the commonwealth until they went to war against the USSR in 1941. Supported with a very profiable trade, especially oil. Did you know that the Germans gave the blueprints of the Bismarck to the USSR as a part of the deal??
-
Agree. there is no way they could have achieve air supericy over England in 1939. In fact, Germany could not have achieve anything, as far as invading Engalnd, with what they had. However, Germany taking France in 1939 would change the whole course of the war and Russia may have end it quickly too.
Stalin with the Purge and lack of good Mobilization left them out of any "attack scenario". No way any "early strike" would have been attempted, let alone have been successful.
-
Hitler's Blitz through Poland was much more primitive than what he launched at W-Europe. One of the main attacking aircraft was a Bipe (Henchel), and the army was largely horse-drawn. The firebombing on Warshaw was done with JU-52's where they shovelled incendiaries out the cargo doors.
My point is, that both parties came a long way before 1940, not just the British.
FYI, Spitfires claimed the first LW victim in 1939, over Edinburgh. Was a bit of a shock to the Germans....
I'm afraid you're wrong, Angus. Hs123 was used as an auxiliary ground support plane in quieter areas of the front - no more than 40 planes of that type were used against Poland. BTW Adolf Galland flew a Henschel in Polish campaign. Ju52 was employed in bomber role against Poland only once - on sept 25th dropping 2kg bombs on besieged Warsaw; and it was a week after most of the Polish air force had evacuated to Romania. Core of German attacking force were He111s, Do17s and Ju87s. Also, the Wehrmacht remained largely horse-drawn army until the end of the war; they hadn't somehow become a fully mechanized force after conquering Poland.
If Hitler turned west in 39' it would most likely be a walk in the park, even more than it was in Poland. Blitzkrieg tactics would still be a surprise to allied commanders (not that French even tried to learn anything from Polish defeat...); as somebody wrote, France and England were still using mostly older equipment with new types of aircraft still to be introduced to line units; and finally Wehrmacht suffered relatively heavy losses in Polish campaign - similar to those in the year to come in France - this would mean additional 50.000 soldiers and 300 planes deployed against the west.
It's almost certain that Stalin would use the opportunity and try and grab the lands west of Soviet borders, including Poland. They would probably succeed, though they tried it 20 years earlier and failed badly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War). Huge but poorly trained and demoralised army vs more "westernised" and well motivated troops, anything would happen. It showed in Finland couple months later.
-
Okay, something again.
- HS-123's were not used in the BoB. Nor were Ju-52's. Stukas were withdrawn. Actually, Ju-52's were used extensivelly in the Western advance 1940, with quite some losses. Holland I belive.
- Blitzkrieg tactics were introduced in Poland. They were preceeded with quite some air superiority. LW losses in Poland are nowhere near what they were in W-Europe (before BoB). The numbers I hear are from 1.100 to 1.400, but I would be delighted to see somebetter ones
- Germany grew much stronger in Armour and Aircraft from the Polish ending untill the date of 10th og May 1940.
- Well, the aircraft types available in 1939 to the allies were more or less also in use in 1940. Again, I belive the rough 8 months between Poland and France were in Germany's favour.
- Again, invading France in the Fall of 1939 and even succeding in the 6 weeks as it later took, would have left no BoB to fight, since it would be too late for a channel crossing, and daylight being less and less. Daylight is after all in favour of the stronger, since it gives more hours of ops, thereby causing attrition to the smaller defender, who has to keep on his smaller toes for a longer time.
Now to Stalin. (Oakranger). Bear in mind that he DID indeed invade and capture a good slab of Poland. He did gobble up the Baltic states, and attack Finland. Had I been Stalin in 1939, and seen the Gerries go after France, I'd have taken ALL of Poland instead of nothing, and left the Finns alone. You?
-
The Battle of Britain wasn't a furball to see which side could shoot down more fighters than the other. Hitler launched the Luftwaffe against Britain to gain sufficient air superiority to threaten the main defence: the Royal Navy. Germany had no chance of defeating the Senior Service other than by bombing it to blazes as it steamed into action against anyone dumb enough to attempt a Channel crossing with no more escort than a few destroyers and the odd so-called capital ship. In 1939, the Kriegsmarine's heaviest guns at sea were the 11" carried by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau (nine each) and the three Panzerschiffe (six each), no contest against the Home Fleet. And forget the U-boats, RN submarines and Coastal Forces would have taken them on.
Splice the mainbrace! :aok
-
Now to Stalin. (Oakranger). Bear in mind that he DID indeed invade and capture a good slab of Poland. He did gobble up the Baltic states, and attack Finland. Had I been Stalin in 1939, and seen the Gerries go after France, I'd have taken ALL of Poland instead of nothing, and left the Finns alone. You?
That's what I would do if I was him and most likely what he would do. Taking into consideration that confrontation between the commie and nazi regimes was inevitable it would be the only right way to go. But then I doubt that the Red Army would be able to reproduce a swift victory Germany won over Poland. Not with the performance it showed against Finland and not against Poland which could then direct all of its military resources to fight one enemy. With Germany rolling over France in no time (as I think they would) and Poland in a prolonged war with soviet Russia, who knows how would the alliances shift in Europe.
-
another what if which is realistic...
what if we got the declaration of war earlier (say before they even launched the attack)? we would most likely went onto high alert and possibly the pacific fleet would have left the harbor before the attack arrived, or at least the ships that were ready to go.
-
What if I eat this blue crayon instead of the green one? Me likes the green ones.
-
What if I eat this blue crayon instead of the green one? Me likes the green ones.
Your will have blue crap.
-
What if I eat this blue crayon instead of the green one? Me likes the green ones.
do you choose the red pill, or the blue pill?
-
i may miss something here......but this is my take.
it seemed that the germans rolled poland fairly easily. they didn't seemt o have too much trouble with france. i think that had they reversed the order, the outcome would've been the same.
once they attacked britain, from things i've read in the past, they had the british pretty much on their knees. i think that if things i've read were true, had hitler chosen to cross the channel, rather thhan not, at this time, i seriously think he could've taken them over too.
i don't believe it would've lasted very long, as i do believe the germans would;'ve been driven off the island, but i think it could've happened.
-
The U.S. fleet did have a warning at Pearl, but didn't really respond to it. (Oh yes, the had a radar from the Brits if I recall right, and the Japanese aircraft were plotted inbound)
McArthur also had a reasonable warning in the Philippenes, since the air attack came well after Pearl and he already knew. Yet again, he was well to sleepy.
Poland got rolled up fairly easily. AFAIK France falling in about the same time was much more costly for the Germans. And remember, the push came through the lowlands, not straight into France (It was too well defended), and I am not sure the Germans had that much armour available in 1939.
Anyway, a good point about Stalin and Poland. The USSR actually went for the Polish when the Germans were only 2 weeks into the invasion, and had a fairly easy superiority. After all, it was not winter as they laterhad in Finland. So, IMHO, had Hitler rolled west on september the 1st, it would only have been a week or so before Stalin had rolled into Poland.
He actually let Hitler do a good bit of the job, I guess he could have moved earlier. What a Ba$-tard :mad:
-
do you choose the red pill, or the blue pill?
Both. I love how they interact. Makes me feel all fuzzy.
-
Ignoring the state of the air defences. I think the RN would have blown the invasion barges out of the water anyway - air superiority or not. People are also ignoring Dunkirk, and the fact that the British Army would have been much better equipped, having not left most of their equipment in France/Belgium.
Having said that, the fighting spirit was helped massively by Churchill, who did not become PM until May 1940. Had France fallen earlier without the British getting involved, would Chamberlain make peace with Hitler and perhaps fight a war against the commies alongside their German allies, as Hitler supposedly wanted?
-
Even if France had been conquered already in 1939, there would have been completely no chance for tugging barges across the channel before 1940.
The plan was not exactly on Hitlers wishlist, since he though the British could be "brought to reason" after the crushing victory of the Germans in Europe.
So basically, the invasion plan was a very vulnerable plan. Hence the BoB. If there was to be a chance tugging the troops across via barges, air superiority was essential. Not just that, because of the RN, some night-time and even cloud-cover as well as fair currents and tides would be needed for the possibility alona as well as some element of surprize (to limit the time the RN would have had).
All in all, even with the conquest of France in the late fall of 1939, operation sealion would still have to take place either in the early spring or fall of 1940. And the fall of 1940.
Try to tug barges across under the nose of the RN, with the RAF buzzing all over would always have been a shooting gallery. The only chance would be to get them across almost all the way in a dark night, and the LW being able to both carry on the troops (paras) as well as shielding against naval encounters. You would never be able to get the whole invasion force across over night, just enough to secure some vital points. Just like Normandy.
So, the German planners were right. Shooting out the RAF would be a complete milestone.
-
I'm curious about the part of "England not being Germany's natural enemy" - as Hitler used to say. This and British politics directed at not upsetting Hitler at all cost could result in strange things. For example peace and anti-communist alliance after fall of France? I wonder :) Also, would Poland (by then in open war with Russia) join the alliance too? AFAIK Hitler considered making allies with Poland in mid 30's.
-
Even if France had been conquered already in 1939, there would have been completely no chance for tugging barges across the channel before 1940.
The plan was not exactly on Hitlers wishlist, since he though the British could be "brought to reason" after the crushing victory of the Germans in Europe.
So basically, the invasion plan was a very vulnerable plan. Hence the BoB. If there was to be a chance tugging the troops across via barges, air superiority was essential. Not just that, because of the RN, some night-time and even cloud-cover as well as fair currents and tides would be needed for the possibility alona as well as some element of surprize (to limit the time the RN would have had).
All in all, even with the conquest of France in the late fall of 1939, operation sealion would still have to take place either in the early spring or fall of 1940. And the fall of 1940.
Try to tug barges across under the nose of the RN, with the RAF buzzing all over would always have been a shooting gallery. The only chance would be to get them across almost all the way in a dark night, and the LW being able to both carry on the troops (paras) as well as shielding against naval encounters. You would never be able to get the whole invasion force across over night, just enough to secure some vital points. Just like Normandy.
So, the German planners were right. Shooting out the RAF would be a complete milestone.
Lets just point it this way, amphibious invasion are darn near impossible to achieved. Vary few armies have achieved such a huge task and established a beach head. Personally, even if Germany won the BoB in the air, i hardly think they could pull off a amphibious invasion.
-
Lets just point it this way, amphibious invasion are darn near impossible to achieved. Vary few armies have achieved such a huge task and established a beach head. Personally, even if Germany won the BoB in the air, i hardly think they could pull off a amphibious invasion.
rule the air rule the ground.
-
rule the air rule the ground.
Yea. But i still do not think Germany would have the ability to successfully landed, established a beach head, and advance into deep England.
-
Yea. But i still do not think Germany would have the ability to successfully landed, established a beach head, and advance into deep England.
if they had ruled the skies, then they would more than likely been able to land troops, establish a beachhead, and make life very rough for the brits, before they managed to pushed them back.
-
if they had ruled the skies, then they would more than likely been able to land troops, establish a beachhead, and make life very rough for the brits, before they managed to pushed them back.
Yes, i agree on that. It would be tough for the Brits before they can push them back.
-
I think even if they did try a landing, the Royal Navy would have chewed them to pieces, and if they had established a beach head, again the Royal Navy would have torn them to shreds. Hypothetically speaking that is.
-
I think even if they did try a landing, the Royal Navy would have chewed them to pieces, and if they had established a beach head, again the Royal Navy would have torn them to shreds. Hypothetically speaking that is.
they wouldn't have been able to. if the germans had taken control of the skies over britain, then they would also have had control of the skies over the channel, thus preventing the navy from being able to get in there and stop the germans.
even ruling the skies, the germans would've been pushed back into the channel, by un-acceptable losses, due to british determination. every man woman and child would've been fighting them, pushing them back.....but they'd have gotten that far though........again, this is just my opinion.
-
I see your point of view and it is a very valid one. My thoughts were that if they were unable to hurt the Royal Navy (severely) during the evac at Dunkirk,( i believe that over the skies of Dunkirk they did have air superiorty) That yes, while the RN would have taken some losses, i think that the combined RAF/ RN could have kept it from happening, and it would not allowed them to establish a beach head. If one was established, again i think the power of the RN would have completly overwhelmed them.
Just my point of view of a ( what if ) question. The nice thing about these is that there is no wrong answer.
Great discussion gents
<S>
Mbailey
-
I see your point of view and it is a very valid one. My thoughts were that if they were unable to hurt the Royal Navy (severely) during the evac at Dunkirk,( i believe that over the skies of Dunkirk they did have air superiorty) That yes, while the RN would have taken some losses, i think that the combined RAF/ RN could have kept it from happening, and it would not allowed them to establish a beach head. If one was established, again i think the power of the RN would have completly overwhelmed them.
Just my point of view of a ( what if ) question. The nice thing about these is that there is no wrong answer.
Great discussion gents
<S>
Mbailey
yes...it is a good discussion...and it's also amazing no one's gone off the handle yet. :aok :salute :bolt:
-
Better question....What if the South won The Battle at Ghettysburg?
I think there is a book about it somewhere :salute
" Guns of the South" it is a good read its a what if someone gave the confederates a crap ton of AK's.
-
they wouldn't have been able to. if the germans had taken control of the skies over britain, then they would also have had control of the skies over the channel, thus preventing the navy from being able to get in there and stop the germans.
even ruling the skies, the germans would've been pushed back into the channel, by un-acceptable losses, due to british determination. every man woman and child would've been fighting them, pushing them back.....but they'd have gotten that far though........again, this is just my opinion.
CAP throws a dam good point. Any General will agree with the statement, "you control the ski, you control the ground." And yes, German could not hold the ground in England for long. For one, they have no experience in amphibious invasion, or at that time. They could not get there massive tanks on land on time nor get the supplies over there too. Yes, the Brits will take a donut beating but in time they will fight back.
-
This thread is now a bit off the original what if, but very many good points floating around.
Now we are in the possible arena of operation "sea lion", and since I have studied this quite much, I'll throw in some cents ;)
For starters, get some facts straight. First in favour of the British, then the Germans.
1. The RN had complete superiority at sea. There is no way that the Kriegsmarine could have taken on to them
2. The English channel is quite lively with strong currents. The weather also plays quite a role.
3. At the easiest time of currents and weather, the daylight is the longest, since it would be mid-summer.
4. The RAF showed at Dunquerque, that the German Luftwaffe did not manage to achive enough air superiority to stop the RN in what it was doing.
5. The RN basically is NOT where the channel is at the narrowest. The main base at Portsmouth is 200 kilometers away. Or is Scapa Flow the main base? That one is 1.000 kilometers away. The distances would be more, - this is the air route!. With top speed cruise and ships at readiness (boilers ready) that would still be almost 4 hours from Portsmouth, and 20 hours from Scapa Flow. In case of emergency, the force "H" at Gibraltar would have to sail more than 2.000 kilometers, or about 2 days, and the speed is destroyer speed at max,- for practical speed you will have to multiply with 2. (Cruise 14 knots).
6. At the right moment, the channel can be calm, and the crossing is only 36 kilometers at the narrowest. Even a trawler will do it in 2 hours. In short, even a crossing of tugs doing 5 mph would be executable in darkness. Early August would allow this with ease.
7. Night operations are the best playground for fast E-boats as well as Destroyers. Germany has a force of both.
8. Germany has a significant force of Paratroopers. (The one that was crippled on Crete a year later). Airborne transport could secure key positions under the cover of darkness to help with the beach landings and the advance inland.
9. While the RAF and the RN are a real threat, they'd have to come out of their dens and fight in a scenario which would be planned for just exactly that. With a focus of stopping the channel crossings and delivering air cover for the navy as well as engaging into operations related with the army, the RAF would have it's hands full dealing with the German fighter sweeps.
10. I forgot ze German bomber fleet :D How about bombing Porsmouth at dawn, Same with Scapa Flow (from aircraft based in Denmark), and then harass the RAF at dusk on their own fields.
11. I also forgot the U-Boats. They would not need to be anywhere except around Britain. A pack ambushing the RN as it would rush in from 3 directions (Gibraltar, Scapa/east coast and from the west) to secure the channel. If Britain falls, there is no need for them to be in the Atlantic anyway.
12 The bluff. Put the British on their toes with an attack on an odd place. Bomb Newcastle at night perhaps? Just the same as the allied did when executing operation Overlord.
So there you go. I guess more points could be made though.
Anyway, what I make of it always gives the same outcome. I think the Germans could have pulled off a landing and made a hell of trouble. After all history tells us that the crossing to Normandy in 1944, covering some 4 times the distance of the planned German invasion was pulled off without the whistle being blown before being too late. And the Allies (Airborne) were already there!!! Same goes with the ill-fated battle of Arnhem, where the allies managed to get more than a thousand aircraft to the target without an interception. And when one ponders on the distances in question, the channel is really not such a big place, just as the Germans showed the British when they drove their Battlewagons through the channel and got away with it. So, in short, I am sure they could have managed a landing and a temporary foot-hold.
And there it ends. The Germans would not have peace in the air, a clear supply-line, and no chance in tackling with a man Royal Navy. History also tells us how the RN reacted in a worst case scenario. They did go completely suicidal if needed. And you would only need a single destroyer to get through the German barrier to cause unimaginable casualties. Then there is the problem of getting the Panzers across. The key to success of all the German Blitzkrieg was the Harmony of air superiority, close support, and Armour. On British ground they would have had none.
So, my cents go to the Brits ;)
-
Well Augus, i can't argue with that. Given that where you lived and having knowledge of the area.
I post this question to see what people would think the out come would look like. Never thought about whether Germany would have a successful amphibious invasion on England and less on what Russia would do.
Oh, as far as Germany having a successful amphibious invasion on England. There is one key player that non of you guy brought up. Hitler planning it. As we all know, Hitler will be obsessive of winning and ignoring his staff.
-
Hehe, I have some photos in my books about the Germans drilling for the planned invasion. And the best of all, "Guidelines for troop behavior in England", written for the Wehrmacht. I'll see if I can dig it up, it's completely hilarious. It does show that the Gerries were serious though. They though the RAF could be done with in a week and then they could tug their panzers agross and park at Buckingham Palace. They even had a Kink in mind!!!
-
Of all the threads ive posted in, i must say that this is one of the best. Thanks for a great chat gents. :salute
-
Hehe, I have some photos in my books about the Germans drilling for the planned invasion. And the best of all, "Guidelines for troop behavior in England", written for the Wehrmacht. I'll see if I can dig it up, it's completely hilarious. It does show that the Gerries were serious though. They though the RAF could be done with in a week and then they could tug their panzers agross and park at Buckingham Palace. They even had a Kink in mind!!!
Post it in with all speed, Angus, I need a good larf.
:aok
-
"History also tells us how the RN reacted in a worst case scenario. They did go completely suicidal if needed."
Not suicidal, just ordinary men doing their extraordinary best. My grandfather was the only one of three brothers to survive the war. Great-uncle Jack went down with Rawalpindi when that gallant Admiralty-Made Coffin (sorry, Armed Merchant Cruiser) took on the Scharnhorst in the Denmark Strait in 1939. Great-uncle Perce was lost with the destroyer Glow-worm when she rammed the Hipper off Norway. CPO Pop enjoyed a slightly quieter time aboard the old light cruiser Despatch, operating in support of the South Atlantic Squadron by mopping up German supply tenders such as the MV Dusseldorf. Gran told me he 'cheered like a good'un' when the three cruisers they'd last seen a few days earlier reported that they had been in action with the enemy and forced Graf Spee into Montivedeo. The German commerce raider had probably moved to the mouth of the River Plate to take prizes in lieu of the supplies she could have expected to receive from those tenders.
Graf Spee heavily damaged all three cruisers before she took refuge in the neutral harbour; in particular, HMS Exeter, whose temporarily-blinded captain had asked the Jimmy 'what is her position relative to ours?' when his command's 8" guns fell silent. 'All our main armament is out of action, sir.' 'Bugger the guns, I intend to ram the bastard.' Luckily for them the 6" cruisers Ajax and Achilles had now become the primary targets and Exeter was asked 'Can you make it to the Falklands?' 'Reply: Can make it to Portsmouth if so ordered' - and she lived to fight and die another day, in 1942 at the Battle of the Java Sea.
As a medic, once back home again Pop served ashore for the rest of the war at RN Hospital Haslar. He died of cancer in 1957, aged 59.
:salute
-
That was really something Simba!!!
I had exactly those in mind when referring to "suicidal".
The RN was completely agressive when needed and the examples you quoted showed just that. Hence forth, the Gerries were quite aware of that.