 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Case
|
 |
The backlash starts here
Feb 2000
time: 15:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jimmywax
As far as Sealion, historians have stated time and again that if Hitler had kept the Battle of Britain going for another week, he would have destroyed the RAF and had air superiority to bomb the country into submission. |
I've read the opposite  . The RAF had some huge advantages in the Battle of Britain, namely:
- Britain could chose how many casualties they wanted to take by simply withdrawing the fighters to bases north west of London. These bases were out of range of the Luftwaffe's fighters, but were still within easy range of the likely landing grounds. As a result, had things ever gotten too bad, the RAF could have been preserved.
- Britain never came close to running out of planes - the shortfall was in pilots
- And even this shortfall wasn't that big a problem, as most of the dogfighting took place over Britain, meaning that any RAF pilots who bailed out would quickly return to duty, while any Germans who bailed out spent the rest of the war in a POW camp.
-The RAF was fighting from well prepared and stocked bases, while the Luftwaffe was fighing from captured French airfields at the end of a slow and unreliable line of supply from Germany.
In addition, the German army simply didn't have a clue on how to conduct an amphibious assault, and the navy didn't have the naval forces to ofter more then token support.
On the other hand if Germany had managed to land a couple of Panzer divisions backed up with paratroops, Britain would have had to sue for peace within days as there really wasn't anything to stop them, and as a result Cal's sequence sounds believable. However, you may want to throw something in about Roosevelt not being the American president at the time 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Cal
|
|
Hermosa Beach, California, USA
Aug 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Grothgar
I think youll have to assume that hitler didnt declare war on russia this time, frankly if he thinks he can conquer the US then he has all the living room he needs |
Well, that goes without without saying.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cal
|
|
Hermosa Beach, California, USA
Aug 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hobbes
Good lord no!! not the Queeeen! Have them escape to Canada or Portugal or Africa for God sakes! |
The Queen wasn't even the Queen back then, was she? Sometimes you've just got to let a royal family go... France and Russia's were murdered, weren't they?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cal
|
|
Hermosa Beach, California, USA
Aug 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Case
I'd say that in the event of a German invasion of Britain, Roosevelt would have declared war on Germany. Why not have Roosevelt lose the 1936 election to, say, Charles Lindburgh? |
Charles Lindburgh?!  
The America First committee was a special interest group, not a political party. And they were founded in september 1940. Also, to prove a point, here's a quote I remember him saying around when the USA extended its Lend-Lease aid to the Soviet Union, and I'm paraphrasing from memory:
"I would prefer an alliance with Nazi Germany, with all its faults, rather than support the godless barbarianism that exists in the Soviet Union."
A lot of scenarios feature the "USA entering war once London falls" option, but I don't think it's too unlikely that the only thing that would've prompted the USA to really enter the war would be a sneak attack by one of the Axis forces. (I'm pretty sure it was Germany that declared war on America after pearl harbor, not the other way around.) Support for intervention only began to be the majority opinion once Paris had fallen.
Btw...
I'm thinking of giving the USA three unique units, a unit to represent Eisenhower, Patton, and MacArthur (called back from the Phillippines). Anyone want to make me some images for these units?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cal
|
|
Hermosa Beach, California, USA
Aug 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Case
I'd say that in the event of a German invasion of Britain, Roosevelt would have declared war on Germany. |
Another thing you must be aware of is that the act of declaring war without congress' approval wasn't done until President Truman did it for the Korean War. Roosevelt still got congress' permission to declare war after Pearl Harbor, I don't think he would have had a majority without the attack.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Scott F
|
|
Indiana
Oct 2000
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
In addition, the German army simply didn't have a clue on how to conduct an amphibious assault, and the navy didn't have the naval forces to ofter more then token support. |
Everyone forgets the assaults on Crete, Norway, and Denmark. Those were largely amphibious or airborne assaults, and all were spectacular successes (even if in the case of Crete losses were high).
There is a theory that I have read that in June of 1940, after the fall of France, the Germans had a window of a matter of literally days in which they could have marshalled forces to cross the Channel successfully. The bulk of the Royal Navy, aside from a smattering of small destroyers and patrol craft, was up at Scapa Flow and was effectively a null factor in the war. The British Expeditionary Force was shattered. Many of the personnel survived, but their tanks, artillery, and other equipment were all in German hands on the continent. There were no ground forces to speak of to withstand an invasion aside from militias with small arms. Even the existing ground forces were out of commission from the thrashing that they had been given in France. It is no stretch when the Hitler Channel says that only the RAF stood between Hitler and total victory in the west and between Britain and defeat.
But in June and July of 1940, Fighter Command had not finalized sufficient plans to orchestrate defenses over Britain. These plans were fleshed out over the coming weaks. Britain was still in shock from the fall of France. If the Germans had acted boldly, as some in the General Staff and Navy had wanted to do (despite Göring's boastings), they could have accomplished another lightening victory. The Reich Navy, while small, was more than a match for the British forces in the Channel at the time of Dunkirk. The Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and the three other pocket battleships, along with a force of destroyers and E-Boats, could have covered any landing force.
From the shores of occupied France and the Low Countries, the Germans could have easily seized and commandeered literally hundreds of small craft, merchantmen of all sizes, and all manner of vessels capable of moving forces, even mechanized units, across the Channel. While the operation would be somewhat chaotic and ad hoc, there is no reason to think that they could not have managed a landing. The Luftwaffe could not stop the British from evacuating Dunkirk and there is little reason to believe that the RAF could prevent the Germans from using large numbers of small vessels (and later large ones) to establish a foothold in southern Britain.
With the RAF tangling with the numerically superior Luftwaffe in the skies over the Channel, a foothold could very easily have been established before the British regrouped and got their act back together. Once the foothold is established, reinforcing it, either by air or by sea, becomes a much simpler and easier matter, particularly when there is no organized resistance in Britain to speak of.
But as I said, the window for this was very small. By the time they were discussing Sealion, it was already too late to do anything. Heck, by the time Hitler was touring Paris it was likely bordering on too late as well. But the opportunity was there, for a brief time. Hitler had made sudden and erratic decisions for ad hoc operations before (and since). Suppose he made one then? Suppose, even worse, that Hermann Göring eats and drinks too much the night before he would have made his fateful boast about wiping out the Dunkirk pocket and either doesn't make it to der Führer's staff meeting, or is too hungover to say anything? Then the BEF is totally annihilated, and in the next couple of days, Hitler decides to launch an ad hoc attack on Britain itself? I shudder to think of the outcome for world civilization.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Case
|
|
The backlash starts here
Feb 2000
time: 15:16
|
|
Just playing devil's advocate 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott F
Everyone forgets the assaults on Crete, Norway, and Denmark. Those were largely amphibious or airborne assaults, and all were spectacular successes (even if in the case of Crete losses were high). |
The battles of Crete and Norway were all fought in areas where the Germans enjoyed near total air supremicy, and even then they took severe losses. The German surface fleet was all but wiped out at Norway and the Parachute divisions were lucky to win at Crete (where despite heavy German bombing, the RN managed to slaughter the German followup seaborne fleet)
quote:
The bulk of the Royal Navy, aside from a smattering of small destroyers and patrol craft, was up at Scapa Flow and was effectively a null factor in the war. |
Scarpa Flow is only a days sailing time from southern England. Had the Germans been able to mount a surprise lighning assault across the Channel, the heavy ships would have arrived in good time to destroy the German supply convoys, and maroon the invasion army. Also, during the period of 1940 in which the danger of invasion was highest, many of the heavy warships were moved to southern ports (Plymouth in particular)
quote:
the Hitler Channel... |
- we've got a free to air channel that's all but dedicated to documentaries about the Nazi's
quote:
The Reich Navy, while small, was more than a match for the British forces in the Channel at the time of Dunkirk. The Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and the three other pocket battleships, along with a force of destroyers and E-Boats, could have covered any landing force. |
As I said previously the German surface fleet was all but wiped out at Norway. About half the destroyers had been sunk, along with a large chunk of the navy's cruiser force. Most significantly, the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau had been damaged and were not combat ready untill late 1940. As a result, the Royal Navy outnumbered the Keigsmarine by a huge margin.
quote:
From the shores of occupied France and the Low Countries, the Germans could have easily seized and commandeered literally hundreds of small craft, merchantmen of all sizes, and all manner of vessels capable of moving forces, even mechanized units, across the Channel. |
True, but when the British pulled out of Europe, they did a supurb job of wrecking all the ports from which could be used to mount an invasion.
Other then those points, I'd agree with all that Scott said 
I'd also recomend the book 'Invasion' by millitary historian Kenneth Macksey.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ravagon
|
|
Australia
Sep 1999
time: 13:16
|
|
Wow. So much good stuff.
I'm going to be another devils advocate
quote:
Originally posted by The ANZAC
I actually heard somewhere that Germany could have won the the Battle of Britain if they did not focus on attacking civilian targets and kept on hitting hitting airbases and other facilities.
|
I heard something very similar. Had the RAF bases been targetted for just a little longer they would supposedly have reached breaking point and become essentially combat-ineffective.
quote:
Originally posted by Scott F
There is a theory that I have read that in June of 1940, after the fall of France, the Germans had a window of a matter of literally days in which they could have marshalled forces to cross the Channel successfully. The bulk of the Royal Navy, aside from a smattering of small destroyers and patrol craft, was up at Scapa Flow and was effectively a null factor in the war.
|
The basing at Scapa Flow - out of range of most air attacks - was true so I tend to doubt that a German "surprise" attack could capture significant elements of the Royal Navy. (This is wrt the scenario).
As far as being a null-factor, I think that was more because the Germans didn't attempt an invasion, rather than an inability to prevent it. I would tend to think that the RN would have wished for an attempted invasion so as to cut it off in mid-progress and annihilate the cream of Germany's might.
Perhaps a night airborne assault (unsupported) with sabotage teams might have been more successful in disabling enough of the fleet so as to prevent major interference with a cross-channel invasion. The sailing distance to the channel itself shouldn't really have been too much of an obstacle as the defeat in France wasn't exactly over in a single night and there wasn't any way in which the German General Staff could go from a land battle to executing a seaborne invasion in that period of time.
Even with a large number of available craft commandeered from the defeated low countries, the combined marshalling/loading/transporting/offloading/deploying process would have required fully secured ports on both sides of the channel and would have taken far more time than was available in a brief window. An amphibious assault with miscellaneous craft certainly wasn't possible so they would have needed the ports.
quote:
Originally posted by Case
The battles of Crete and Norway were all fought in areas where the Germans enjoyed near total air supremicy, and even then they took severe losses. The German surface fleet was all but wiped out at Norway and the Parachute divisions were lucky to win at Crete (where despite heavy German bombing, the RN managed to slaughter the German followup seaborne fleet)
|
Success in Norway, in particular, came mostly as a result of surprise. This would have been unlikely to have worked a second time.
I would suggest portraying a Battle of Britain - continuing the attacks against the RAF rather than targetting cities as they did, followed by a commando assault to disable the Royal Navy and a simultaneous airborne invasion of Southern England with only limited followup support from hastily shipped Panzer and artillery elements to ports seized in the air assault. - No full commitment until the capability of the RN was established. As the situation with the British fleet became more clear a delayed full strength invasion could have crossed the channel in force using available auxiliary craft. With the continental BEF contained or destroyed the air assault could have been much more successful, even without immediate support, it facing far less opposition.
Those still active fleet elements could either sail south to engage landing forces and provide naval artillery support (opposed by the luftwaffe and - on French soil - shore-based artillery) while the others are repaired or could head straight for the dominions while damaged ships were scuttled - if the invasion was a resounding success.
Just one request - Please let the King escape - To someplace with igloos like Canada if need be
* Rises and starts singing "Rule Britannia" much to the amusement of coworkers *
[Edit: PS: Many thanks for the links to those who provided them ]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ravagon
|
|
Australia
Sep 1999
time: 13:16
|
|
I think the use of the Irish as a 5th column sort of thing could've worked (supplying training/arms by U-boat or somesuch?) but as far as an actual invasion goes - that would have taken the invasion force out of range of the land-based air cover of the luftwaffe - while still being within range of the RAF.
The RN would still have been an obstacle (although more out of position and less able to provide rapid support than in an attempted channel crossing).
Additionally an actual invasion would have required the support of the Irish populace - requiring a credibility that the Germans had already stretched even at this early stage ...
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-12-2001 13:30
Attachment: 
|
