Could Germany and the Axis powers have Won the Second World War?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NEXT

AchtungLagg RE:dont underestimate russia -bsl 10/20/2004 10:56:24 PM

it was very different than blitzkrieg. Strategically, and operationally, it was better. Tactically, perhaps not. But these doctrines of the 30s i am talking about were far better and more suitable for WWII than what the soviets had in 41.

Quote Reply

avner RE:Not only NO but heck NO - Sealion would fail! 10/21/2004 12:31:28 PM

The analysis of Sealion showed the Germans were planning on towing barges to England, two barges to a tug, using river-going tugs, the only type available in decent supply. This means a crossing speed of 3-5 knots (even as low as 2 with currents) and 10-12 hours on the water. I saw this once, years ago, on a military forum: Hitler's generals advised him that Operation Sealion would be similar to a "grosses Flussubergang" (a large scale river crossing). Swell. And how did they plan to brief their company grade officers? Perhaps: "It's just a wide river crossing, but HMS Nelson and her 16" guns might be coming for you at 25 knots. Have a nice day." The Royal Navy would have been at risk to air assault, but do you think that they would not have risked it? Besides, the Luftwaffe was in pretty bad shape in April/May just as the RAF was, that was why the Battle of Britain had to wait until August. One battlecruiser plowing through the ivasion flotilla at 30 knots wouldn't have needed to use its guns, they could have just swamped the barges with their wake! The Brits were pretty weakened in the summer of '40, but the Royal Navy was still at full strength and waiting in Scapa Flow.

Quote Reply

ozigrunt RE:Not only NO but heck NO - Sealion would fail! 10/21/2004 6:39:54 PM

....and the barges would only have moved men, no trucks, tanks, arty. And they still had a major, major landing prob.It would have been a dangerous two ring circus if the Brits assisted them. And that was only one crossing, what about resup? They had to capture a working port REAL early. It wasn't gonna happen even if the Germans had air and naval superiority for 24 hours. Both the Germans Attack appreciation and the Brits defence appreciation had a large impact on the planning of both the attack and the defence of continential europe in '43-'45.

Quote Reply

bsl RE:Not only NO but heck NO - Sealion would fail! 10/23/2004 9:04:05 PM

The objections to Sea Lion mentioned are all true. The risk of attemtping it would have been extremely high, with a substantial chance of losing the whole force, plus a big piece of the Luftwaffe. The other side of the argument, however, needs mentioning, too. At the low ebb of the UK, right after Dunkirk, it's difficult to overstate the military weakness of Britain on the ground. The RN was still extremely powerful. The RAF was a match for the Luftwaffe. *However*, the Royal Army was, for a time, not really in a position to protect the island of Great Britain. A very large proportion of British ground forces were dispersed across half the world. Of the forces in Britain, there was a period right after Dunkirk when, IIRC, there was a total of only one fully trained and equipped division ready to meet the invasion. Remember that the BEF, when it evacuated France, had to leave all it's heavy equipment, indeed, almost all it's equipment of any kind, behind. And, so, the point is that if the Germans could have landed a not terribly large force, with some armor and some trucks, it had a real chance to sweep the British army into the sea, very quickly. They didn't need much. They didn't need many tanks, or very much artillery. There was very little on Great Britain to meet them. It may have been forgotten, but even a year later, members the of Home Guard actually trained with *spears*, for lack of sufficient firearms.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust RE:Not only NO but heck NO - Sealion would fail! 10/23/2004 9:41:13 PM

bsl, IIRC, in Flemings "Op Sealion" he takes a slightly contrarian view on Brits landforces health. Staff College numbers of other troops available to the Home Forces in Oct 1940 included: polish, 18,000, french, 850, norwegian, 15,000, dutch, 1500, belgian, 800, czechoslovakians, 3000. these numbers did not include allied sailors an airmen - just land forces. There was the equivalent of an Australian Division (numerically) already in mainland GB. The european continentals certainly were committed, psychologically all of mainland europes royal families were guests of the Kings - so their own troops were prepared to make a last stand against the germans as england was the last refuge. I can't recall the exact numbers, but there was approx a qtr of a million troops (including empire forces) supplementary to GB forces. Apparently the majority of Staff College assessments of the time were not indicative of a fear of a competent airborne invasion, which is far different from the fear of a sneak seaborne approach. Hence the willingness to try such schemes as pumping oil and fuel mix on 2 of the possible landing sites if german forces were detected. Equipment would have been an issue

Quote Reply

fall out RE:Not only NO but heck NO - Sealion would fail! 10/23/2004 11:23:55 PM

"Equipment would have been an issu " - example, they had only a few hundred anti-tank guns in the entire country! it's pretty hard to immobilise a tank with guns and molotov tails, etc.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust RE:Not only NO but heck NO - Sealion would fail! 10/23/2004 11:41:59 PM

the poms may have been short of actual military issue weapons, but they weren't exactly like a lamb to the slaughter. getting german troops to shore would have been an absolute nightmare as there were equiped units that were radii located to respond to any landing. A bit like a WW2 RDF. There was no shortage of ammonium nitrate or oil in GB at the time.

Quote Reply

bigfella RE:Not only NO but heck NO - Sealion would fail! 10/24/2004 12:01:36 PM

Britain may have been at a low ebb in June 1940, but the earliest date Hitler seriously considered a landing was Sept. 15. I don't know what sort of forces were in Britan at this time, but in June there were already several Canadian Tank battalions (landed in Brittany & then re-embarked before french surrender). Also keep in mind that the German Navy had been decimated in Norway months earlier AND the RAF was still a viable fighting force. The RAF was able to bomb ports on the German side of the channel, further slowing preparations. Even if a first wave got ashore, they would be alone and unsupplied. Unless they captured a port VERY quickly AND managed to keep the channel open from air & sea than they would have remained this way until they were mopped up. Amphibious landings are hard enough under ideal conditions (look at Normandy). With air & sea control heavily contested and a lack of appropriate shipping, I just can't see how the Germans even get ashore in enough numbers to pose a serious threat.

Quote Reply

musloko-maro RE:Could Germany and the Axis powers have Won the Second World War? 10/25/2004 10:58:27 AM

A few comments on related matters A study, and more than a perfunctory reading of important and well documented works of the World War II, and that of Adolf Hitler might conclusively postulate that Hitler could have successfully won a World War of the magnitude, he was to face, with the full might of the industrial fury of the new world, namely the U.S.A. Hitler was an inveterate gambler. Had Hitler heeded to the words and wise counsel of his Generals and military leaders, and if they had made, or could prevail over Hitler's frenzied mind, Nazi Germany could have prolonged their stay and rule over greater parts of Europe. Hitler was no Bismarck. Bismark fought one war at a time. First it, was against Denmark in 1864, later against the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1866 for consolidating Kaiser's autocratic leadership over all Germans. Finally, in 1870 he crowned the Germans with the diasatrous defeat of Napoleanic France, when it was alone and helpless. Bismarck had his military leaders plan every stage of the war, and he never interferred with the affairs of the military's role. Of course Bismarck was also a strong anti-Semite and despised Catholics and non monarchists. The problem with Kaiser Wilhelm I in 1914-18, and later with Hitlerite Nazi Germany in 1939-45 was an over-extension of the all of Germany, on all sides, and the nazification and politicalization of the military staff college and leadership. Most of the German military officers of the World War I vintage, were all from higher echelons of the Prussian military cadre, well educated, gentlemen, refined, suave. But Hitler was exactly the opposite of these, and was always uncomfortable in the presence of his well educated, erudite and seasoned military cadre. More later on Nazi Germany's disastrous road to ruin and destruction

Quote Reply

Ehran RE:Not only NO but heck NO - Sealion would fail! 10/25/2004 12:14:25 PM

by the end of august 1940 the royal canadian army had 5 infantry brigades in england along with some tank battalions later part the canadian tank brigade. given the probable damage done by the raf and rn to the landings and the probable damage to the airbourne forces that force alone would very possibly have been adequate to contain and then eliminate the beachead. if you think this is puffery take a look at what happened in Ortona in Italy when green canadian troops engaged the german first para division in probably the most intense urban fighting of the italian campaign. now imagine those paras scattered across the english countryside and badly attrited before the fighting starts (thanks to the raf).

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NEXT