(01-10-2018 03:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  The seeds for Germany's defeat were sown at Dunkirk. Had they been able to prosecute the offensive and destroy the British Expeditionary Force on the beach instead of allowing them to evacuate the personnel they did Britain would have ceased to be much more than an annoyance and they could have concentrated the majority of their forces against the Soviets. Recall that even with the evacuations the Brits had abandoned most of their heavy armament and transport on the beach. What the British evacuations did was force Germany to keep significant defensive forces deployed in France and the low countries to counter a possible cross channel invasion.

Dunkirk was the evacuation of 338,000 men. The Germans while not fully compliant with the Geneva Convention by any stretch, was in general compliance with regard to the western nations POWs.

The German army peaked at 6.5 million men (one third of those reservists) a Dunkirk surrender would have required around 3% to 4% of the rations produced for the military even on a smaller ration than given to German soldiers.

The typical German POW camp was 10,000 to 18,000 prisoners. The largest was 35,000. A Dunkirk surrender would have forced Germany into needing a minimum of 10 more camps than they actually built.

Nearly all of the mass escapes (five or more prisoners) were orchestrated by UK forces because they tended to believe it was their obligation to tie up enemy forces by escaping and have them looking for escapees instead of fighting.

The UK peaked at 4 million soldiers so Dunkirk would have reduced the peak by a bit under 10%.

(01-10-2018 01:32 PM)58-56 Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 08:32 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The vehicle upon which the Hetzer, and ultimately the STUG were based on was a Romanian design known as the Maresal***

The RFP for the Maresal was issued in December 1942 to the Malaxa/Rogifer factory. The Sturmgeschutz RFP went to Daimler-Benz in 1936 and saw action from 1940. The overall point, that Romanian engineers like Ghiulai and Veres were innovative thinkers, is certainly valid.

(Tudor, Gheorghe: Forta de Soc. Schiță istorica a trupelor detancuri din armăta română.)

You're absolutely right.

I was thinking of the Tank Destroyer variants but you're absolutely correct that the STUG assault gun predates the Romanian design.

(01-10-2018 03:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Had (the Germans) been able to prosecute the offensive and destroy the British Expeditionary Force on the beach at Dunkirk instead of allowing them to evacuate the personnel they did, Britain would have ceased to be much more than an annoyance and they could have concentrated the majority of their forces against the Soviets.

I have to disagree, the reality of US and Russian manufacturing and manpower makes anything but total defeat inevitable. Even if the British were defeated or captured at Dunkirk it would only be a matter of time before the UK could re-engage via massive amount of US aid.

(01-10-2018 03:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  and was within striking distance of invading Australia when they attacked Pearl Harbor. With the bulk of Australia's forces committed to the fight in the Mediterranean theater had America not entered the war it's likely that Australia would have fell and with India under Japanese threat the defense of the Commonwealth would have fell to South Africa and Canada.

The Japanese goal for Australia was always containment, never invasion. The men and material needed to secure and invade Australia would be so overwhelming as to be impossible.The idea that Japan could have successfully invaded and conquered Australia needs a strong word: ludicrous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_J...rld_War_II

Fun fact: I've been to Darwin and visited the Cenotaph memorial to the Japanese bombings of Darwin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Darwin



I still go back to my previous post (#57) in this thread stating the only possibility of Axis success in Europe: with a strong Spain the Axis could have easily reached from Portugal to Romania, Sicily to Denmark.

(01-10-2018 03:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 01:29 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 12:34 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  If you take a look at Germany's major European allies, Italy, Romania, and Hungary you can see where it would have been theoretically possible to organize them in such a way as to win the war.

It is probably fair to say that would have required herculean feats to have done and would have required nearly perfect performances from each country but it was possible, by the numbers.

I agree if your WWII was confined solely to land grabs in continental western Europe. Otherwise, defeat it was inevitable.

Recent new scholarship on the Japanese entrance to WWII shows that the vast majority of Japanese military leadership knew that any fight involving the United States would lead to defeat, but their culture of bushido eliminated anyone from saying so for fear of being weak. But that same culture of Bushido meant that of course they had to attack the USA.

Same realities in Europe. There was no way that Germany was not going to, at some point, engage in hostilities against the UK and the Soviet Union. The UK would be supplied, endlessly, by the USA and the Soviets only had to build their factories behind the Urals to be almost untouchable.

Defeat was inevitable for the Axis outside of two small opportunities:

German stops in western Europe
Japan stops in Manchuria

Otherwise the manufacturing might of the USA combined with the manpower of the Soviet Union meant certain Axis defeat.

I don't know if I would go that far.

Like all good agriculture the defeat was fertilized prior to being sown. This happened at the Battles of Khalkin Gol in Manchuria in 1939 where in a series of major border battles the Soviets soundly defeated the Imperial Japanese forces and discouraged further pursuit by the Imperial Japanese staff of the Northern Expansion Doctrine in favor of the Southern Expansion Doctrine, the expansion of the empire into South East Asia and the Pacific. Because of the redirected goals Japan had no intention of invading the Soviet Union, Soviet spy Richard Sorge was able to obtain this information and when forwarded to Moscow the lack of a two front threat allowed the Soviets to relocate massive amounts of personnel and equipment from the defense of Siberia to be used against the Nazis.



The seeds for Germany's defeat were sown at Dunkirk. Had they been able to prosecute the offensive and destroy the British Expeditionary Force on the beach instead of allowing them to evacuate the personnel they did Britain would have ceased to be much more than an annoyance and they could have concentrated the majority of their forces against the Soviets. Recall that even with the evacuations the Brits had abandoned most of their heavy armament and transport on the beach. What the British evacuations did was force Germany to keep significant defensive forces deployed in France and the low countries to counter a possible cross channel invasion.

The defeat germinated in Dec 40/Jan 41 when the determination was made that Germany had to send forces initially to prop up, then to replace the Italians in North Africa. This would further divide German military power.

The defeat bloomed on June 22, 1941 at 0315hrs when the Axis launched Operation Barbarossa. From that point on the outcome of the war was inevitable as Germany would always be facing a two front war.



Some believe that the British could have posed a challenge because of their empire, but prior to American entry into the Pacific theater the Japanese were soundly whipping Commonwealth forces and was within striking distance of invading Australia when they attacked Pearl Harbor. With the bulk of Australia's forces committed to the fight in the Mediterranean theater had America not entered the war it's likely that Australia would have fell and with India under Japanese threat the defense of the Commonwealth would have fell to South Africa and Canada.

Pearl Harbor may have been the ultimate error. Had they delayed the US entry, Japan would have been freer and the US would not have been sending so much support to the USSR and they may have collapsed without US trucks and supplies.

And did the Germans need to try to take Stalingrad? Could they have bypassed it?

(01-10-2018 03:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 01:29 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 12:34 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  If you take a look at Germany's major European allies, Italy, Romania, and Hungary you can see where it would have been theoretically possible to organize them in such a way as to win the war.

It is probably fair to say that would have required herculean feats to have done and would have required nearly perfect performances from each country but it was possible, by the numbers.

I agree if your WWII was confined solely to land grabs in continental western Europe. Otherwise, defeat it was inevitable.

Recent new scholarship on the Japanese entrance to WWII shows that the vast majority of Japanese military leadership knew that any fight involving the United States would lead to defeat, but their culture of bushido eliminated anyone from saying so for fear of being weak. But that same culture of Bushido meant that of course they had to attack the USA.

Same realities in Europe. There was no way that Germany was not going to, at some point, engage in hostilities against the UK and the Soviet Union. The UK would be supplied, endlessly, by the USA and the Soviets only had to build their factories behind the Urals to be almost untouchable.

Defeat was inevitable for the Axis outside of two small opportunities:

German stops in western Europe
Japan stops in Manchuria

Otherwise the manufacturing might of the USA combined with the manpower of the Soviet Union meant certain Axis defeat.

I don't know if I would go that far.

Like all good agriculture the defeat was fertilized prior to being sown. This happened at the Battles of Khalkin Gol in Manchuria in 1939 where in a series of major border battles the Soviets soundly defeated the Imperial Japanese forces and discouraged further pursuit by the Imperial Japanese staff of the Northern Expansion Doctrine in favor of the Southern Expansion Doctrine, the expansion of the empire into South East Asia and the Pacific. Because of the redirected goals Japan had no intention of invading the Soviet Union, Soviet spy Richard Sorge was able to obtain this information and when forwarded to Moscow the lack of a two front threat allowed the Soviets to relocate massive amounts of personnel and equipment from the defense of Siberia to be used against the Nazis.



The seeds for Germany's defeat were sown at Dunkirk. Had they been able to prosecute the offensive and destroy the British Expeditionary Force on the beach instead of allowing them to evacuate the personnel they did Britain would have ceased to be much more than an annoyance and they could have concentrated the majority of their forces against the Soviets. Recall that even with the evacuations the Brits had abandoned most of their heavy armament and transport on the beach. What the British evacuations did was force Germany to keep significant defensive forces deployed in France and the low countries to counter a possible cross channel invasion.

The defeat germinated in Dec 40/Jan 41 when the determination was made that Germany had to send forces initially to prop up, then to replace the Italians in North Africa. This would further divide German military power.

The defeat bloomed on June 22, 1941 at 0315hrs when the Axis launched Operation Barbarossa. From that point on the outcome of the war was inevitable as Germany would always be facing a two front war.



Some believe that the British could have posed a challenge because of their empire, but prior to American entry into the Pacific theater the Japanese were soundly whipping Commonwealth forces and was within striking distance of invading Australia when they attacked Pearl Harbor. With the bulk of Australia's forces committed to the fight in the Mediterranean theater had America not entered the war it's likely that Australia would have fell and with India under Japanese threat the defense of the Commonwealth would have fell to South Africa and Canada.

1. I think the failure to destroy the BEF was a major issue. It may not have been in the sense that the British Army was left as deprived of equipment either way. But, if the BEF had been destroyed political pressure probably would have prevailed and the UK sued for peace.

2. The Italian blunders in Greece and North Africa delayed the launch of Barbarossa. But, even at that the vast majority of the Axis forces in North Africa were Italian. That isn't to say that those troops couldn't have been put to better use elsewhere but North Africa was really Italy's war.

The Italian war has always been the most interesting to me.

3. In spite of the issues Barbarossa created Hitler still had many chances to win the war in my opinion, even as late as 1943.

(01-10-2018 05:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  And did the Germans need to try to take Stalingrad? Could they have bypassed it?

Bypass it and you give up your supply line because the Soviets can venture out and disrupt (same principle behind building castles).

Choices were keep fighting and force them out or withdraw and give them a chance to better fortify while keeping the northern part of the front secure until such time the Germans have taken the central front and can then move in force to the north encircle. Push beyond without tying up a lot of force to contain, it becomes a threat to activities to the south.

Wars are won and lost on logistics. You can win the odd battle here or there, but you can't win the war without logistics. Hitler's chance to win was to bring Joe Stalin into the Axis. That's why Barbarossa was a mistake of epic proportions.

(01-10-2018 05:01 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The Italian war has always been the most interesting to me.

Indeed.


I believe one of the biggest errors of the war was Italy & Germany not working out a deal to take advantage of their relative martial strengths. Put Italy in charge of the surface portion of the Kriegsmarine and give Germany control of all land forces and suddenly you have a much different war IMO.

Dunkirk was a true turning point.

There is almost no way an invasion of Western Europe by any US/UK forces can take place without the supply ship/aircraft carrier known as England.

Dunkirk ensured that England could and would be used for that.

(01-10-2018 04:45 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 03:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Had (the Germans) been able to prosecute the offensive and destroy the British Expeditionary Force on the beach at Dunkirk instead of allowing them to evacuate the personnel they did, Britain would have ceased to be much more than an annoyance and they could have concentrated the majority of their forces against the Soviets.

I have to disagree, the reality of US and Russian manufacturing and manpower makes anything but total defeat inevitable. Even if the British were defeated or captured at Dunkirk it would only be a matter of time before the UK could re-engage via massive amount of US aid.

Britain wouldn't have been able to re-engage if they were forced to sue for peace facing a massive invasion with the majority of their army and just about all of their available heavy equipment not available to them.

Quote:

(01-10-2018 03:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  and was within striking distance of invading Australia when they attacked Pearl Harbor. With the bulk of Australia's forces committed to the fight in the Mediterranean theater had America not entered the war it's likely that Australia would have fell and with India under Japanese threat the defense of the Commonwealth would have fell to South Africa and Canada.

The Japanese goal for Australia was always containment, never invasion. The men and material needed to secure and invade Australia would be so overwhelming as to be impossible.The idea that Japan could have successfully invaded and conquered Australia needs a strong word: ludicrous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_J...rld_War_II

The link you provided indicates that the Imperial Navy indeed advanced a plan for the invasion of Australia. It was the Imperial Army who favored containment, and that was the beginning of the end for Japan as Australia was used as the spring board for the island hopping campaign that began with Guadalcanal.

The question is was Japan aware of how depleted Australia's military was when they declared war against the Japanese on Dec 8th, 1941? They only had eight incomplete divisions of Army troops, most of their aircraft were trainers, and less than 10 large warships available to defend the country due to so much manpower and material being send to fight Germany.

There was no chance of Germany successfully invading Great Britain successfully with or without the Dunkirk evacuation.

The Royal Navy could have taken 4 to 1 losses vs Kreigsmarine and still been able to maintain operations in the Med vs Italy. The Germans had only one heavy cruiser, two light cruiser and four destroyers available immediately after the fall of France. D-Day the Allies had 5 battleships, 20 cruisers and 65 destroyers.

The German “plan” for invasion was designed to use a Dunkirk style cobbled up fleet primarily relying on river barges. They estimated they could land 100,000 soldiers in 10 days. The Allies landed nearly 160,000 in the first 24 hours of Overlord. Germany had less than 40 available minesweepers to clear a path to the invasion. The Allies used 350 ships to clear mines and it took about a month. Unlike the Germans the UK had tanks of oil on standby to dump at each potential land site and planned to set the slicks ablaze which would have been rather deadly for packed wooden barges.

The Luftwaffe could not have protected the landings. They lost 25% of their fighter pilots to death, injury, POW by July 1940. The Brits were out-numbered but each day built more fighters than Germany was building and any pilot shot down who escaped death or injury was stuck in a new plane. The Luftwaffe managed 327 sorties on D-Day vs about 14,000 by the Allies. Germany could not have achieved that sort of air dominance.

The civilian population of France was friendly to the Allies, that would not have been the case in Sea Lion.

It is likely that between the limited shipping capacity and Royal Navy and Royal Air Force that a German invasion force would quickly be out of food and ammunition and hurting for reinforcements.

Sea Lion was called off because they couldn’t gain air superiority, naval superiority and even with them needed at least 10 good weather days and an absolute minimum of three and had extremely limited access to any weather data west of the French Coast while the UK had weather data from Ireland, Iceland, Greenland, Canada, the US and convoys. They were looking at shooting into the dark. Remember their best guess at weather convinced them June 6 was a improbable date for attack.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(01-10-2018 11:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There was no chance of Germany successfully invading Great Britain successfully with or without the Dunkirk evacuation.

The Royal Navy could have taken 4 to 1 losses vs Kreigsmarine and still been able to maintain operations in the Med vs Italy. The Germans had only one heavy cruiser, two light cruiser and four destroyers available immediately after the fall of France. D-Day the Allies had 5 battleships, 20 cruisers and 65 destroyers.

The German “plan” for invasion was designed to use a Dunkirk style cobbled up fleet primarily relying on river barges. They estimated they could land 100,000 soldiers in 10 days. The Allies landed nearly 160,000 in the first 24 hours of Overlord. Germany had less than 40 available minesweepers to clear a path to the invasion. The Allies used 350 ships to clear mines and it took about a month. Unlike the Germans the UK had tanks of oil on standby to dump at each potential land site and planned to set the slicks ablaze which would have been rather deadly for packed wooden barges.

The Luftwaffe could not have protected the landings. They lost 25% of their fighter pilots to death, injury, POW by July 1940. The Brits were out-numbered but each day built more fighters than Germany was building and any pilot shot down who escaped death or injury was stuck in a new plane. The Luftwaffe managed 327 sorties on D-Day vs about 14,000 by the Allies. Germany could not have achieved that sort of air dominance.

The civilian population of France was friendly to the Allies, that would not have been the case in Sea Lion.

It is likely that between the limited shipping capacity and Royal Navy and Royal Air Force that a German invasion force would quickly be out of food and ammunition and hurting for reinforcements.

Sea Lion was called off because they couldn’t gain air superiority, naval superiority and even with them needed at least 10 good weather days and an absolute minimum of three and had extremely limited access to any weather data west of the French Coast while the UK had weather data from Ireland, Iceland, Greenland, Canada, the US and convoys. They were looking at shooting into the dark. Remember their best guess at weather convinced them June 6 was a improbable date for attack.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I would strongly disagree with that.

The Regina Marina was a seriously potent force, in the Mediterranean.

Italian expansion plans to make it a true Atlantic navy were never completed, although sans the outbreak of war they would have by 1943.

The Regina Marina wasn't in any position position to help an operation such as Sea Lion but it was more than capable of dominating the Mediterranean, which it did briefly achieve at several points during the war. It is worth pointing out though that Italian submarines were a useful part of the war in the Atlantic.

It, along with limited portions of the Army and certain, but significant, portions of the Air Force were well equipped and well led. But, they were largely placed in a subordinate roll with just about every grand strategic decision falling to the Germans who were executing a war the Italians had never envisioned and hadn't spent the last 20 years preparing or equipping for.

Hell, the Italian military going into the war was strategically, tactically, and in terms of equipment most prepared for a war with Germany. They nearly went to war with one another of Austria in the 30s. The war that ultimately took place was not what had been contemplated and Mussolini's calculated risk that he could grab what he wanted before Germany won has been relegated to a bad decision by history.

(01-11-2018 07:55 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 11:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There was no chance of Germany successfully invading Great Britain successfully with or without the Dunkirk evacuation.

The Royal Navy could have taken 4 to 1 losses vs Kreigsmarine and still been able to maintain operations in the Med vs Italy. The Germans had only one heavy cruiser, two light cruiser and four destroyers available immediately after the fall of France. D-Day the Allies had 5 battleships, 20 cruisers and 65 destroyers.

The German “plan” for invasion was designed to use a Dunkirk style cobbled up fleet primarily relying on river barges. They estimated they could land 100,000 soldiers in 10 days. The Allies landed nearly 160,000 in the first 24 hours of Overlord. Germany had less than 40 available minesweepers to clear a path to the invasion. The Allies used 350 ships to clear mines and it took about a month. Unlike the Germans the UK had tanks of oil on standby to dump at each potential land site and planned to set the slicks ablaze which would have been rather deadly for packed wooden barges.

The Luftwaffe could not have protected the landings. They lost 25% of their fighter pilots to death, injury, POW by July 1940. The Brits were out-numbered but each day built more fighters than Germany was building and any pilot shot down who escaped death or injury was stuck in a new plane. The Luftwaffe managed 327 sorties on D-Day vs about 14,000 by the Allies. Germany could not have achieved that sort of air dominance.

The civilian population of France was friendly to the Allies, that would not have been the case in Sea Lion.

It is likely that between the limited shipping capacity and Royal Navy and Royal Air Force that a German invasion force would quickly be out of food and ammunition and hurting for reinforcements.

Sea Lion was called off because they couldn’t gain air superiority, naval superiority and even with them needed at least 10 good weather days and an absolute minimum of three and had extremely limited access to any weather data west of the French Coast while the UK had weather data from Ireland, Iceland, Greenland, Canada, the US and convoys. They were looking at shooting into the dark. Remember their best guess at weather convinced them June 6 was a improbable date for attack.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I would strongly disagree with that.

The Regina Marina was a seriously potent force, in the Mediterranean.

Italian expansion plans to make it a true Atlantic navy were never completed, although sans the outbreak of war they would have by 1943.

The Regina Marina wasn't in any position position to help an operation such as Sea Lion but it was more than capable of dominating the Mediterranean, which it did briefly achieve at several points during the war. It is worth pointing out though that Italian submarines were a useful part of the war in the Atlantic.

It, along with limited portions of the Army and certain, but significant, portions of the Air Force were well equipped and well led. But, they were largely placed in a subordinate roll with just about every grand strategic decision falling to the Germans who were executing a war the Italians had never envisioned and hadn't spent the last 20 years preparing or equipping for.

Hell, the Italian military going into the war was strategically, tactically, and in terms of equipment most prepared for a war with Germany. They nearly went to war with one another of Austria in the 30s. The war that ultimately took place was not what had been contemplated and Mussolini's calculated risk that he could grab what he wanted before Germany won has been relegated to a bad decision by history.

A 4 to 1 loss vs Kreigsmarine would be 28 ships.

Regnia Marina had 6 battleships, 19 cruisers, and 59 destroyers.

In 1939 the Royal Navy had 15 battleships and battle cruisers, 7 aircraft carriers, 66 cruisers and 184 destroyers.

Losing 28 of 272 would have still permitted the Royal Navy to operate in the Med.

Probably not as aggressively but the likely losses the Luftwaffe would have experienced supporting Sea Lion would have reduced their ability to provide Regina Marina with air support at Malta.

(01-11-2018 09:42 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 07:55 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 11:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There was no chance of Germany successfully invading Great Britain successfully with or without the Dunkirk evacuation.

The Royal Navy could have taken 4 to 1 losses vs Kreigsmarine and still been able to maintain operations in the Med vs Italy. The Germans had only one heavy cruiser, two light cruiser and four destroyers available immediately after the fall of France. D-Day the Allies had 5 battleships, 20 cruisers and 65 destroyers.

The German “plan” for invasion was designed to use a Dunkirk style cobbled up fleet primarily relying on river barges. They estimated they could land 100,000 soldiers in 10 days. The Allies landed nearly 160,000 in the first 24 hours of Overlord. Germany had less than 40 available minesweepers to clear a path to the invasion. The Allies used 350 ships to clear mines and it took about a month. Unlike the Germans the UK had tanks of oil on standby to dump at each potential land site and planned to set the slicks ablaze which would have been rather deadly for packed wooden barges.

The Luftwaffe could not have protected the landings. They lost 25% of their fighter pilots to death, injury, POW by July 1940. The Brits were out-numbered but each day built more fighters than Germany was building and any pilot shot down who escaped death or injury was stuck in a new plane. The Luftwaffe managed 327 sorties on D-Day vs about 14,000 by the Allies. Germany could not have achieved that sort of air dominance.

The civilian population of France was friendly to the Allies, that would not have been the case in Sea Lion.

It is likely that between the limited shipping capacity and Royal Navy and Royal Air Force that a German invasion force would quickly be out of food and ammunition and hurting for reinforcements.

Sea Lion was called off because they couldn’t gain air superiority, naval superiority and even with them needed at least 10 good weather days and an absolute minimum of three and had extremely limited access to any weather data west of the French Coast while the UK had weather data from Ireland, Iceland, Greenland, Canada, the US and convoys. They were looking at shooting into the dark. Remember their best guess at weather convinced them June 6 was a improbable date for attack.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I would strongly disagree with that.

The Regina Marina was a seriously potent force, in the Mediterranean.

Italian expansion plans to make it a true Atlantic navy were never completed, although sans the outbreak of war they would have by 1943.

The Regina Marina wasn't in any position position to help an operation such as Sea Lion but it was more than capable of dominating the Mediterranean, which it did briefly achieve at several points during the war. It is worth pointing out though that Italian submarines were a useful part of the war in the Atlantic.

It, along with limited portions of the Army and certain, but significant, portions of the Air Force were well equipped and well led. But, they were largely placed in a subordinate roll with just about every grand strategic decision falling to the Germans who were executing a war the Italians had never envisioned and hadn't spent the last 20 years preparing or equipping for.

Hell, the Italian military going into the war was strategically, tactically, and in terms of equipment most prepared for a war with Germany. They nearly went to war with one another of Austria in the 30s. The war that ultimately took place was not what had been contemplated and Mussolini's calculated risk that he could grab what he wanted before Germany won has been relegated to a bad decision by history.

A 4 to 1 loss vs Kreigsmarine would be 28 ships.

Regnia Marina had 6 battleships, 19 cruisers, and 59 destroyers.

In 1939 the Royal Navy had 15 battleships and battle cruisers, 7 aircraft carriers, 66 cruisers and 184 destroyers.

Losing 28 of 272 would have still permitted the Royal Navy to operate in the Med.

Probably not as aggressively but the likely losses the Luftwaffe would have experienced supporting Sea Lion would have reduced their ability to provide Regina Marina with air support at Malta.

The Luftwaffe played an overstated roll in the Mediterranean.

It's true that the Luftwaffe had to step in to prevent the collapse of the Regina Aeronautica but the Regina Aeronautica's roll in the war shouldn't be understated.

The Royal Navy would have to have committed more than half of its entire available fleet to the Mediterranean in order to ensure victory and that is just ship to ship and not considering the ability of the Regina Marina to conduct greater numbers of sorties and of the Regina Aeronautica's ability to use Italy as a carrier in its own right.

I haven't read the entire thread, but IMO the ultimate determinant on which side was going to win was whether the U.S. jumps into the war or stays out of it. If the Japanese never attack Hawaii and the U.S. are never drawn into the war, the Axis wins the war. Since the U.S. entered on the side of the Allies, the WWII would have been won by the allies sooner or later. The U.S.had attributes that the Axis could not overcome - like a large population base, significant natural resources, the best manufacturing base in the world and the advantage of being located far away from the major battlefields. Despite the late technological advances made by the Germans with the jet engine, V1 and V2 missiles and the research on the atomic bomb - all of that was too little and too late.

(01-11-2018 11:17 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I haven't read the entire thread, but IMO the ultimate determinant on which side was going to win was whether the U.S. jumps into the war or stays out of it. If the Japanese never attack Hawaii and the U.S. are never drawn into the war, the Axis wins the war. Since the U.S. entered on the side of the Allies, the WWII would have been won by the allies sooner or later. The U.S.had attributes that the Axis could not overcome - like a large population base, significant natural resources, the best manufacturing base in the world and the advantage of being located far away from the major battlefields. Despite the late technological advances made by the Germans with the jet engine, V1 and V2 missiles and the research on the atomic bomb - all of that was too little and too late.

Pretty much.

Wars are won by logistics. Battles may be won by strategy and tactics, but in the end the side that can manufacture the most guns and bullets and tanks and ships will win out. Unless it adopts really stupid strategy and tactics, like in Vietnam.

As long as the US was out of the range of fire from Europe or Japan, it held the logistics balance in the war. Counting RN ships versus Kriegsmarine or Regina Marina could have short term impact, but in the long term the arsenal of democracy was going to win.

(01-11-2018 08:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Battles may be won by strategy and tactics, but in the end the side that can manufacture the most guns and bullets and tanks and ships will win out. Unless it adopts really stupid strategy and tactics, like in Vietnam.

True.

Quote:Counting RN ships versus Kriegsmarine or Regina Marina could have short term impact, but in the long term the arsenal of democracy was going to win.

Eisenhower called it the Military-Industrial Complex.

(01-10-2018 11:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There was no chance of Germany successfully invading Great Britain successfully with or without the Dunkirk evacuation.

The Royal Navy could have taken 4 to 1 losses vs Kreigsmarine and still been able to maintain operations in the Med vs Italy. The Germans had only one heavy cruiser, two light cruiser and four destroyers available immediately after the fall of France. D-Day the Allies had 5 battleships, 20 cruisers and 65 destroyers.

The German “plan” for invasion was designed to use a Dunkirk style cobbled up fleet primarily relying on river barges. They estimated they could land 100,000 soldiers in 10 days. The Allies landed nearly 160,000 in the first 24 hours of Overlord. Germany had less than 40 available minesweepers to clear a path to the invasion. The Allies used 350 ships to clear mines and it took about a month. Unlike the Germans the UK had tanks of oil on standby to dump at each potential land site and planned to set the slicks ablaze which would have been rather deadly for packed wooden barges.

The Luftwaffe could not have protected the landings. They lost 25% of their fighter pilots to death, injury, POW by July 1940. The Brits were out-numbered but each day built more fighters than Germany was building and any pilot shot down who escaped death or injury was stuck in a new plane. The Luftwaffe managed 327 sorties on D-Day vs about 14,000 by the Allies. Germany could not have achieved that sort of air dominance.

The civilian population of France was friendly to the Allies, that would not have been the case in Sea Lion.

It is likely that between the limited shipping capacity and Royal Navy and Royal Air Force that a German invasion force would quickly be out of food and ammunition and hurting for reinforcements.

Sea Lion was called off because they couldn’t gain air superiority, naval superiority and even with them needed at least 10 good weather days and an absolute minimum of three and had extremely limited access to any weather data west of the French Coast while the UK had weather data from Ireland, Iceland, Greenland, Canada, the US and convoys. They were looking at shooting into the dark. Remember their best guess at weather convinced them June 6 was a improbable date for attack.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Destroy the BEF on the beach and simply the threat of invasion is enough for Great Britain to sue for peace. As it stood even with the evacuation the Brits were scared enough that they resorted to building trucks armored only with concrete to serve as mobile pillboxes to fight the feared invasion.

The evacuation at Dunkirk gave the Brits exactly what they needed when they needed it most....hope.

(01-12-2018 01:16 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 11:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There was no chance of Germany successfully invading Great Britain successfully with or without the Dunkirk evacuation.

The Royal Navy could have taken 4 to 1 losses vs Kreigsmarine and still been able to maintain operations in the Med vs Italy. The Germans had only one heavy cruiser, two light cruiser and four destroyers available immediately after the fall of France. D-Day the Allies had 5 battleships, 20 cruisers and 65 destroyers.

The German “plan” for invasion was designed to use a Dunkirk style cobbled up fleet primarily relying on river barges. They estimated they could land 100,000 soldiers in 10 days. The Allies landed nearly 160,000 in the first 24 hours of Overlord. Germany had less than 40 available minesweepers to clear a path to the invasion. The Allies used 350 ships to clear mines and it took about a month. Unlike the Germans the UK had tanks of oil on standby to dump at each potential land site and planned to set the slicks ablaze which would have been rather deadly for packed wooden barges.

The Luftwaffe could not have protected the landings. They lost 25% of their fighter pilots to death, injury, POW by July 1940. The Brits were out-numbered but each day built more fighters than Germany was building and any pilot shot down who escaped death or injury was stuck in a new plane. The Luftwaffe managed 327 sorties on D-Day vs about 14,000 by the Allies. Germany could not have achieved that sort of air dominance.

The civilian population of France was friendly to the Allies, that would not have been the case in Sea Lion.

It is likely that between the limited shipping capacity and Royal Navy and Royal Air Force that a German invasion force would quickly be out of food and ammunition and hurting for reinforcements.

Sea Lion was called off because they couldn’t gain air superiority, naval superiority and even with them needed at least 10 good weather days and an absolute minimum of three and had extremely limited access to any weather data west of the French Coast while the UK had weather data from Ireland, Iceland, Greenland, Canada, the US and convoys. They were looking at shooting into the dark. Remember their best guess at weather convinced them June 6 was a improbable date for attack.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Destroy the BEF on the beach and simply the threat of invasion is enough for Great Britain to sue for peace. As it stood even with the evacuation the Brits were scared enough that they resorted to building trucks armored only with concrete to serve as mobile pillboxes to fight the feared invasion.

The evacuation at Dunkirk gave the Brits exactly what they needed when they needed it most....hope.

Yes and No. A lot of the transcripts from those cabinet meetings in the UK right around the time of Dunkirk are available publicly now, and they make an interesting read.

Even with failure at Dunkirk, Britain's idea of peace and Hitler's were likely radically different. The people in the UK who supported appealing for peace believed that Germany would look to get out of the fight cleanly, and not request much in the way of reparations. Others were convinced that Germany would insist on the UK giving up a lot of its colonial territories in Africa and Asia, and there was little chance the British would ever do that.

If Hitler had come to the table with reasonable demands, there's a decent chance Britain gets out. That's a big ask though.