The most important battle of WW2

[Lightning Guy]

It would have been interesting if Germany had invaded Britain. As it is, I think Germany may have been able to launch Sealion in September of 1940 as planned. The RAF was not as powerful over the channel as some would suppose (look at the success of the Channel Dash as an example).

Originally Posted by Lightning Guy

It would have been interesting if Germany had invaded Britain. As it is, I think Germany may have been able to launch Sealion in September of 1940 as planned. The RAF was not as powerful over the channel as some would suppose (look at the success of the Channel Dash as an example).

The channel dash was a totally different thing, which succeeded because of some British incompetance and a lot of luck. But that was an "instantanous" type thing, it did not have to be sustained like an invasion would have required.

I think that Sea Lion would have been suicide. The RN would have moved in at night, using spotters on the shore, and wiped out any beacheads the German's were able to establish during the day. Without total air-superiority it was impossible, and even with it the RN would have stood a good chance of wiping out any German beacheads, without which the whole force would have been doomed.

=S=

Lunatic

[Lightning Guy]

Again it is hard to say. The RN's reach was effectively limited to 20 miles. With most of the British Army's heavy equipment sitting on the shores of France and nothing comparable to the Atlantic Wall, the Germans might have been able to move beyond that reach relatively quickly. Plus U-boats had already demonstrated the vulnerability of the British BB's (Royal Oak). I'm not saying the attack would have succeeded. But it does make for a very interesting 'what-if.'

Originally Posted by Udet

Very interesting opinion rebel.

The codename of the German operation for seizing Gibraltar was "Felix", and it apparently would have been commanded by Generalfeldmarschall Walter von Reichenau.

In my opinion, perhaps the battle that "decided" the outcome of WWII was the japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The entrance of the USA in the war meant a big country, with a big population, with a massive military industrial capability and with access to large natural resources was a combatant on the allied side.

I am convinced Germany could more than deal with all European enemies; with England i see a stalemate (British so damned lucky to have the channel).

Hitler was a fool to declare war on the USA. This sealed his fate. Had he not done so, he probably would not have faced D-day until sometime in 1945.

I'm not sure the German's would have taken the Russians regaurdless of the USA's entrance into the war, as long as the USA provided "lend-lease" support to Russia which was likely in any event. The only way Hitler could have defeated the Russians would have been to make a deal with the Ukrainians, who had been waging a seperatist movement for decades and hated Stalin. But it was beyond Hitler to make such a deal with an "inferior" slavic peoples. Had he done so, Turkey may well have joined the Axis, opening the door to the Mid-East and making the capture of the Suez canal all but a foregone conclusion.

As for taking Gibralter, I don't think this was possible w/o being able to wage the attack from Spain. From Spain, again it is almost a forgone conclusion that Gibralter would have fallen within at most 6 months, though it would probably have been a costly battle.

=S=

Lunatic

Originally Posted by Lightning Guy

Again it is hard to say. The RN's reach was effectively limited to 20 miles. With most of the British Army's heavy equipment sitting on the shores of France and nothing comparable to the Atlantic Wall, the Germans might have been able to move beyond that reach relatively quickly. Plus U-boats had already demonstrated the vulnerability of the British BB's (Royal Oak). I'm not saying the attack would have succeeded. But it does make for a very interesting 'what-if.'

Britain would certainly have suffered losses from the U-boats, but the U-boats would have been wiped out in the process. Mines would also have taken a toll.

I think you are not understanding what is needed to pull off such an invasion. You cannot invade and just send your forces 20+ miles inland to get them out of range of RN guns, they need to be supplied or they are finished.

The German's had no invasion capability, they were relying on the use of towed barges to get troops and heavy equipment to Britain. This would have required that they use airborne troops to secure a port, then move equipment into that port, off load it and support it, all within 12-14 hours, which is impossible. Even if they succeeded, that night the RN and RAF would move in and blast the port to rubble, making it useless as a supply point.

If Germany had been serious about Sea Lion, they would have needed to build some kind of amphibious landing fleet of significance starting years in advance. Alternatively, they'd have had to have developed a huge air-lift capability and had half their army trained as airborne units.

Germany's chances of succeeding with Sea Lion were at best slim, at worst non-existant. And failing at any serious attempt would have finished Germany right then and there. The entire invasion force, at least 500,000 troops and probably twice that, would have been lost.

=S=

Lunatic

[plan_D]

For once I agree with RG. Once the Luftwaffe had lost to the RAF invasion of Britain would have been impossible. Had the Germans attempted, they'd have been slaughtered on the beaches and ports.

As for Russia, Germany could have beaten Russia if it had been left to the military high command to give orders - as it was in June 1941. It all started to go down hill in the winter of 1941 on the outskirts of Moscow when, after Tula, Guderian requested to fall back to dug-in positions to sit out the winter and launch a strike in the Spring. Hitler refused to give up land and ordered Guderian, and his XXIV Panzer Corps, had to sit on frozen ground waiting to be hit in the flanks.
Still, even after that the Germans nearly exhausted Russian manpower in 1942. Without Hitler taking command of the Army, Germany could have won with its own manpower...with Hitler taking command, even with the 400,000 Russians/East Europeans wanting to join the fight, they still would have lost.

I really doubt the German's would have beaten the Soviets because I doubt even had Stalingrad fallen the Soviet's would have capitulated. Stalin had moved the Soviet industry east in 1940 and the first half of 1941, so they could afford to loose even major cities and still not have been beaten. Russia was just too large a nut for Germany to crack given the nature of the "all or nothing" war they'd presented them with. The Russian's pretty much knew what it meant if they lost, which is a big part of why they were so willing to die to fight the Nazi's.

To beat the Soviets, Hitler had to instigate rebellion within their ranks. Otherwise, they were simply not going to give up.

=S=

Lunatic

[plan_D]

For the Germans to win, Hitler had to keep his nose out of military actions. The German high command had the right idea in late 1941 on the gates of Moscow. Guderian requested to move back from captured land to sit on the east side of Smolensk, easily defendable. Then strike at Moscow in Spring 1942. Hitler forbid this, which allowed the XXIV Panzer Corps to be pushed away from Moscow.

Taking big cities, such as Moscow and Stalingrad was not to crush the moral of the Russians. The German High Command recognised these cities because of their military importance. Moscow - the rail and road center with large industrial base. Stalingrad - a sizable garrison for guarding the Caucasus oilfields. Another large industrial city, which would provide a good area of oil refinement and factories. Far from the reaches of Western bombing.

Germany could have beaten the Russians because they never did want all of Russia, they wanted it up to the Urals. A Russian defence line on the Urals would have been a last stand that the Germans would have left because they had no need to cross the Urals.
The Germans were in the face of victory in 1941 but Hitler took it away by ordering "Not one inch of ground must be lost without spilt blood" foolish, extremely foolish.

[evangilder]

The weather was also an ally to Russia. Many German soldiers froze to death because they were not equipped with cold weather gear. I don't know if it was Hitler or the high command that was confident of vistory before the winter set in, but either way those poor guys had a high incidence of freezinig to death.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

and the T-34 took to the cold far better than the german tanks..............

[plan_D]

Hitler was ed and appalled that his troops were ill-equipped for winter warfare. The Ordance Department failed to issue the clothing even with several requests from the commanders in the field.
During the winter of 1941/42 Guderian met Hitler to personally request (and complain about) winter clothing. Hitler was angry at Guderian for not making the request earlier - Guderian had done so twice before the meeting - and was made even angrier when Guderian told him that he had. Hitler was embarassed and frustrated when bringing up the supply officer, which in front of both Guderian and Hitler had to admit that the request had been given but the request denied. You can imagine the red Hitler would have been seeing.

On the weather and winter, the Germans were not actually killed by the winter much more than the Russians. What came to Russias aid was their 'roads' which were little more than dirt tracks, autumn rains which turned 'roads' into mudbaths and winter which froze the ground, made tanks and supply slip and make digging in nearly impossible. By 1942 the Germans were most equipped with winter clothing, those that weren't mostly used Russian winter coats. Of course, this did not stop the suffering but curbed it. The Germans took a lot of time building metal roads to keep their supply rolling.

The T-34 in 1941 didn't really do much except cause a few shocks when troops encountered it for the first time. It wasn't used effectively and swept from the field by the greater tactics of German Panzer Divisions. I would also like to point out that the T-26 (Improved Vickers 6 ton) was the majority tank in Soviet armoured forces in 1941.
A lot of people don't know that the first T-34s were not good in cold weather at all. They actually stalled often and took a lot to start, if they started at all. This problem was realised during their march from Russia to the Winter War (which they never actually served in) - luckily for the Soviets they found this out before Barbarossa, or they would have been screwed when the 'worlds greatest tank' couldn't even handle it's mother countries winter.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think all of you have made very good points in all of your posts. Yes Hitler should have left the Military to his military commanders and stuck to being a polition. I do agree with Lunatic that in order to invade England, Germany would have had to set up a better amphibious plan and ways to supply the invasion force. The logistics for a force of that size is tremendous. I do however believe that Germany could have defeated Russia if they had stuck to original plan and not let Hitler interfere with his stupid policies. Russia was on the brink of falling. I think more then likely though it would have ended up being a armistance signed between Germand and Russia and eventually war would have broken out again between the 2 countries.

[Udet]

Very interesting and illustrative points by the very many of you!

I do think Hitler did not launch Seelowe simpy because he was not interested very much in doing so.

Yes, the Luftwaffe did not have air superiority, but the RAF was not in the very best of the shapes as well.

Had the invasion been launched I can not tell of an accurate outcome; perhaps it could fail.

However, I see one thing unavoidably happening: the Royal Navy takes frightful losses, especially from the Luftwaffe. Losses so high only God or the Devil could tell what could have happened after that, even if the German assault wave had failed in establishing a beachhead.


As to the eastern front, I have been convinced on this for a good while now: without the US in the war in Europe, the USSR is doomed.

It appears to me like many many forget what the German army did to the Red Army during 1941.

Yeah, yeah, we have many excuses and explanations coming from the Russians: "we were caught by surprise.." (sure, so when it serves your interest your intelligence services were taking a nap, to then, when serving the current interest as well, your intelligence becomes the most efficiente and godlike net of the world); "we were in the middle of a modernization program..." yeah sure.

An army does not recover from such an insanely massive and overwhelming blow (1941) without foreign/allied help friends. The way the Red Army recovered could have never been such without British and USA material aid.

However the Ruskies will never ever admit it: they won the war by themselves, with ther own material resouces; at Kursk they destroyed "thousands" of German tanks; they "effectively" destroyed the Luftwaffe fighter force; the outcome of the strategic bombing campaign of the USAFF and RAF did not contribute in any way to help the soviet war effort; the LAND LEASE was a "tiny" help, that happened to include lots of crap they did not like or they already had available in their stock with an even superior quality; all that and a very very long BLAH, BLAH, BLAH....

But, you have to understand them.

The British Expeditionary Force got gutted, overran and smashed by the Germans; it was Hitler that simply allowed the bulk of the British soldiers to flee the mainland; still, they arrived in England virtually wearing only their trousers; absolutely all their war material was lost.

How was it they recovered to return in June 6, 1944?
The beloved channel, which prevented their ground forces to remain in constant combat; the material aid of the USA and the new horizons Hitler sought after 1940.

Take away any of those elements, and the British army simply needs a decade to recover from the blow of 1940.

Last but not least, it was the courage and determination of the British people with of course contributed to their coming back!
Cheers!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Good points and I agree with what you said to all points.

[Gemhorse]

''The real importance of the Air War consisted in the fact that it opened a second front long before the invasion of Europe.
That front was the skies over Germany.
The fleets of bombers might appear at any time over any large German city or important factory. The unpredictability of the attacks made this front gigantic; every square metre of the territory we controlled was a kind of front line. Defence against air attacks required the production of thousands of anti-aircraft guns, the stockpiling of tremendous quantities of ammunition all over the country, and holding in readiness hundreds of thousands of soldiers, who in addition had to stay in postition by their guns, often totally inactive, for months at a time. As far as I can judge from the accounts I have read, no one has yet seen that this WAS the greatest lost battle on the German side. The losses from the retreats in Russia or from the surrender of Stalingrad were considerably less. Moreover, the nearly 20,000 anti-aircraft guns stationed in the homeland could almost have doubled the anti-tank defences on the Eastern Front...''

-from ''Spandau: The Secret Diaries'' by Albert Speer ...

Stumbled on this in my reading, which seems to be from one of the ''Horse's mouth's''.....

I am incidentally, a 'one-finger' typist, not fore-finger/trigger finger, but the next one , ''the lady's delight'.......
- Never learned how to type, but being a Signwriter/Signartist by trade, spelling mistakes are simply unacceptable, and I always have a dictionary handy....but thanks for the 'Spellcheck', it will be useful to some....
- I do feel that if one does have something worth writing, correct grammar etc. is also a reflection of one's commentary....if one is too lazy to write correctly, it will become a bad-habit and it DOES reflect on the author.........