The most important battle of WW2

[cheddar cheese]

Luxembourg...

Well, if the USA were inclined to do so after the fall of Britain, the answer would be Africa. First you'd take Africa and then maybe Spain. From there you'd launch an invasion anywhere along the south med. coast, or perhaps to the south part of western France.

Of course, this would only be doable if the Germans were badly hurt in conquering Britain (which I think is a given), and were not able to defend Africa or respond to Spain. It would also probably depend a lot on the disposition of British forces, would the RN and foriegn deployed British forces have gone "Free British" or become "Vichy British"?

My guess is Churchil would have fled to the USA and carried on the fight, and the British would have fought on till none were left... can you imagine the Brits as partisans? The Brits are a very stubborn peoples, I doubt they'd ever have given up.

=S=

Lunatic

[Udet]

You got to be kidding.

If the Germans had launched Seelowe having as outcome an established beachhead with a reasonable number of men and war materiel, England is very likely to go down the toilet.

Even if the Germans would have sustained heavy losses of men and material while crossing the channel -the Royal Navy and the RAF surely take frightful losses as well- what did the British Army had available to launch any significant offensive against an established beach head?
Perhaps the shocked guys from Dunkirk resorting to harsh language?

They virtually had no artillery and no tanks.

Or do you think HMS Rodney, Nelson and the other heavy weights of the Home Fleet would have been allowed by the Luftwaffe to shell the beach head?

The BEF fled the continent arriving in England only in their trousers: absolutely all their war material was lost!!!

I am not a clairvoyant; Seelowe might have failed as well.

Assume that during the crossing of the channel by the invasion force, the Royal Navy launches the entire Home Fleet to intercept and destroy the enemy; the Luftwaffe launches virtually all its bombers and dive bombers to interdict the action of the Home Fleet units... I see a hell burning in the ensuing battle!

What would have happened to the British army if Htiler had ordered the panzer divisionen to slaughter the BEF around and in Dunkirk?

The RAF was a tough enemy and they made a brave stand; yet the RAF was not in best of the shapes during mid 1940 either.

[Lightning Guy]

What about Greenland as a base to re-invade the Home Islands? Assuming Sealion was pulled off that is? To me that would be a more logical starting place than Africa.

Originally Posted by Udet

You got to be kidding.

If the Germans had launched Seelowe having as outcome an established beachhead with a reasonable number of men and war materiel, England is very likely to go down the toilet.

Even if the Germans would have sustained heavy losses of men and material while crossing the channel -the Royal Navy and the RAF surely take frightful losses as well- what did the British Army had available to launch any significant offensive against an established beach head?
Perhaps the shocked guys from Dunkirk resorting to harsh language?

They virtually had no artillery and no tanks.

Or do you think HMS Rodney, Nelson and the other heavy weights of the Home Fleet would have been allowed by the Luftwaffe to shell the beach head?

The BEF fled the continent arriving in England only in their trousers: absolutely all their war material was lost!!!

I am not a clairvoyant; Seelowe might have failed as well.

Assume that during the crossing of the channel by the invasion force, the Royal Navy launches the entire Home Fleet to intercept and destroy the enemy; the Luftwaffe launches virtually all its bombers and dive bombers to interdict the action of the Home Fleet units... I see a hell burning in the ensuing battle!

What would have happened to the British army if Htiler had ordered the panzer divisionen to slaughter the BEF around and in Dunkirk?

The RAF was a tough enemy and they made a brave stand; yet the RAF was not in best of the shapes during mid 1940 either.

Ummm... the Luftwaffe' was not effective at night. Neither were submarines against fast moving warships.

Facing the invading Germans were:

2 Territorial Divisions
1 Brigade from India
1 Brigade from new Zealand
1 Armoured Division
1 Canadian Division
1 Army Tank Brigade

And for Naval forces:

RN - 5 capital ships, 11 cruisers, 53 destroyers, 23 destroyers on convoy duty

Kriegsmarine - 1 capital ship, 1 cruiser, 10 destroyers, 20-30 submarines

As for the Luftwaffe' -

The strength of the Luftwaffe at the point of Sealion was about 750 bombers and 600 Me109 fighters. The Germans estimated the strength of Fighter Command at 300 planes, of which 100 were not available to the RAF.

In fact, 11 Fighter Group had 672 planes, of which 570 were Spitfires and Hurricanes.

The Luftwaffe, with its resources, was expected to do all of the following:

1) Act as artillery for the landing forces
2) Keep the RN out of the Channel
3) Win total air superiority
4) Prevent British Army reinforcements from getting to the zone by bombing railway lines
5) Make a mass attack on London to force the population to flee the city and choke the surrounding roads.

Please read this analysis of the farcical German fantasy called "Seelowe" (<--- click here). See what you think of Hitler's plan.

If it did succeed losses would have been staggering. By the time the Germans did establish an operational beachhead they'd be hard pressed to continue the fight much past that point. And their beachhead would be attacked ferociously every night by the RN and RAF, so functional "operational" status would be highly doubious. The Germans would have had a very hard time landing any heavy equipment (like tanks).

I seriously doubt Seelowe had any chance of success. In fact, I think it is very likely it would have failed without any British intervention whatsoever. And all it would take would be a few destroyers or other fast RN boats to break into the area of the barges during the night and they'd have easily swamped them just by creating wakes. In the meantime, the German soldiers on the barges, ordered to defend themselves against unidentified vessels would have probably opened up on each other finishing the job.

SeeLowe was a German fantasy, nothing more.

=S=

Lunatic

[Udet]

Give me a break.

As I said before, Htiler did not launch Seelowe simply because he was not interested in doing so and not because he came to his senses and realized chances of success were very limited.

Actually the British army got gutted by the Germans everywhere with the exception of (i) El-Alamein, due more to the very little interested placed by the German High Command in the African theather of operations and (ii) their return to the continent in 1944 -not without nasty local defeats though-.

The British record:

Fall Gelb in 1940, having the BEF arriving shocked in trousers to England.

Norway? Good bye British army.

Greece? Another complete defeat.

Crete? What were the odds of the German fallschirmjager armed mostly with light weapons against the very well stocked British commonwealth/Greek garrison? The outcome was a smashing German victory.

The RAF even when making a tough brave stand over England during 1940, got smashed by the Luftwaffe over the Mediterranean and in North Africa.

What was the treatment the Royal Navy received from Wolfram von Richtofen´s stuka fliegerkorps during Merkur?

Rommel on his initial arrivial in North Africa with a very small korps smashing and routing the British Army...

So I have no idea if Seelowe was a fantasy; my point is, the German army proved to be a far better army than the British counterpart, and in 1940 the Germans kept, by far, the upper hand. Had Seelowe been launched boldly by the Germans, whatever the cost might be, the blackest scenario certainly falls upon England.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

now that's what you call a bias post.............

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

He has some good points though. Most of what he said I agree with but I do however am not sure the Germans would have been able to logisticaly sustain an invasion force in England. It take quite a bit to feed, resupply with ammo, equipment and such. I dont think they would have been able to sustain that. In an all out battle though I think the British forces would have put up one hell of a fight but at the time as Udet said the German forces were better equiped and a better fighting force. Wheather it could have succeeded though I dont know either.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

yes but he didn't even mention the fact that we beat the luftwaffe in the BoB and blames the germans for loosing El Alemain, not giving us credit for winning it...............

[Udet]

Hello Lancaster Kicks Ass:

That is not correct. I am not a biased individual and can say my brain is free of that crap or of any other kind of preconceived ideas.

Perhaps you did not enjoy my post because you are a British guy? I am half British as well, and it is not my intention to offend or the like!

Now, do you think any of the events I pointed are untrue?

As I recall someone saying "in love just as in war, everything is valid..." and that´s precisely what Great Britain -and all nations involved- did, to take advantage of all resources and circumstances which might favor the country!

It was not England´s fault Hitler ordered the Wehrmacht to stop and let the British go away, when everything was ready to close the jaws and to chew the BEF beyond recognition, but, they were thoroughly defeated on the battlefield!!

The same applies for Norway, Greece, Crete and the initial stages of the North African campaign, where is the bias here Lanc?

From Hitler´s orders the British simply took the benefits, very valid to do.

Isn´t of interest to notice that while the RAF was having a slight advantage over the Luftwaffe in British skies in 1940, they were getting obliterared out of the skies by the Luftwaffe over the Mediterranean and North Africa?

Could that lead to the question of what would have happened over England in 1940 if the range Bf109 had been much greater?

The thing is the BF109 did not have sufficient range to stay from a good deal time in the battle zone over England, and from that the RAF simply took the benefits. Again, very valid!

For sensitive guys, what the RAF pilots did during 1940 deserves all due honors. However, I do think their performance has been some what over inflated. Why do I say this?

My relatives in England include one cousin who happens to be a WWII buff. He told me, for instance, the radar system of the RAF during the Battle of Britain if indeed was of help, was not what it has been depicted. A very large percent of the times, the British fighter pilots taking off to intercept enemy formations, following the guidance of radar operators, simply found nothing. He explained me those were the very initial stages of radar and it was not duly interpreted by its operators most of the times. (there is a similar incident with radar issues when the Japs struck Pearl Harbor if I recall correctly).

Bf109 pilots running out of fuel over England or over the channel were as common as dogfight losses; sometimes the urge of staying there for some more little time lead to the loss of the plane: it ran out of fuel.

Seriously speaking Lanc, i am open to discussing everything and i digress, i am not biased.

Cheers!

That's BS Udet.

Sure the German's beat the Brits when they had at least equivalent logistics, air superiorty, tank support, or all of these factors in their favor. But that was not going to be the case for Seelowe. The German army on the beaches would only have had light arms, no vehicles of any kind, and extemely limited logistical support if any. They'd have come ashore after 30 hours of sitting in barges, which means most of them would be very sick from the get-go. They'd have been scattered along the shoreline at night with no communciations and no officer core to lead them.

And that's the ones who made it to shore. Most would not have. Most would have drowned in the channel. To prevail the Germans would have had to get at the very least a few hundred thousand men onshore within the first two weeks, and to do this, they'd have suffered at least twice that number of losses, probably more, and Britain would still need to be conquered. This would have pretty much taken the heart out of Germany's ability to fight elsewhere for at least a couple of years.

German success was based upon superior mechanization, superior logistical support, superior command and control, and air-superiority. They lacked all of these things for Seelowe.

=S=

Lunatic

[plan_D]

Udet, you haven't a clue on about the ground battles. Obviously.

Fall Gelb - 350, 000 BEF acting as support to the European armies. The BEF were the only ones to defeat the Germans in the Battle of Arras. Collapsing flanks from the French and Belgians, plus lack of equipment forced a withdrawal.

Norway, outstanding victories by the British. Capturing Narvik and keeping the ore supplies from Sweden rolling. Pulled out because of Germanys attack on France.

Greece, few British troops sent out. Purely to aid the Greeks in fighting the Italians. This is after the Greeks had allowed it. Evacuated after a numercial superior German force attacked.

Crete, an under-equipped, battered, tired British and Greek staging point for a trip back to England. Three AA batteries to cover the entire island. First German Naval attack wave, obliterated. German paratroopers suffer over 25% losses even with air superiority after the RAF pulled out.

Britain held the Med. Fighting against the Luftwaffe, Regina Aeronautica, Italian and French navies. Malta never fell, and the Royal Navy constantly disrupted Afrika supply lines.

Rommels initial arrival to Africa made good use of the British stretched lines, after smashing the 6:1 advantage Italians while capturing 130,000 with a loss of 1200 men dead or injured. Rommel was lucky on countless occasions, and failed three times to take Tobruk.

The German Army had a numerical superiority in all thearters, against the British, they engaged in. The Germans did have superior tactics but even against those odds the British held on.
The fight across the channel is far different from the armour operations across France, Greece and North Africa. You have to get the tanks to Britain first, how? The Royal Navy could easily destroy the Kreigsmarine and invasion fleet. For a start, the Royal Navy had aircraft carriers something the Germans did not have. The Germans would have been slaughtered on the beaches, full stop.

Honestly, I don't see how they'd ever have gotten to the beaches. The river barges and rafts they intended to use were unable to withstand anything above stage 2 seas, ie: 10 knots and 2 foot waves. They could only move at 2-3 knots in a current 5 knots strong. They were to be released far to the north of the target beaches, and then over 30 hours cross 65-85 miles through the channel.

First off, the chances were good that after launching this flotilla in seas calm enough to do so, the conditions of the channel which are known to change without warning would simply have swamped them sometime along their 30 hour journey, resulting in a near total loss. Second, all it would take would be one or two fast moving destroyers or torpedo boats to get in amongst the barges and their wakes would swamp them, again resulting in a near total loss.

The Luftwaffe' could not defend them, they could not operate effectively at night against naval vessels. U-boats cannot stop fast moving surface ships at night either. The Kreigsmarine surface fleet was badly outnumbered, they could never have stopped them either.

I really think the whole thing was a fantasy to start with and had no chance of success. But, if we want to discuss a "what if" scenario where it somehow did succeed, we have to assume the only way it could do so would be if the Germans simply kept throwing bodies into the Sea until they somehow succeeded.

Finally, had such a thing happen I'm pretty sure FDR would have entered the war and sent troops to England as fast as possible.

One thing I am absolutely sure of is that the British would have found a way to make Hitler pay dearly for every inch of British soil.

=S=

Lunatic

[Lightning Guy]

The British plans to turn the invasion beaches into flaming wrecks would have been murderously effective as well. IMO, the Wermacht was far superior to the British Army in 1940. The Royal Navy was far superior to the Kriegsmarine. And the RAF had (at worst) fought the Luftwaffe to a stand still. Personally, I think the Germans would might have had some success had they landed a sizable force on the English shores. That being said, I think there is little chance of the Germans supplying that force considering the bulk of the RAF and RN would be doing everything they could to deny that. And in the event the Germans managed to take England, they would have been left far to weak to fend off any other opponent.

LG,

All I can say is read the details of Seelowe:

http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/althist/seal1.htm

How were they going even get troops ashore in force to start with?

=S=

Lunatic