World War II: Germany vs Britain (minus USA)

[riksavage]

Going back to the Battle of Britain you have to remember that the UK was already out producing Germany in fighters (Spitfires and Hurricanes). Even if the Germans continued to focus all their attention on the Southern airfields the RAF would have built up reserves in the North. The more critical factor was trained pilot's, Germany would have had to have killed RAF aircrew in large numbers to truly deprive them of a credible counter to a seaborne invasion. The RN, regardless of the RAF, would also have decimated any attempted landing with the huge advantage in home fleet destroyers guarding the English Channel.

The fact that the UK had also completely compromised the German Abwher meant that any invasion fleet would have been detected as soon as it began to muster outside French ports. The Germans may have been able to sink a large proportion of the RN's attacking destroyers, but once the latter were amongst the invasion barges they would have caused havoc and huge loss of life.

Hitlers only hope of bringing the UK to its knees was blockade and a total U-Boat victory against the merchant marine lifeline from the US.

 

[Chrom]

The problem wasn't the mistaken reactions of the Soviet High Command, but rather the fact that the Red Army dissolved, for the most part without making contact with the enemy. Just look at the example of Boldin's counter-attack. Most of his tanks were lost due to mechanical failures, or were simply abandoned. Desertion rates were rampant, and no sort of organization to the efforts on the lowest of levels, was evident. The officers were not capable of leading the troops, and the troops did not want to fight.

This is, of course, only very partially true. For example, there were a lot of cases when troops fought to the end - almost always it was depended from commanders. Mechanical failures and fuel/ammo shortage - in case of another situation these tanks might have the order to defend or to attack close positions - inflicting much heaver causalities to German army.

Btw, summer 1941 - the time of the greatest causalities for the entire WW2. Both for Germany, and for USSR. Both soldiers, and technical. That alone give some perception why by autumn 1941 German forces were very excaused.

 

[Feanor]

This is, of course, only very partially true. For example, there were a lot of cases when troops fought to the end - almost always it was depended from commanders. Mechanical failures and fuel/ammo shortage - in case of another situation these tanks might have the order to defend or to attack close positions - inflicting much heaver causalities to German army.

Btw, summer 1941 - the time of the greatest causalities for the entire WW2. Both for Germany, and for USSR. Both soldiers, and technical. That alone give some perception why by autumn 1941 German forces were very excaused.

Again morale was low, organization was poor. Most units ended up almost collapsing on themselves. There are some cases (iirc Moskalenko's IPTAP etc.) where troops fought to the end, but in most cases surrender and abandonment of equipment was responsible for far more casualties then actual combat.

 

[Cooch]

this is my opinion about this scenario:
hitlers goal with WWII is to get more living space (which was in the east). he hated communists and the bolsheviks. he wanted to enslave the russian population to make them work for him. the only reason he fought france and britain was so that he could focus on russia. he assumed he could beat britain as swiftly as he beat france. obviously he didn't and couldn't.

To recap Hitler's long-term aims - if captured documents read post-war are to be believed.....

What Hitler really wanted was not just "living space" to the east, but a world-wide empire to match that of Britain and provide the raw materials to support the achievement of the Destiny of the Aryan Race.

In order to do that, his strategy was to proceed in stages. It was not his intention or expectation that Britain could be successfully invaded early in the war - the resources and conditions required were not available. The expectation was that Britain - faced with a U-Boat blockade, aerial bombardment and no foothold on the European Continent - could be persuaded to accept an armistice. This would give Germany the ability to concentrate on a single-front war to the east. One Russia was subdued, Hitler anticipated that Germany would then have the resources and time required to build a navy which was capable of meeting and defeating the RN and USN if and when required to facilitate the expansions of Germany's overseas empire. It was not the failure to invade England that was unanticipated, but the refusal of England to sue for peace.

When discussing the German invasion of Russia, it is also worth mentioning that Blitzkrieg is primarily a tactic of maneuver, which relies on destroying enemy cohesion, effectiveness and will-to-fight, rather than destroying enemy formations en-masse. It is vulnerable to counter-attack on the flanks - as happened at Arras - and is less effective against entrenched and disciplined troops .... as was proven at Tobruk, and on a larger scale in the Russian cities. It is not surprising that it met with initial success against armies with little experience in countering it, and in countries such as France which would rather abandon its capital than see it suffer the fate of cities used as urban battlefields. Against commanders who refused to be flustered by a fluid battlefield, and who were capable of learning the weaknesses of Blitzkrieg, as happened in the Nth Africa and the Eastern front, it could be effectively countered.

Regards.......... Peter

 

[Chrom]

Again morale was low, organization was poor. Most units ended up almost collapsing on themselves. There are some cases (iirc Moskalenko's IPTAP etc.) where troops fought to the end, but in most cases surrender and abandonment of equipment was responsible for far more casualties then actual combat.

Morale was low and organization poor - not without reason. The major reason was very rapid german army movement in the starting phase of Barbarossa, where most USSR troops received wrong orders, were forced to make very long marches loosing technic, resources, supply, communication with high command, and open to ambushes, etc. Surrounded units without supply and clear orders indeed tends to lose morale quite quickly - but generally, in the army itself, morale was quite high.

Agan, major mistakes was done by soviet command in the beginning of the war, and up to autumn. The defense of Kiev or Vyazma alone costs around 1.2-1.5 millions unnecessary losses, not caused by morale or poor organization. The losses were caused SOLELY by high command mistakes. Mistakes, which could be avoided if German Army choose slightly another aproach - even better aproach. Or if Soviet high command just issued slightly more sane orders...

Without a doubt, German Army up to winter 1941 made only minor mistakes. Even now historians cant agree how (and if) it could be done better. Whereas Soviet army made a LOT of very major mistakes, and every one with hindsight could avoid such heavy catastrophe.

 

[chimera]

Russia had effectively won by the end of 1942. Another q. is whether UK could have survived by doing nothing after 1940 and waiting for Russian blood to wash the Germans westwards.

 

[Generalissimo]

Personally I think that the best way for the Germans to have won WWII was to the so-caled Southern-Route.

Basically it calls for the Germans to postpone the invasion ofRussia and get a better position. After the invasion of Greece, the Germans transfer troops to the Afrika Corps and use them to capture Egypt. Or in another hypothetical scenario they capture Crete (as they did) then Cyprus and then land in the Levant. That sounds pretty risky to me. Crete was very nearly a failure and destroyed the Fallshrimjager as an effective air-dropped force. Cyprus would have been harder without the paratroopers and closer to the Royal Navy bases in Egypt. Also they could have invaded Turkey and gone overland through Anatolia, but that creates needless problems. The best route is through Egypt with a massively reinforced Afrika Corps.

Once the Suez Canal is secured the Germans capture the lightly defended Levant and link up with the Vichy French in Syria (if they were still there, they might have been destroyed by this time) and race across the desert to capture Baghdad and the oilfields there. They would probably have to stop to consolidate at the Euphrates. From there it's on to lightly defended Iran. At the end of the campaign the Reich holds the Middle East's oil and just as importantly has positions in the Caucasus and Central Asia (From Eastern Iran) to hit the Soviet Union. Barbarossa is now three pronged (one in the West from Poland and Romania as did happend, one from the Caucasus and one from Central Asia in the modern day -stan nations). Most importantly, the positioning of German divisions in the Caucasus puts the Soviet Unions largest oil fields around Baku right on the chopping block.

 

[Feanor]

They have the troops and logistics to do all of this right? And afterwards they will still be able to fight a full on war against the USSR? Sounds like fantasy.

 

[kato]

At the end of the campaign ...

...it's early to mid-1943 (at least, to get that far).

The further scenario would be the USA landing in Morocco and rolling up Africa from the West (well, if they wouldn't get involved - see thread title - there would be a Free French push through West Africa around that time, with British support) - while British, Commonwealth and Free French troops attack from the entire flank from Niger to Egypt, eventually pushing through to the Mediterranean and creating isolated, easily defeated German pockets in Lybia and such. Commonwealth troops with some 100+ divisions assault the positions in Iran from the East. The Soviet Union has had the time to turn the Caucasus battlefields into extended fortress/trench warfare, while assaulting straight through the Polish Generalgouvernement with 20,000+ tanks.

 

[Chrom]

...it's early to mid-1943 (at least, to get that far).

The further scenario would be the USA landing in Morocco and rolling up Africa from the West (well, if they wouldn't get involved - see thread title - there would be a Free French push through West Africa around that time, with British support) - while British, Commonwealth and Free French troops attack from the entire flank from Niger to Egypt, eventually pushing through to the Mediterranean and creating isolated, easily defeated German pockets in Lybia and such. Commonwealth troops with some 100+ divisions assault the positions in Iran from the East. The Soviet Union has had the time to turn the Caucasus battlefields into extended fortress/trench warfare, while assaulting straight through the Polish Generalgouvernement with 20,000+ tanks.

For Germany it would extremely hard to wage any serious war in Iran/Africa. Logistic would be huge issue. Moreover, USA/GB had at least comparable logistical access there and would be more than match for anything Germany could deliver.

On top of that, USSR had direct and much better access to Iran and Middle East in general - making for Germany it almost impossible in the case of hostility with USSR.

But main point - Germany shouldnt attack USSR in the first place. USSR was not a direct threat, Stalin regarded Germany vs GB conflict as purely internal "capitalistic imperialist" matter and didnt have any plans to intervene.

Generally, out of total war, oil and other natural resources was not much of concern for 3rd Reich. So on Hitlers place i would first consolidate Europe under own banner and build some kind of EU commonwealth. IF successful, in just couple of years he would have unmatched military and economical power - at least in Eurasia.

His desperate greed, affected by racial superiority ideology, prevented that fair outcome.

 

[Generalissimo]

For Germany it would extremely hard to wage any serious war in Iran/Africa. Logistic would be huge issue. Moreover, USA/GB had at least comparable logistical access there and would be more than match for anything Germany could deliver.

Capturing Egypt and Malta would ease those problems quite a bit. Also it wouldn't require very sizeable forces to defeat what the Allies had in Iraq and Iran or the Levant. But to carry the conflict onto the Soviet Union, the supply lines would need to be strong. Partisan forces would be an issue, as would the almost total lack of modern transportation in the Mideast at that time. The logistics of putting viable offensive army-group sized (or even smaller) units on the border of the Soviet Union at that distance from Germany was what gave me trouble when I first read it. But it's at least a possibility.

Also you could imagine that Arab Nationalists or other natives might ally with the Germans much the same way as some Eastern European countries allied with them, either to get ahead or to protect themselves.

 

[chimera]

As with Napoleon's Russia, the supply-line was the problem , as it was for Rommel in Libya, and for Japan in Burma and New Guinea. Japan boosted UK by bringing in US, as Hitler saved UK by bringing in USSR. Maybe the fascists just operated by emotion, not logic.

 

[Feanor]

For Germany it would extremely hard to wage any serious war in Iran/Africa. Logistic would be huge issue. Moreover, USA/GB had at least comparable logistical access there and would be more than match for anything Germany could deliver.

On top of that, USSR had direct and much better access to Iran and Middle East in general - making for Germany it almost impossible in the case of hostility with USSR.

But main point - Germany shouldnt attack USSR in the first place. USSR was not a direct threat, Stalin regarded Germany vs GB conflict as purely internal "capitalistic imperialist" matter and didnt have any plans to intervene.

Generally, out of total war, oil and other natural resources was not much of concern for 3rd Reich. So on Hitlers place i would first consolidate Europe under own banner and build some kind of EU commonwealth. IF successful, in just couple of years he would have unmatched military and economical power - at least in Eurasia.

His desperate greed, affected by racial superiority ideology, prevented that fair outcome.

Not quite. Stalin was actually more then likely to take the chance and stab Hitler in the back, if the bulk of the German army was happily shipped off to Africa.

 

[Chrom]

Not quite. Stalin was actually more then likely to take the chance and stab Hitler in the back, if the bulk of the German army was happily shipped off to Africa.

Might certainly happen, but only in alliance with GB and USA. I dont see said countries allowed that without VERY major threat from Hitler for they homeland. Capturing Africa or Egypt - is not such threat.

Basically, for GB allowing Stalin to attack Hitler is exchanging Africa for the rest of Europe. Not gonna ever happen.

And if Stalin attacks Hitler WITHOUT making alliance with GB and ensuring complete destruction of Germany - then he immediately face the possibility of GB+Germany+USA+rest of EU vs USSR's communistic hordes war.

Such alliance was very likely in later 30x-early 40x. See GB and USA internal political discussion back then.

Now for Hitler vs African GB corps... yes, GB/USA didnt had much forces there. But so is Germany. Should Germany bring more forces - so could GB and USA. As i said, logistical access there for all sides were about equal.

Add to that usual Germany problem with naval supply & naval superiority - and they even might logistically lose there.

 

[Ankit]

Often watching those History and Discovery channel programs about German Military's victories over other European powers makes me wonder if Germany would have defeated Britain had US not intervened? German scientists came up with some amazing new inventions such as the Jet engine and the V2 which, although the Germans could not utilise properly, would have given them huge advantage over Britain if the war had gone on a little longer.

So whats ur opinion?


Any stats on the British and Gemrna Military from World War II would be interesting. I googled but didnt find anything.

Germany could have defeated but the problem started when USA intervened coz Germany shot down its passenger ship going to Britain. That was a biggest mistake made by the Germans.

 

[kato]

That was WW1... in WW2, Germany declared war on the US.

 

[merocaine]

Some questions

Some questions.

How much would losing the Suez canal effect the shipment of Oil from the middle east? At that stage of the war was much coming through the Suez Canal?

Taking North Africa and the Suez Canal would turn the Med into a German Lake.
In turn this would force the British to strongly reinforce the Middle East in order to protect there oil and deny the Germans.
With the Med out of action how difficult would it have been for the British to conduct a defense of the Middle East?

 

[Sea Toby]

Malta was the key to the North African campaigns of Germany/Italy and the United Kingdom/Commonwealth. In fact, Kessering and Rommel disagreed about the need to invade Malta. In hindsight, Kessering was correct. With Malta secured, the British won the Mediteranean.

 

[stigmata]

The way i see it, Malta based bombers could block every shipment from suez, for unknown reason, it didnt happen.

 

[Feanor]

The way i see it, Malta based bombers could block every shipment from suez, for unknown reason, it didnt happen.

What bombers?