How Hitler could have won

It is rare in war to meet a perfect conditions because its not a boxing match with referees, there's always some factor that hampers one side to some degree or both to different degrees etc.
That's why it's called reality.
So in order to make the best extrapolations we take different real events and do our best with them to test our "what if" theories.
However it's extremely usefull for predicting to search when such events actually DID occur.
Like the case with HMS Delight:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Delight_H38

Here we have a destroyer, that was just repaired and filled with AA ammo,
sailing close to british shore, completely capable of maneuvering and under the umbrella of RAF, being quickly placed on the seabed by a group of LW planes.

No LW losses.

I don't know what's everyone's concept of "effective" , but that's 100% effective in my book.

 

Altight boys this discussion is going around in circles, either post some new information to back up the various claims by all involved or move on to something else.

Also lets keep the name calling and aggression down please.

 

From Oxford companion to WWII:
"
Luftwaffe air attacks wreaked havoc during the evacuation around Sphakia. In fact, so severe were naval losses—three cruisers and six destroyers sunk, seventeen other ships damaged—that the evacuation had to be abandoned after the night of 30 May, and 5,000 men were left behind. "
I call this 100% effective!

 

I take it that you are unaware that the Royal Navy had hundreds of trawlers converted to minesweepers. As soon as the German's laid a minefield the RN swept paths through it

No. The RN has just to enter the Channel and disrupt the invasion fleet and the invasion will fail. Forcing the invasion fleet to scatter is just as effective at stopping the invasion as sinking the ships.

The Home Fleet might have around 80 DD on invasion alert but the RN had a total of 162 Destroyers after Dunkirk ( The German's had 10 )

During the Battle Of Britain a British battleship with a destroyer escort sailed into the English Channel and bombarded a German held Channel port, both battleship and destroyer escort then returned to their base without suffering any damage.
how did they manage it ???

It was at night

Unless the German high Command could have come up with an effective plan to stop the RN at night the invasion was always going to fail.

ps; During the month long Norwegian Campaign, the Luftwaffe managed to sink 1 RN cruiser ( HMS Curlew) 2 RN destroyers (HMS Gurka, and HMS Afrid) and 1 Sloop (HMS Bittern). So that's a whole month to sink 4 RN warships

 

Indeed but not enough to form the barriers they planned either.

No. Most of the Sea Lion variants had them crossing in at least 3 places.
See:
Operation Sealion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and
Operation Sealion - The German Invasion of Britain
and
Dunkirk evacuation, Operation Sealion and the Battle of Britain

Again no they don't. The barges are going to take somewhere between 12 and 30+ hours to cross the Channel. Most had a top speed at or below 6 knots. When you take into account wind, tide, and currents as well as the fact that they were river barges they aren't going to be makiing top speed. Then they are going to take up to 10 days to unload everything before they turn around and go back to pick up more troops and supplies.

PLS note that the British by this point have a very well develope mine sweeping capability. Furthermore they are holding their mines for use specifically against the German invasion. Also laying a reasonable barrier in range of British shore batteries, RN, and the RAF is not going to be easy or without losses.

From what I can find there is no "Atlantic Fleet" in 1940 or 39. DDs in the North Atlantic are for the most part under command of Home fleet as far as I can tell.

Well according to:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=76&t=148722&hilit=Sea+lion+British+destroyers

and DDs and CL's aren't the only problem as the following points out:
Axis History Forum • View topic - Seelöwe: British Defensive Measures - Naval and Air Ops

this thread has a nice chart of British major naval units strength over time:
Axis History Forum • View topic - Royal Navy strength during Second World War
And this has a listing of deployments as of 15 Sept 1940:
Axis History Forum • View topic - Seelöwe: British Defensive Measures - Naval and Air Ops
It lists 62 DDs in home waters, 3 at Iceland, and 23 in Gibralter that are in service as well as some on escort duty and another 22 in Canada.

It's not at all clear what the Wike RAF losses represent. Neither geographically or period.
Who thinks the RAF actually helped at Dunkirk? - Yahoo! Answers
states:

Operation Dynamo, the evacuation from Dunkirk, 27 May-4 June 1940

That's just one example I found which happened to prove your statement wrong.

Certainly that's preferable but it's just not possible vs a competent opponent. That why it wasn't the sole tactic the Germans tried.

Your talking tactics now not doctrine. And pretty much everybody tried to do this.

They knew that the situation wasn't the most desireable. That doesn't mean their doctrine was wrong. And not every raid was intercepted or met with British planes at altitude.
A doctrine that requries an incompetent foe is a poor doctrine. German doctrine wasn't.

Actually I use a lot of it it just seems you don't undersand it.

Then PLS explain it in more detail.

But the ports are likely to be a bit better defended than a good number of historical targets and it's not just the plane shot down. How many operational losses were at least in part due to AA damage. Then there's the decrease in bomber accuracy that AA fire produces.

But it's not just LW fighters is it. The LW was also looseing a lot of bombers. Bombers that are both requred to continue the campaign and for the invasion.

Not really many of the ports are further away from the German airfields than the targets they were hitting in the BOB.

And British radar spotted the raids forming up over France. You think a raid headed toward Scapa Flow wouldn't be detected more than an hour out?

Where did that 20 minutes come from and what does it represent. Certainly it's not the warning time from when a raid was spotted until it dropped it's bombs.

What are you talking about. If you are implying I'm saying damaged and destroyed are the same thing I'm not. However in both cases the aircraft are unavailable for some period of time. If you are fighting a campaign that requires daily or multiple raids per day over a period of multiple days aircraft out of commision with damage become very important.

It depends very much on when they drop it. And of course if they get intercepted with them still attached they are at a significant dissadvantage.

How big was this stock? and how much would have been useable? How much are they going to want up front by the way when they can get cash for the whole amount? Does Germany have enough capital free to do it?

So your going to glue wine corks together to attach to your barges. Oh but wait much of the French wine country is not under German control. And wine isn't bottled in the spring very often or early summer.

Yes you did. But you haven't listed any of them and the cork thing is proving to be an absolute bust so would any of the others prove any better? I have serious doubts but go ahead and make a case. Of course we haven't commented on the fact that once the Germans ID the barges they wanted to use they kept pretty busy modifying and repairing them so they could use them.

Wishful thinking as you pulled an idea out of the air and it won't hold up under any scrunity. What if's on boards like this are about examining reasonable alternatives. So far yours hasn't come close.

 

And the RN werent very capable anti air platforms so where does that leave things.
A ship dodging air attack will be too busy trying to save its own skin that it wont be of any use in preventing an invasion.

The destroyer will have to be lucky all the time,the stuka only has to be lucky once,and you cant be lucky all the time.

 

Indeed.

But it's only a single case. How many times did the LW attack DDs and inflict no damage at all? How many times did they inflict some damage but loose planes? You have picked one case that happens to be the best case for your hypothesis. That's often called "cherry picking". Especially when the evidence presented in this thread indicates that that was far from the average or expected result.

 

Well it might be a bit difficult to force barge chains moving at 6 knots or less in multiple collums to scatter.... I guess the tugs could cut thier tows and have a chance of getting away.

Even the hundreds of minor combatants armed with not much more than an mg could do a pretty good job of shooting up a barge so if you include verticle displacement in your definitin of scatter....

 

Well let's see:
1) The Germans don't have enough bombers to keep a continuous attack on the RN during day light hours.
2) The LW has a number of other chores it's required to perform to support Sea Lion.
3) The Stuka's were pulled back because they were getting shot up to bad by the RAF.
4) The Germans have little capability of attacking the RN at night and when/if they do how good is their target recognition?

So if a stuka is shot down by an RAF fighter on the way in or hit by AA fire it doesn't matter. How many DDs were sunk by single bomb hits?

 

You'd want to consider that the loss of a destroyer is much bigger than the loss of a plane,its much easier for the LW to maintain a consistant presence,
A destroyer goes down and the RN presence is weakened,a plane goes down and it just gets replaced,the RN will further and further be unable to protect itself.
In the case of the RN a pyricc victory is no victory.

Also the scharnhorst,gneisenau and prinz eugen managed to sail up the channel unharmed,doesnt say much for RN capabilities.

Yes the stukas were withdrawn during BoB but they were operating over the british mainland,if they just operated over the channel they could enjoy fighter cover.
Because of the shorter journey much more sorties could be flown be the LW while they RAF would be flying less sorties..

 

As I said - it's very difficult to find cases where neither side is not affected by some factor to some extend.
It's reality -what can you do?
I tried to find a case that has no hampering effects on neither side and that's what I found - seems a good example.

 

1) I didn't say that! Why are you distorting my point?
2) That would happen only if RN catches the first wave while it's crossing the channel.
According to my scenario it won't.
However I would expect RN to arrive at some point in the channel in big strength.
It will start patrolling in order to maintain control over the channel.
Ergo - more threads of passing over more areas , ergo - more chances to hit a mine.
British obviously had the neccessary minesweepers to punch trough the mine barriers, but to completely clear all the mines??! - come on!

3) I'm sure the crews felt quite lucky to be back in one piece.
And yes, the LW was much better at attacking ships during the day, but as I pointed earlier
LW had established ability to attack ships at night. (look at my post regarding Condor Legion)
Also at least above the channel the Germans had the advantage of a Freya radar.
Radar crews historically were able to lead the attacking planes by radio to their target.
So at night the only missing link would be .... you guessed right , parachute dropped flares! And LW was using them for quite some time.

4) But at Dunkirk they sank 5 ships and damaged ~20 + (200 small craft) in 2.5 days + 7.5 days of overcast weather
(unsuited for flying), so I guess they were improving fast.

In any case I see it plausable that at least some small and lucky group of destroyers and light cruisers would be able to catch the invasion fleet in the middle of the first wave in spite of KM protection and LW efforts.
In that case I would think that LW may start kamikadze attacks.
Considering the germans were pretty good at brainwashing their soldiers it seems plausable.
And no destroyer hit by bomber with 3 tons of bomb load would ever be the same again.

 

"Considering the germans were pretty good at brainwashing their soldiers it seems plausable.
And no destroyer hit by bomber with 3 tons of bomb load would ever be the same again."

Even in the waning years of the war, when the Nazis were on desparate grounds the idea of kamikazi style attacks were proposed but rejected by the bulk of the higher-ups. Hanna Reich proposed a "manned" V-1 and volunteered to fly the prototype as I recall, this too was rejected.

The mind-set of the control group just wasn't bent in that fashion, whereas the Japanese mind-set was. They were after all fighting for the son of GOD on earth in human form, sort of like a Christian fighting for Jesus who was there in PERSON!

A much easier sell than dying for a politician.

 

1) I already addressed that in my reply to redcoat.
2) Ok. My mistake of stating 2 files instead of 3 . My points remains.
3) Any support for the 10 day unloading claim?
4) Same as 1)
5),6) I'm afraid I'll have to repeat myself, read up on the setup idea for my proposed scenario.

7) I happen to have 3 references, which prove you wrong.
Battle of Dunkirk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://infao5501.ag5.mpi-sb.mpg.de:8080/topx/archive?link=Wikipedia-Lip6-2/73246.xml&style
Dunkirk evacuation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

8) They had to:
a) Withdraw their Me110 from interceptor role.
b) Withdraw Ju 87 from inland bombing.
c) Change drastically the proportion of interceptors to bombers.
In addition they knew what radar is very well and knew that british are using it.
All the above called for a strategic change of approach , not tactical.
I argue that as soon as they realised that they cannot destroy the RAF in just several days,
they could have switched to the real target - the ports and the Navy.
That would have made the RAF come to them, not the other way around and they knew that from experience (kannalkampf) both as from common sense.
From a strategic point of view RAF didn't have the capacity to stop the invasion, but the RN did.
With sound strategic plans in advance the right choice is obvious even without a hindsight.

9) RAF airfields had the most AA protection in England. More than the ports.

13) 20 minutes was the average time of warning before LW bombers were inland. As to which airfield - it depends on it's location obviously.

14) Fine then. Appology accepted.

15) The tank was dropped with a push of a button.

16) I suppose the stock of the whole Europe would at least equal significant percent of the yearly production - let's say a 1/3 or 1/4.
The prise of cork wood may be higher than ususal wood , but for the mentioned quantities(~80 000 tons) it's negligent compared to the GDP of whole Europe.
In addition to cork you can use: kapok, bamboo, balsa, dry pine wood,small wood caskets etc.

17)

Enough said.

 

kapok, bamboo and balsa all come from too distant a source. As per the south seas, Asia, and South America. Not practical, and no substitue for cork BTW in bouancy per cubic meter, and cork stinks as an option.

 

Your point seems reasonable, however:
They would not be dying for a politician.
They'll by dying to save the lives of thousands of their comrades who are just about to get blown to pieces in the water.
In such situation all things considered I think its plausable that some of the pilots (with a little nudging from the propaganda machine) will make a decision to do it.

There were several cases during the war in which LW planes struck RN ships.
I can remember one in the KannalKampf and one during the attack on convoy to Malta.
I know that if I could save a thousands of lives for the price of my own , I would do it.
wouldn't you?

 

There would be significant stock of all those in europe + your are wrong about the "no substitute for cork"
check the density of balsa wood.
Cork doesn't stink, it has no odor
If I say RN stinks, is that a mature argument?
You guessed right, that's why I don't say it.

 

It would be a tougher sell is all I'm saying. And they would have to have that "mind-set" before the fact or it wouldn't be of any concentrated value. Not impossible, I'll grant. But highly unlikely as a plan. As to the final question, I wouldn't venture a guess as I would be hard pressed to be sure it wasn't an empty gesture for the advantage of the leaders and not my "comrades". Individual acts of heroism are not uncommon, but to train pilots to take that "leap of faith" is an entirely different matter.

 

As an option it does "stink", I am sure you understood my intent in using that word with the little grinner emoticon you placed behind it. But regardless, the use of cork does NOT measure up, hence "stinks", as an option for "unsinkable barges". The RN may very well have an identifiable "odor", I know some USN ships do, but that is beside the point, they don't stink in function sense, cork does!

One of Americas big concerns when the Japanese started expanding into the south seas was our loss of a supply of kapok, and while balsa isn't a bad substitute, where does it grow? Not Europe. Do you remember the Thor Hyerdal ship Kon-Tiki? It started absorbing water in short order, but remained bouyant enough for the task. I doubt the same could be said for the stuff as a "liner or covering" for barges to render them unsinkable.

I just won't buy this sale, not cork, not balsa, not kapok. I quit, I won't buy your plan and you won't admit to any of its flaws. This is pointless.

 

A couple of question guys ..
1. We seem to be focusing on DD's and larger for attacking the invasion convoy but couldn't all those purpose built Minelayer's , all those ML/ASW trawlers ,any other escort type vessels, all those MTB's , and any availiable Corvettes the RN has around could also play hell with those landing barges? Most of the vessels I just mentioned other then the MTB's have at least 1 3" gun along with light AA/MG's furthermore It's not like the Kriegsmarine has that many DD's & larger to stop them after the Norweigion campaign.

2. Isn't it If I'm not wrong much ,much easier because of the tides to invade from say the UK to the French Shore then from the France to the British shore ?

3. Doesn't It seem that the much ballyhooed, for the Germans that is, Norweigion Campaign was actually a pretty near run thing for the Germans? That was against a nation with basically no navy,no airforce and an army of around what??? 15,000???? Still the Kriegsmarine suffered the Blucher getting sunk and the Lutzow heavily damaged just by Norweigion forces. Then there's the RN sending a BB up a fiord in Narvik to wipe out a bunch of German DD's and a little before thaty sending 5 much smaller,much ligher armed of their DD's against a german force of twice their number. Both operations were very,very risky for a lot less strategic and tatical gain then what would be the case involving an invasion fleet of the Germans in the English Channel.