How Hitler could have won

I think you got that wrong. It's the Empirials that are zombies the Republicans are skeletons.

 

Why didnt they do it?simple really.

To hitler britain was only small fry compared to russia,
Hitler was aware of the situation in russia and to put things simply he figured his best bet was to hit russia when it wasnt looking,and i can understand the reasoning.

it had nothing to do with the capabilities of the british fleet.If hitler had decided to defeat britain russia would have been ready by the time he got around to them.

Redcoat:your figures are way off,the british had only a hundred tanks(which it may be added they didnt know how to use),thats like 33 tanks per landing.

 

I think you have it sort of backwards here......Hitler very much wanter to knock Britain out of the war before opening another front and attacking Russia....however, he realized this was impossible...

 

Redcoat is right, you are wrong. The only reason Hitler turned east is he (and his military) knew they had no chance against the Island Nation of Great Britain as per invasion. If they had tried, WW2 may not have existed, and would have ended before mid-'41 with the Nazis defeated completely. No Japanese attack against Pearl, no Soviets killed, no Holocaust, no Shoah, fewer French dead, and all the rest.

 

I don't like the arguing :'(

 

No,i'm right,despite about 10 people ganging up to say i'm wrong,

British Equipment losses at Dunkirk and the situation post Dunkirk
Battle of Dunkirk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its interesting to note some of the losses on the right side of the second link.

the british lost 6 destroyers and over 200 smaller vessels and
177 aircraft at dunkirk while the germans lost 101 aircraft.

So that equels 6 destroyers for 101 aircraft.That looks a lot like LW win.

 

I agree an invasion had very little chance but loosing half a dozen divisions out of about 100 he had is not going to stop Hitler (and in the unlikely event he gets more than that across the Brits are in trouble).
Winning a defensive battle against Hitler will not stop him, otherwise he would have quit after Moscow or Stalingrad, the only way your scenario will happen is if the military overthrow him, is that what you were thinking of ?.

If he surives and "fixates" on Britain and goes for a "Med First" strategy, as it's the only place he can get at them, I see little chance of Britain managing to hold onto Suez against a German all out effort. What happens next mostly depends on what Stalin does but IMO the war is still going to drag on to 1945 if not even later.

 

Too bad Hitler didn't go for it. Normandy was done with a vast numerical, aerial, and naval superiority. Sea Lion could not have been. The British could have let them gain a small foothold, let them pump in reinforcements, then cut them off from sea. A concerted land and air attack on a congested beachhead like Normandy would mean the end of Sea Lion.

The war could've gone much faster, the men and equipment lost, and the supplies and time spent in pulling off the operation would go a long way towards helping the Russians.

 

HMMMM??? Don't know about that ..capturing Suez that is. very little sealift for the Axis in the MED along with the fact the ports of Tripoli & Benghazi just don't have the road/rail networks to supply a drive eastwards to Alexandria/Cairo/Suez. El Alamien was just about the limit for Rommel . If the 8th. Army just plays defence it'll be alright plus if necessary Wavell could have just went on and drove the Italians all the way out in 1940 instead of helping Greece.

 

I agree. Even if El Alamein went awry, the British could use Fabian tactics. Rommel could not have gotten farther than Alexandria. A combination of attrition and low priority put the Afrika Korps in a sorry state, getting worse and worse the longer the North African War dragged on.

And yes, the Balkans Campaign I agree was a bad move. I had a thread on it earlier, how the lack of the Balkans Campaign might have allowed Wavell and O'Connor to push the Italians back far enough to discourage intervention by Hitler.

 

I was talking about a German southern strategy, things like "low priority" and "discourage intervention by Hitler" are automatically out.

Fabian tactics from where? the Cunctator could always retreat behind the walls of Rome but where will rhe British go if pursued? They didn't take Somalia, Iran and Syria until 1941, if the Germans abort Sealion and "go south" they may well be will be in Lybia in force by December 1940 in time to kick O'Connor's half a dozen divisions all the way to Suez. If the Italians never loose control of them Bengasi, Tobruk and Derna undamaged are enough to supply a force capable to deal with the small 1940 British desert force. The Luftwaffe will have air superiority and that leaves the RN to interdict the traffic, exactly the sort of air vs ships attrition the Germans want and Crete levels of attrition for the RN are likely.

With the Axis in control of Egypt the British are not going to take Syria from the Vichy French and the fall of Somalia is doubtful, it's more than possible an Axis force will take Sudan instead and open a comunication route (I expect the canal itself to be unusable before massive repairs and we sill have the RN in the Red Sea though they lack a good base), It's not easy to move supplies all that way but going all the way round Africa as the British will need to do to reinforce Kenia and Sudan (they had lost Somalia) is no joke either.

The Iraq revolt will probably succeed and ... the scenario gets wide open until Stalin or FDR get their say, just for starters what will be the fate of the French squadron interned at Alexandria?
And while the Axis sealift capability was limited the bulk of the Mediterranean Fleet will most likely pull back to the Red Sea once Suez is seriously threatened, as I think it historically did in 1942, so the convoys will be mostly unopposed, the British subs that were used in the Med were mostly the very small U class that would have serious problems operating in the Eastern Med from Gibraltar.

 

If the scenario pans out like above, the Luftwaffe may enjoy only momentary superiority. No doubt the British will be back with a vengeance. Based from bases in the Middle East, they could easily put up a good fight, until, theoretically, Rommel came through the Suez. Even then, a good portion of the Western Med can still be controlled in the air and in the sea, as long as Gibraltar remains open. (I highly doubt the Germans could take Gibraltar)

With the RAF and RN back in force, the Germans could not keep it up anymore. And they could never really banish British presence in Africa. Even take the Somaliland, Ethiopia, and Sudan, but the British could still operate out of Tanzania, Kenya, or Uganda, supplied (albeit with difficulty) from South Africa. Operation Torch is still a very viable option, even without the Eastern arm.

All in all, the Germans would be pushed back across the Suez and back to Tunisia and out of Africa for good as early as the end of 1943, definitely not any later than 1944.

 

macker ..small fry... great all the more reason for doing it. no two front war. so why didnt he do it..

 

I still don't think the Axis could kick the half dozen divisions of O' Connor out of Egypt if he just plays defence around the El Alamien area. Tobruk is just too far away from say El Alamien to be a good supply base especially considering the rail/road network in the dessert. Just MHO though. Remember that alot of the RN's losses in the MED were related to supplying Malta and in the Crete Operation.

 

i hate to do this but lets go bck rto basics a nd the facts of what happened. macker first point/ do the germans need air superiority.. why amm i not speaking to you in german..two facts i know of..im speaking english and germans didnt get air superiority. so they didnt get that.. whats next then..

 

Actually you are right in a way, my total for the number of tanks the British still had after Dunkirk is wrong.
I put down they had 600 tanks, and as the web-site you so kindly posted shows, it should have been 688.
407 light tanks, 141 medium tanks, and 140 infantry tanks.
I had meant to write they had over 600 tanks, but I didn't proof read it properly

Wars are not won by the score, they are won by the side that achieves its objectives. At Dunkirk the Luftwaffe failed in its objective, which was to stop the British army from escaping, while the RN which was tasked with the objective of rescuing the troops succeeded.

 

Indeed German personel losses are pretty close to the British ones. But yes you are wrong as noted below even your own sources help prove it.
And as for these:

Which illustrates the danger of using wiki. As I posted earlier all of the British losses above appear to be in excess of what was really lost. Check the sources I listed back 4 or 5 pages in this discussion.

That's neglecting the mission, the situation, and all the other German losses.

 

im boring too macker.. but how many parachutes did the germans have at this time..chutes not paratroopers..

 

One thing is for sure,if the germans managed to get from portsmouth to oxford then its all over,Lets not forget the british army was a slow army,
I think its fair to assume the germans would have little difficulty breaking out from portsmouth or southhamption.

How early do people expect the british to notice there is an invasion on?british formations have to assemble.

This is how it would have played out.If the british did engage the german army early on then the LW would 1.blow british artillery to bits,2.the LW would prevent any reenforcement by making the roads unpassable by british troops.No doubt fallschirmjager could aid in this.
The air battle would be unlike the battle of britain because over the southern part of the country there would be proper LW fighter cover.

I know people are going to say"the germans have to get across the channel first"but the germans managed to land in norway and the journey to norway is far more dangerous than crossing the channel.

Another favourite"the RN would destroy the invasion force"weird,they didnt destroy the germans attacking norway,in fact in the two encounters between the LW and RN so far(norway and dunkirk)the LW came out on top.