Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

German chances of actually winning

Discussion in 'Military Training, Doctrine, and Planning' started by GunSlinger86, Feb 28, 2016.

  1. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    I'm not sure I agree with the first. The problem for Germany was that in the war as it developed there wasn't a lot that they could do given the relative strengths of the naval forces. If Germany develops too strong a navy prior to the war then the UK will respond quicker as well. With the war that Hitler initially planned on fighting he only needed to match the French navy and the KM did that pretty well. Matching the RN was simply out of the question in any foreseeable time frame.

    Enigma was important but Huff Duff may have played a more important role in the battle of the Atlantic.

    By the time Churchill came to power the British were already at war. I suspect they would have fought on even if Chamberlin had stayed in power.

    Hitler did have some issues with the big picture but IMO even more with the law of averages. If you continue to gamble you are going to loose eventually and if a single loss or even a couple close together can wipe you out then continuing to roll the dice is a loosing strategy.
     
  2. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    1. There was a lot more than that. Radio discipline was rather poor at the time and the British would hear the Germans forming up for their raids over France. Then once the Germans were over Britain it was the sound and visual spotters that helped direct the RAF responses. Nor does the failure to understand the importance of the radar fall just on Goering's shoulders. Even if understood taking out the radar stations and keeping them out of service was not exactly a trivial process.

    In regards to the BOB. Germany went into it with an advantage in both experience and numbers by the time they switched to attacking cities rather than the RAF they had lost the edge in numbers and were loosing the advantage in experience.

    In regards to 4 engine bombers the LW was primarily a tactical air force in part to make up for the limited amount of heavy artillery available to the Heer. Replacing 4 fighters or single engine bombers for a single 4 engine bomber would not necessarily have been in the best interest of the Wehrmacht. Indeed assuming it's close to a zero sum game as far as resources are concerned and build enough 4 engine bombers and the Germans may not defeat the French or the defeat may take significantly longer leaving them in weaker condition after the campaign vs France.
     
  3. Black6

    Black6 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    56
    The Germans could have gone with the He-100 instead of the Bf-110 which would have had an effect on the BoB. That decision would have to be made pre-war obviously, but is in the realm of possibility even if it isn't consistent with their thinking at the time ("we need a heavy fighter").
     
  4. belasar

    belasar Court Jester Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,209
    Likes Received:
    1,083
    Yes and no. Why build He-100's when you could simplify production by producing Bf-109's who used the same engine instead of 110's. The 100's and 109's had nearly equal performance so far as known, or at least the 100 did not perform better enough to displace 109 production.

    The down side is you would lose the 110's .adaptability in the nightfighter and ground attack roles.
     
  5. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,050
    Likes Received:
    35
    I don't think they had a chance to invade England, they didn't have the logistics, naval support, solid cooperative planning and leadership, nor the doctrine. Likewise I don't think Germany had a chance of fighting a war in the style of the American thrust through the Pacific hopping island to island and the savage fighting and conditions that went with it. America could handle the war on two fronts with two totally different fighting styles, I don't think Germany could have been as versatile nor could they handle the two-front war.
     
  6. White Flight

    White Flight Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    441
    Likes Received:
    33
    1. So your opinion is Hitler purposely did not advance naval development out of fear of the Royal Navy. Got it.
    2. Knowing naval and combat specifics through code breaking trumps the huff-puff of the Huff Duff.
    3. "By the time Churchill came to power the British were already at war." Okay, Britain declared war on Nazi Germany 3 September 1939 and Churchill served as Prime Minister 10 May 1940 – 26 July 1945, laboring through the phoney war in an armchair. Germany attacked France and the low countries on 10 May 1940, which was amazingly Churchill's first day on the job as Prime Minister.
    4. "I suspect they would have fought on even if Chamberlin had stayed in power." I suspect you do. On 10 May 1940, hours before the German invasion of France by the German advance, it became clear that there was no confidence in Chamberlain's prosecution of the war, prompting him to resigned. The future for the world would have been quite different under the Chamberlain umbrella as he was soft on standing up to Hitler's advancing goose-step. Chamberlain's push was for concession with Germany, to avoid the physical conflict of war. Concessions lead to compromises. Compromises with Nazi Germany would have been in the form of various controls over England by Nazi Germany. Controls over England would have been rubber stamped England as a puppet state to Nazi Germany. Winston Churchill was a staunch opponent to appeasements with Nazi Germany.
     
  7. Ben Dover

    Ben Dover Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2016
    Messages:
    511
    Likes Received:
    37
    Location:
    The London borough of Croydon, GB
    Hitler had an an air force.
    Napoleon did not.
    Hitler saw himself as taking over where Napoleon left off or some delusion.
    Decided to take Moscow by land and only gave his troops 5 weeks to do it.
    Had the Nazis have killed Hitler, restored ordered to their vision, then they may have stood a chance, but he went crazy with power.
     
  8. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    1. No. That's not it at all. Initially Hitler didn't plan on fighting the British he saw them more as allies or at least potential allies. Furthermore Germany was in a bit of a bind for both cash and resources. The cost of building a navy that could compete with the RN would have meant sacrificing most of the LW and/or Heer improvements and still might not have been possible. Furthermore Germany was a land power.
    2. Not really if you are talking the battle of the Atlantic. Real time locations of the U-boats was arguably more important than the info that could be gained through Ultra. Now there were other areas where Ultra was of more use and Huff-Duff didn't contribute at all but in the battle of the
    Atlantic Huff Duff was at least as important as Ultra and arguably more so.
    4. I think you are underestimating Chamberlain. His efforts may have offered concessions in the pre war time frame but at least part of his rational was to buy time for the UK to rearm itself and it was under him that many of the critical rearmament programs flourished. His patience with Hitler was gone after the latter occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia. With the invasion of Poland it's clear that he realized the time for compromises and concessions was over. He may not have been as aggressive or as good an orator but I've seen nothing to indicate he considered or even counseled for accommodating the Nazis after that. Indeed I believe he gave considerable support to Churchill.
    If you have info to the contrary PLS convey it.
     
  9. steverodgers801

    steverodgers801 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    69
    THe Z plan was cancelled in Sept 39 because of the lack of materials. It was not scheduled to be completed until 1946.
     
  10. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    22,301
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Location:
    Kotka,Finland
    Declaring war to the USSR and the USA the same year were the true nails to his coffin.
     
  11. Carronade

    Carronade Ace Patron  

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2,504
    Likes Received:
    438
    Germany already had the experience of trying to build a navy to rival Britain's, in the runup to WWI. It was a vast waste of resources, consuming up to 1/3 of the military budget in 1898-1912 and doing little to help prosecute the war. It not only failed to deter Britain, it was a major factor, perhaps the major factor, in making an enemy of a longtime friend.
     
  12. Ben Dover

    Ben Dover Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2016
    Messages:
    511
    Likes Received:
    37
    Location:
    The London borough of Croydon, GB
    And the sea! :lol: I was just thinking this.

    Britain had the sea, bringing in folks from New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the Caribbean...
    So Hitler had Russia, US and 'The Waves' to deal with.
     
  13. Ilhawk

    Ilhawk New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2015
    Messages:
    383
    Likes Received:
    44
    The Nazi's w/o Hitler never had a chance unless they chose to wait for nuclear and waiting for mass production of developing weapons. To win they needed a brilliant wacko leader, which was also their undoing. If they waited, I'm guessing they wouldn't have held onto power.
     
  14. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,132
    Likes Received:
    575
    On point 1; See the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935.

    On point 4; Neville Chamberlain was not soft on Germany. In 1938, Britain was unprepared for war. There are other factors too: Hitler needed to prove his insatiability, after the slaughter of 1914-1918. It was widely felt, that there was some legitimacy in German claims, after Versailles. Further, War could not be started lightly, when every village in the UK has a cenataph listing all the Dead. In 1939, it was under Chamberlain that the alliance was made with Poland, and, later, the war declared. He resigned Premiership, but continued to chair the War Cabinet in the absence of the Premier.
     

Share This Page