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

Hitler decides to finish Britain

Discussion in 'What If - European Theater - Western Front & Atlan' started by T. A. Gardner, May 26, 2008.

  1. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    5,945
    Likes Received:
    760
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    What if Hitler following the fall of France decides that finishing Britain needs to be done before proceeding in the East against Russia? Now, this means either conquest or getting a negotiated surrender / peace. Either will suffice.

    I think that this is within Germany's ability to actually do. Some initial steps would include:

    Throwing a larger force into North Africa. This would include sufficent engineers and logistics units to support a larger force there than was historically possible.

    The Luftwaffe commences a crash program of pilot training to ensure sufficent replacements for an ongoing air war.

    The Luftwaffe sizes operations against Britain such that they can be sustained for a longer period.

    The Germans also begin looking at alternatives for the "destruction" of England by various means of bombardment.

    U-Boat production is ramped up to put more into the Atlantic.

    If Germany is able to either stall or eliminate the British in North Africa (emminently doable) while increasing the pressure on Britain through their u-boat campaign, the Germans might be able to gain a negoitated peace.
     
  2. mac_bolan00

    mac_bolan00 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2008
    Messages:
    717
    Likes Received:
    20
    seems like they tried all of that except a larger force in africa, even asking the japanese to try and bottle the eastern colonies. it took only a wrong move (russia or the US) to make the whole thing not doable.

    ok, all of what you said, plus an anti-commonwealth strategy by the japanese in the far east.

    lastly, getting either one to join them or at most stay on the sidelines: the US or the USSR.

    how 'bout that?
     
  3. Tomcat

    Tomcat The One From Down Under

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,048
    Likes Received:
    266
    IS this scenario before the Luftwaffe and RAF loses during the BoB?

    If not, then the Germans still had the problem of not having a proper escort aircraft with a long enough range to operate over Britain, at least not until the FW190.

    Germany also already went with bombardment of the British Isles around the Dover area by long range rail and stationary artillery, as well as the V rocket series not really a war winning effort.

    More Uboats, could in theory starve Britian, but what about the hugh amount of E destroyers being built to counter the Uboat, Surface Raiders as ween in the war, really didn't do enough to either divert ships from the defense of the British Isle or sunk enough merchant ships.

    Assuming that the Germans never invade Russia, then they would certainly have the men and materials to give to Rommel to push the allies out of Africa, but would that really make the British think twice?

    So with that I am leaning towards the fact, that it is possible but unprobable.:)
     
  4. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    22,301
    Likes Received:
    1,049
    Location:
    Kotka,Finland
    If the Germans had concentrated on destroying the shipping to and out of Britain, at least there would have been a lot of trouble to fight the war for the British.

    Condors, U-boats, Bombers not flying further inland than the harbours with fighter cover. I recall that the Luftwaffe did not have much plane losses at all during the early phase when they bombed only the shipping in the channel but I guess RAF did not want to show its nose and lose planes unnecessarily as the major battle was clearly ahead.

    Wonder if anyone got any figures for supplies getting to Britain monthly vs the required minimum figures?
     
  5. redcoat

    redcoat Ace

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,521
    Likes Received:
    139
    All your proposals are militarily sound.
    I would just add an extra, political angle. Publicise the terms you are willing to allow the British in order for a negoitated peace. Hitler made it easy for Churchill to reject any peace moves within the British cabinet because the terms were unknown.
     
  6. tikilal

    tikilal Ace

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes Received:
    66
    This is certainly possible. Finishing off Africa should have been the priority, as soon as Italy jumped into the war. Once the Suez is in Axis hands every other position in the Mid east would be come untenable. After this the destruction of the Royal Navy should have been the priority. With the Med closed to allied shipping you know where the shipping would have to go, this would make for better hunting.

    While the German surface fleet was no match for the Brits using the surface ships as bait or in some way to help the Luftwaffe engage the navy and destroy it. Once the Navy is damaged or destroyed the focus shifts to the RAF, As long as the focus is on the destruction of the RAF and not terror bombing the Luftwaffe can win. At this point you cross the channel if necessary and England is through.

    Now to add a little fuel to the fire. If Stalin was planning to attack Germany this would have been the best opportunity all of Germanys strength would have been in the west and Germany would only have gotten stronger after the fall of England. So does Russia invade, if so how does Germany prepare against it?
     
  7. Tomcat

    Tomcat The One From Down Under

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,048
    Likes Received:
    266
    The British were and probably always will be great mariners and I doubt they would ever exposed there fleets to the enemy bombers so easily.
     
  8. Joe

    Joe Ace

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,948
    Likes Received:
    124
    "It takes three years to build a ship, but it takes three hundred years to build a tradition"

    Event if it meant sacrificing the Home fleet, the Royal Navy would try everything to stop a German landing. The purpose of the Navy, after all, is to stop Britian from being invaded.
     
  9. Tomcat

    Tomcat The One From Down Under

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,048
    Likes Received:
    266
    Of course that I am not arguing, but why would they throw there ships away? I was more referring to feints by the Germans, I think that they would need conformation on an invasion before commiting there Home Fleet into a certainly doomed operation. The Germans did not possess the freedom on the sea that the British did at D-day, the allies got to chose when and where, I think that the Germans still would have attacked in the southern part of england, otherwise they risk to much exposure to the RN, and if they operated further, that means less air coverage, so it would have been a quick operation across the channel.:)
     
  10. tikilal

    tikilal Ace

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes Received:
    66
    The problem with not responding to warships out side of your harbor is that they shoot at you in harbor if you do not come out. With a German flotilla sitting off shore either you make targets for the ships or you leave your protection from air attack. Either way you get shot up. If you send out your planes to fight with the enemy it is a German win win situation. This is the point to engage the enemy. That is what I was saying. Germany did not have the coordination between branches to pull this off, and The British would have been filled with joy to get an opportunity to fight the German Navy. Thats why they are British.
     
  11. kingthreehead

    kingthreehead Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2008
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    3
    Russia would of just got to berlin quicker. The american forces would of defended Britian and germany would of had no chance of winning
     
  12. Tomcat

    Tomcat The One From Down Under

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,048
    Likes Received:
    266
    I guess it all depends on where the Home Fleet is based. If they are based at Scarpa Flow, then the German flotilla will be over exposed and almost out of range of the Luftwaffe, but certainly in range of the RAF's bomber command. Plus I never meant that they wouldn't engage them, just that I don't think they would ever expose the Home Fleet to a near death situation, The use of artillery on the English coast, or bombers could deal with the ships, or submarines positioned in defence or fast gunboats, would that not be a good counter?
     
  13. Falcon Jun

    Falcon Jun Ace

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,281
    Likes Received:
    85
    Hmmm... this is a what if worth considering. Under this what if, Germany is looking for a way to force a settlement of the war, short of an actual invasion of England because an actual invasion is admittedly beyond the means of Germany.
    What is not yet being mentioned here is the probable use of the Italian fleet.
    If the Med is closed to Allied shipping, then the Italian fleet would be free to join up with elements of the German Navy, thus providing the Axis with a viable surface blocking force.
    Historically, German surface raiders were not as effective as they could have been because they were few in number. Thus, Germany was forced to rely on U-boats.
    But with major warships of Italian Fleet operating in the Atlantic in conjunction with the German fleet, this would poise as a major blockade threat to the UK. It's possible that the Axis would stage a large and powerful enough series of naval surface sorties to supplement the German U-boat campaign.
    As to a Russian stab in the back, I think Germany would have sufficient strength to deter such an attempt. Remember, the German Army wouldn't really be involved in the attempt to starve off UK to force a settlement. The key elements to the blockade would be Navy and Luftwaffe.
    Of course, this postulates that the US is not yet in the war.
    The question I would ask is this: how long would it take for a joint Italian-German blockade of the Atlantic before the UK is forced to a settlement?
    It's also important to know what concessions the UK would accept for a settlement.
     
  14. cross of iron

    cross of iron Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2008
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    28
    I assume that your what-if doesn't exclude the attack on Pearl Harbor, which means the negotiation must end before then,

    1. Losing North Africa will damage only the moral of the British people[FONT=宋体],[/FONT] it will not break their will to fight.

    2. Air superiority means little if your land force can't exploit it.

    3. Air raids alone can't bring a nation to her knees, as shown by Germany during 1944-1945.

    4. America can replace more ships than Germany can sink. Germany can't hope to starve Britain into giving up as long as America exists.

    Germany needs to build a strong navy to bring Britain to her knees, which can not be done before the Japs bring America to the war. Even if the Japs don't attack Pearl Harbor, Germany still won't be able to build a navy large enough, not if Hitler wishes to maintain a strong army.

    The only possible way to defeat Britain is to land a few divsions on British soil before the battle of Dunkirk. Any plan of invasion after that is nothing more than a foolish dream.
     
  15. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    Much of the Italian fleet was not well suited for operations in the Atlantic. British subs could also have been pretty effective in the straits of Gibraltar.

    Historically raiders have done better when they are few in number.
     
  16. Tomcat

    Tomcat The One From Down Under

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,048
    Likes Received:
    266
    The axis certainly would have fun getting past Gibraltar.
     
  17. Falcon Jun

    Falcon Jun Ace

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,281
    Likes Received:
    85


    1. Losing North Africa will damage only the moral of the British people[FONT=宋体],[/FONT] it will not break their will to fight.
    Morale is part of what makes a people willing to fight. If it's damaged, then it's possible to consider that one's will to fight is not as strong as it used to be. This would make this what-if feasible.

    2. Air superiority means little if your land force can't exploit it.
    True. But under the context of this what if, conquering Britain is not the direct goal. Getting the UK out of the war is. So establishing air superiority over the UK without utilizing the land force is, in my opinion, is one way to convince the UK to think about a settlement, not neccessarily a surrender.

    3. Air raids alone can't bring a nation to her knees, as shown by Germany during 1944-1945.
    I think this is a different context. I agree air raids alone can't do it but in the case of England, air raids would be more devastating if coupled with an effective naval blockade.

    4. America can replace more ships than Germany can destroy.
    If I understand T.A. correctly, this what-if takes place before the US is involved in active hostilities. So the United States is not yet a factor under this what-if.

    Germany needs to build a strong navy to bring Britain to her knees, which can not be done before the Japs bring America to the war.
    That's why I suggest that the Italian fleet be involved. With the Italians in the Atlantic, the presence of their major surface ships and other smaller craft would strengthen the German fleet.

    Still, the UK was still an empire at this time. I'm sure that the UK would've gathered the rest of its naval forces from other parts of the globe to supplement its Home Fleet and break the German/Italian blockade.
    Also a question, a quick look at the map would show that there is a land route to get to North Africa from India. Could this mass of Indian troops, supplemented with other Commonwealth land forces, effectively use the land route? Or would it be too costly or risky?
     
  18. Joe

    Joe Ace

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,948
    Likes Received:
    124
    Don't forget the RN still has considerable strength on Britian's south coast.

    And Falco Jun, The Italian Navy would be decimated if it tried to sortie out to the Atlantic.
     
  19. cross of iron

    cross of iron Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2008
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    28
    1. Even if North Africa was lost, Winston Churchill would still NOT give up fighting, nor would any British person. End of story.
    2. If I may quote Mr. Churchill after an air raid: “WE CAN TAKE IT". Good luck trying to convince that man.
    3. Blockade is out of the question, the German navy can not challenge the British navy.
    4. America has been supporting Britain from the very beginning[FONT=宋体]。[/FONT]

    The Italian navy is even more useless than the German one, so more easy meat for the British Empire.

    Germany CAN NOT break Britain after Dunkirk, no way in hell.
     
    Joe likes this.
  20. tikilal

    tikilal Ace

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes Received:
    66
    Coastal Guns are good but moving targets are harder to hit.

    Anyone, ANYONE who thinks Germany could never have conquered England under any circumstances is does not comprehend Germany.

    Before Dunkirk....? Land Divisions in England??? How.... ? Sail from Wilhelmshaven? With the entire British Fleet on the prowl?

    Air superiority trumps navel superiority. With air superiority
    the channel crossing becomes viable.

    You will have to fight on English soil before Englishmen will surrender.
     

Share This Page