How Hitler could have won

1) They sunk 3 cruisers and 9 destroyers + several Greek naval vessels (including destroyers) + sunk 26 troop carrying ships + damaged some 18 destroyers.
Now , please explain how "if anything it shows LW's inability to be an effective force".
And if that's ineffective, than what would you consider effective? Landing on trafallgar square and spanking Churchil's buttocks?

2) In my humble opinion most (if not all) of these losses occured because of german bombs exploding on RN ships'.

3) I did compare:
~1/5 of the cruisers + ~1/6 th of the destroyers sunk
+ ~1/3 of the remaining vessels damaged by ~1/5 of the LW planes.
All just in 10 days.
If we add the sunken Greek navy it only goes up...

4) LW could certainly fly bomb missions to ports at night, and those RN ships had to get ammunition refills.
Also the channel area was monitored by Freya radar and LW knew how to trow flares.

 

What are you thinking, that the Russians and Poles were complete idiots??
And the English and French even bigger idiots?

 

You wrote
following Manstein:if the Panzers weren'tstopped by the order,they would have taken the city . How could Manstein know ? He had no information:he wasn't on the spot,beying kicked upstairs as commander of a reserve corps,that was not engaged at Dunkirk . About the 1st panzer division:the Theoretical strength was :243 tanks of which 525 Pz I .The Combat losses of the Panzer divisions were 850 tanks untill 5 june for a total of 2439 =33% ;let's asume for the 1st Panzer 160 tanks,of which how many operational ? the number of unoperational tanks due to mechanical failure was almost as high as the number of the CL .One should also subtract the Pz I ,who had no gun and no reliable armour .But ,if you have a solid source,prooving that the 1st Panzer had at her disposel 2OO operational tanks,I will stand corrected .An other point:there was no organized defense of Dunkirk on may 25 :that is a unproved point,I don't say it's not true ;I only ask some proof (from a British source,because how could the Germans know ? I think I know the origine of this allegation :I have read that some Germans had seen with their binoculars a lot of disorganized movement in the city ,bit I am sure that as proof this is inadequate . Last point:the Stukas :how many operational Stukas were disponable and from what distance they had to start ? The radius of action of a Stuka was 285 km -some 140 miles -and they had to return . Conclusion:I am not convinced that on may 24 the Germans could capture Dunkirk, I am waiting for a detailed study and then I will stand corrected and will agree ,but Dunkirk is 69 years agoand I doubt there will be any proof . Cheers

 

No but both of them were fooled by Hitler anyway. It would all have depended on Hitlers reaction to the Polish corridor and invasion. What would have happened if he hadn't invaded? The Russians would have taken the ukrainian lands including Lvov anyway. When they would have done this is another matter could they have waited 5 or 10 years? They had already been beaten by Poland so sooner or later they would have gone for their revenge. The alieswere stupid they gave Hitler everything he asked for up until Sept 1939 what makes you think they couldn't have been fooled again?

 

4) Stukas had 500 km range my friend, check your facts.

1) Are you joking? Manstein later became all but the leader of the wehrmacht.
He had all the records he needed and more at his disposal.
2) In june 1939 the 1st panzer div was equipped with 309 tanks.
I assume it was brought up to strength between Polish campaign and the French campaign.
So if we assume 33% losses, we still have ~200 tanks.
But that's only the tip of the iceberg, as I said - several more german panzer divisions were following the 1st as part of panzergrouppe Kleist.
3) Here is the situation from the english writer Hugh Montefiorre, who is well familiar with the Allied perspective:
" The halting of the tanks had been crucial: it had given Gort the chance at least to start the process of putting battalions from the three divisions relieved by the French and Belgians on 23 and 24 may into the new defence line running from Bergues, just outside Dunkirk , to Hazebrouk, and from Hazebrouck down to the town of La Basee in the south."

Note the words :"The halting of the tanks had been crucial"!!!
Note also : "NEW defense line running from Bergues to La Bassee" ... i.e. there was NO defense line!

 

Your reply has almost no bearing on what I said. Read it again and try to understand it before making a response that makes it look like you have reading comprehension problems.

The current US economic problems are nothing compared to Germany's. Prior to the start of the war the Mark was almost worthless on the international stage. Basically Germany was reduced to operating on a barter system and imports were pretty strictly rationed. She also had a bunch of loans coming due and no one was going to lend her money. So no pre war purchase. After the fall of France Germany did revive her economy to some extent by looting Poland and France and just prior to the war looting Austria and Czechoslovakia. But that means they are going to have to buy it all at one time and after the fall of France. How much was even available at that time? How long does it take to make the deals if they can get it? Simply put it's not going to happen.

You don't think a marginally sea worthy river barge is going to be affected by waves? Hang more stuff on the outside and it's more for the water to interact with. You are awfully dismissive of things about which you don't appear to have much knowledge.

 

1) I read it fine. I was making fun of your laughable statement.
You appear to have some difficulty of grasping simple cause -effect connections and I have the right to poke a little fun at that. No disrespect.

2) I'm sure US treasury could have benefited from your optimism after the biggest stock price fall since the depression.

3) Looted money is as good as any money. Money doesn't smell.
4) I never made such statement.
If you are soo confident that the 1/10th of the barge's volume hanging above the waterline will affect significantly the barge's speed, then provide the necessary calculations as proof.
Otherwise , please... don't waste my time.

 

I wouldn't say they were stupid, they were indecisive -yes, willing to compromise - yes.
But complete idiots - come on!
what you suggest could work only if the whole world besides Germany was smoking weed non stop , day and night.
I'm sorry if it sounds harsh, but that's my humble opinion.

 

There were mine fields around Dunkirk and indeed they inflicted some losses on the allies. The Germans had great plans for the Sea Lion mine fields but neither the mines nor the mine layers to effectively implement them.

Let's take a closer look.
If you look at RichTO90's post at: Axis History Forum • View topic - Seelöwe: German Air Operations and anti-ship Capabilities
You'll see a very detailed list of the allied naval losses at Dunkirk. From that post:

Looking through the list for the LW effects on DD's the following are listed:
damage by air attack no time out of service: 7
damaged: 21
Sunk: 5
That includes French DDs as well as the British ones and includes scuttle vessels in the sunk list but only the most severe damage (ie if a ship was damage in one attack and later sunk it only counts as sunk.
Hardly crippling losses.
Oh and the British used 56 DDs in the Dunkirk evacuation I kind of doubt that the damaged and sunk totals came up half those of Home fleet. And http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=119391&start=0 only list 64 RAF fighters lost over Dunkirk.

 

2) Ignore it if you wish, but the fact is most ships were out of AA ammo and sitting in port. Yes the ships did run out of ammo by shooting at planes, during which time the planes were faring poorly, and were unable to resupply.

3)First of all it is more like 1/7 th of the destroyers. Second, that leaves 80% of the cruisers, 85% of the destroyers (60% meaning 40 destroyers if you consider those damaged), and 100% of the battleships and battle cruisers unsunk. Oh plus one old aircraft carrier.

Keep in mind these ships are now going to have ample AA ammo and be moving in convoys on the open sea. The Luftwaffe destroyed or damaged 30 ships in 10 days. That is about 3 ships a day. The invasion would have been put down in the first 24 hours (and thats being generous).

4) Give me an example of any RN ship being attacked by a Luftwaffe plane at night before 1941?

 

Did they? Any proof for this? Indeed didn't they catch some on the ground?

Again any proof? They thought they were winning at that point. Why would they assume their doctrine was wrong?

If you make a statement and it's brought to question it's up to you to provide at least some rational.

Your referance didn't address the point. But according to:
The Junkers Ju87 Stuka

It says 2 and 1/2 days which is certainly more than 2 days but it doesn't address portions of days when British ships may have been vulnerable.

And you think they are going to take out ports as well as the RN during that period?

If it gets warning it can leave or stay in port defended by the ports AA and RAF.

Let's look at that in a bit more detail. PH was a massive raid where there was essentially no defending fighters. In spite of that almost 1/4 or that attacking planes were destroyed or damaged. You are proposing attacking into a prepared and alerted defense where the defender will in some cases have more fighters than the attacker has aircraft. Just how many times do you think they can do this and to what effect?

 

I suggest you read up on the German economic position before you make yourself look any sillier. As I've said Wages of Destruction is a very good source for such info.

But it's also not available until you go and get it.

You said it would have an insignificant effect. Was this based on anything other than wishes. I'll admit I don't know what the effect would be but I don't think you do either.

 

You are only addressing one side of the question. We currently have no trouble buying materials or goods abroad. Germany was having lots of problems in the lead up to the war and even more after it started.

 

1) So what are you saying? That germans didn't have mines or mine layers?
Or that they could use more?
And what does "implementing a mine field" mean anyway? Lol
How do you implement a field, I guess the farmers are implementing the corn fields too?
If you make such a grandiose statements like "Germans can't implement mine fields effectively" you better support them with some numbers!

2) Your figures don't differ much from mine, only in the smaller craft sunk.
Your interpretation is odd though.
21 damaged + 5 sunk = 26 out of comision. Compared to 56 available it's nearly half.
Crippling? - depends on your definition of cripple. I'd say at least "teeth shattering".

3) They lost ~64 fighter pilots dude, the lost PLANES figure is 170.

 

1) I was making a point, not ignoring anything.
2) You forget those damaged. Damaged means out of service until repaired.
3) My scenario setup calls for 1 month LW attacks on RN vessels + ports supported by ME109E with drop fuel tanks prior to the invasion. Read my previous posts.
4)
Please :
"... the story of naval bombing in the Spanish Civil War was characterized by minimal results. German naval air theory in the years 1935-1939 supported the idea of an independent naval air arm with floatplanes, flying boats, and naval fighter planes cooperating directly with the Navy. However, the theory was rarely applied. Initially, land-based attacks by planes also proved ineffective. In late October 1936 Franco urged the Condor Legion to bomb Republican naval and supply ports. It did so with disappointing results.[69] Over a year later in the Mediterranean, another attempt was made at maritime bombing to interdict Soviet shipping. This time the Condor Legion enjoyed greater success, its seaplanes raiding shipping at sea by day and in harbor by night. On Franco's orders, the maritime bombing attacks escalated into a full-scale offensive. As Willard C. Frank notes, "Raids became continuous, severely reduced the supplies needed to maintain the [Republican] civilian population, and did serve to undercut morale." [70] By the end of the war in 1939. Italian and German aircraft had sunk 115 Republican and 51 foreign merchant ships, a total equal to nearly 75 percent of all enemy ships destroyed by those two countries during the entire war. Another 225 bombing sorties during this period damaged or delayed many Republican cargoes. choking off a source of the besieged population's food, clothing, fuel and medical supplies and producing increased misery and despair."
Luftwaffe Lessons Learned and Applied

 

1) Well, I went trough the entire day by day history of BoB and didn't find any such cases.
Feel free to dig out something, but my point is still valid.

2) I already explained that. The doctrine called for achieving air superiority , by catching the enemy planes on the ground, which didn't happen. Ergo- change of approach needed.

3) I provided facts and logic behind my statements. You didn't.

4) Yes it does, you were too lazy to read the reference.

5) Yes it does. British ships were always vulnerable when in LW's range.

6) I already stated my scenario before. Of course Ports would be blown. LW was quite capable of both day and night raids on ports.
The RN would be forced to either pay a heavy price or disperse away from LW bomber range.

7) Leave on such short notice?? Destroyers are not planes my friend.
8) You are completely wrong again.
Japanese losses at PH were less than 10% of their aircraft.
Attack on Pearl Harbor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

9) As the kannalkampf showed LW's losses in fighters were less than RAFs ~80% (for the overall losses for the LW vs. RAF during Kannalkampf there are many conflicting figures and I don't intend to argue over that)
As a result Fighter command started to withdraw it's pilots from engaging the enemy over the channel and the LW pilots had to try to lure them in so they can have a good fight.
RN also stopped any convoys through the channel.
In the scenario I'm proposing the 109E's have much longer range so they can stay and fight off any RAF interceptions.
They can also make much longer Jagdsweeps (which proved the most effective tool against the RAF)

 

1),2) Payment is done upon delivery.
Delivery would be done after the fall of France,Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Poland, Checz Rep, Luxemburg and Austria under german control.
Ergo - loot dough available in plenty.

3) It was based on Einsteins theory of relativity and Minkovski space mathematics.
I also received advice from String Theory specialists as well. (shhhh, very complicated!) lol

 

1) You were trying to be a smart alec

2)No I didn't, I said it would be 60% of destroyers left if you took into account those damaged...leaving still 40 destroyers vs. 9.

3)The RAF does what during this?

4)Thanks for providing a link to prove my point....here are some quotes from the cite you posted:

"The Spanish War also indicated how difficult it was for conventional bombers to hit targets both at day and night....Night attacks pointed to the difficulty of not hitting targets, but finding them as well....Night bombing was practiced infrequently in Spain due to the virtually insurmountable difficulties night operations posed....However, the results left no doubt that it was difficult to hit small bridges with poor bomb sights at night....Luftwaffe Chief of Staff Albert Kesselring, Walther Wever's successor, drew the obvious conclusion: night bombing was effective only when the crews possessed a high degree of discipline and technical competence.....Night bombing was also extraordinarily demanding in terms of training, navigation, and mission execution"

 

1) I did? Sorry about that
2) Ok , so 1/5 of LW's force could take out of service 40% of the destroyers for 10 days...
sits just fine with my scenario. And we didn't mention the Greek destroyers and cruisers sunked.
3) The RAF fights the LW. Just like over Dunkirk and during Kannalkampf , with the same respective results.
However if we take into account my presuppositions the ME109E's have twice longer stay in air so the RAF's gonna get punched harder.
4) Huh??!!
You argued that LW cannot attack successfully ships at night before 1941.
I proved you wrong. I win, you lose. End of story.

 

What Manstein later became(and absolutely not'all but the leader of the Wehrmacht ) is irrelevant :in 1940 he was not concerned by the Battle of Dunkirk ;what he did write later(in his memoirs ? ),from where did he get his information ?
About the strength of the 1st panzer:Frieser in 'the Blitzkrieg Legend' gives the followinf tankstrength in may 1940 :2439 of which 523 PzI (and i hope you will agree that whit no gun and little armourthe Pz I was worthless as tank )for 10 PD .This is giving a average strength for a PD as 244 of which 52 Pz I .Combat losses :850 or 85 average .Thus total strength for a PD =159 of which 32 Pz I ;of those 159 we have to subtract the non operational ones ,how much ? We have no figures ,but the distance from the German frontier to the sea is something of 200 km,thus the wear and tear must have been very great . I can only give average numbers,because i don't know (nor you)the exact stregnth of the 1 PD .You have written'several more PD were following the 1st PD .Could you be a little precise ? 2 ? 3? It is not that important,because we have nothing on German tank strength ,for the allies it's even worse :we have nothing .
About Montefiorre :he is very superficial :he is not giving any figures ,and he is forgetting the French :were there any French before the 1st PD ? And how many ? And with which weapons ? How much artilery ? Any tanks ?
To repeat my self:there is not enough information (and this is a understatement) to declare that the Germans coul,on may 24,capture Dunkirk .