How Hitler could have won

Compared to what? Certainly they didn't appear to be significantly slower than the Germans in the back an forth in Africa. In Britian they would have huge mobility advantages over the foot mobile Germans.

You might but you would be wrong. The Germans would be outnumbered in men, tanks, and artillery and with limited logistics support.

Many were already in place but the Germans have to telegraph the assault. For instance they had to start laying the mine fields a week or so before the invasion. Furthermore as we've mentioned the barges would take a fair amount of time to cross the channel even without British opposition. The runup to the invasion is also going to be fairly obvious. Loading a bunch of barges in French ports tends to get noticed..

Even if the LW had mangled the RAF without loosing any signficant number of planes they would still be overtasked. They had to:
1) prevent RN inter ferrence
2) supply CAP over the beaches and invasion fleet
3) perform close support for the landing
4) provide interdiction further inland.

Note om regards to 2 if the LW has three as many fighters as the RAF and devotes them all to CAP the RAF can still meet them on equal terms. If they try it when there are near equal numbers they get crushed.

Note also if they make the roads impassible it isn't going to help the Germans much when they try advancing over them is it?

Unlikely. They couldn't take the RAF down low enough to maintain air superiority during day light hours.

How so? Most of it was in the Baltic where the only opposition was a few British subs. Norway was not at war with Germany at the time so they didn't have to worry that much about Norwegian forces which were pretty small in any case.

That's because the invasion forces were already ashore by the time the RN could intervene. On the otherhand the RN pretty well destroyed the KM at Norway and look what they did to the naval portion of the Crete invasion.

 

You just don't get it do you ?
In both Norway and Dunkirk, the overall campaign might have been won by the German's but in both campaigns the Royal Navy achieved the missions that were given to it.
I suppose that if Operation Sealion had gone ahead, and the RN had lost, lets say 20 destroyers to Luftwaffe losses of around 200 you would claim it was a victory for the Luftwaffe, even if the destroyers had sank every German vessel in the Channel larger than a rowing boat.

 

The claim that the British army was slow is largely a myth. The British army in fact holds the record for the army that travelled the furthest and fastest in WW2 with the 8th Army from El Alamein to Tunis, a distance of 1,850 miles, in 201 days. It also holds the record for the fastest advance during the 1944 battle of France during the breakout with an advance for the 21st Group of 250 miles in four days.

No it isn't.
In fact, the actual German plan stated that the invasion force would not attempt to breakout of its beach head for at least 14 days after S-Tag, as the German's were aware their logistical supply would not allow an early breakout

No they don't. The British for some reason suspected the German's might attempt an invasion, so they had already deployed their formations in defensive positions

If the LW busy doing this who's dealing with the RN ????

No there wouldn't, the RAF fighters that would have been withdrawn to the North if the battle had gone badly for the RAF would be both providing cover for the RN and disrupting the invasion

Attacking a neutral nation with a small navy without warning is more dangerous than attacking an island that is fully alert to an invasion and is protected by the most powerful navy in the world ????
I want a pint of what you are drinking

 

On comparing Sea Lion to Norway ,did the Norweigions have radar early warning? Could the British radars in Southern England reach out /over into France whereupon detecting any forming up of Luftwaffe formations?

 

Please the Allies had complete air supremacy and extremely good air reconnaissance planes yet they still couldn't "blow the Wehrmarcht's artillery to bits", there's a thing called camouflage. Also the Invasion of Norway was facilitated by the fact that German forces used the Danish Kattegat to launch an attack on a nation that had not began to mobilize as well as using fast warships to transport approximately a division worth of soldiers. Problems was most of the Kreigsmarine surface fleet was either heavily damaged or sunked after the campaign.

The LW couldn't stop the RN from accomplishing it's mission at Dunkirk that's fact. If a single destroyer makes it through it's over for the invasion force. Oh and RAF Coastal Command's Bristol Beauforts will take care of the rest of the invasion force.

 

All right guys thats enough. This thread has been going over the same points over and over again with very few members posting new facts or in fact even backing up anything that is said besides the well known and accepted facts of ww2.

I allowed the SeaLion discussion due to it fitting in with the 'How could Hitler have won' topic, but it is simply going to far.
Any of you wishing to continue this useless Operation Sealion topic, then please move it to another thread that is overly relevant to that topic.

This thread will now be closed for a few days.

 

Thread Reopened.

Ok ladies and gents. I am in a bit of a cheery mood today since I have finished work and have a beer in hand.
So, with that, this thread is now going to be reopened, however lets keep the sealion topic in good order and not stray to far from the topic of this thread.

 

Not sure if this iss the best place to post this but there's an excelent thread on RN DD availability at:
Axis History Forum • View topic - Royal Navy Destroyers

 

I do not want to think about Hitler victory, this idea is unthinkable.

 

If the allied generals thought that way we would have lost the war.

 

Could you explain that further?

 

Perhaps the What-If forum isn't your best bet.

 

If the allied generals thought (like some guys here think) that victory was assured from the start, them we would have lost the war. Subestimating you opponents is recipe for disaster (that was Hitler's fatal error).

What happened in the beginning of WW2 was:

The wehrmacht turned Europe's soil red with the blood of its enemies between 1939 and 1941.

Them the Nazis thought that they were invincible and declared war on everybody. While the allies understood the immense capabilities of the wehrmacht and worked to defeat it in a very long nasty war.

 

I always thought that if Hitler had invaded the USSR a few months earlier instead of assisting Mussolini in the Balkans and Greece, then the Wehrmacht could have pushed far enough before the Russian winter beat them off.

 

It's been covered in a number of threads but apparently there would have been signficant problems due to mud ealier such that the Germans may have actually been worse off if they had started earlier. I'm also pretty sure "months" earlier was not an option.

 

Germany could have never achieved a full victory to the scale Adolf Hitler had devised. Hitler believed he could create a new world order under one regime. Germany, Italy, and Japan and the minor Axis powers did not have the manpower and the resources to subdue the rest of the world. On the otherhand, this is a what if board so in the realm of hypothetical scenarios, If the USSR remained on Germany's side and somehow joined the axis, I think they would have a pretty good shot at taking over the entire continents of Asia, Europe, and Africa. Beyond that is in the realm of impossibility.

 

What he should of done was attack russia in the early Spring (so he wont suffer due to the russian winter) and possibly attack a few years later then he would be stronger (i know the Kreigsmarine wanted to postpone the war to 1948 when they completed their rebuilding programme) and if Japan lept their mouths shut about december 7th and instead flanked and attacked the back of Russia (Stalin brought troops from the far reaches of the Sovet Empire to defend Moscow) Japan and Germany would of without a doubt, captured the Soviet Union; his main goal.

 

The "he should have attacked in spring" debate has been waged many times before and it is to the conclusion that it would not have mattered.
In fact the fall of moscow debate has also been done to death and the fall of the one city does not guarantee victory to the Germans.

Why would the Russians move troops to the West to defend Moscow, if Germany didn't attack in 41?

Now even if the Japanese did attack Russian from the South, what could they hope to gain in those regions of significant military value?