How Hitler could have won

Rather quick with the assumptions again I see. For a lot of barges you are probably correct. However the Germans assembled around 3,000 and rejected about half as structurally unsound. It's not clear if they selected the best of the ones available because they were fit or they needed that many and these were the best. In this case the additional forces particularly of outboard cork might impact the structure of marginal barges. Probably not a huge risk but not one to be dismissed out of hand.

More like above 12.7.

The DDs sunk were for the most part either tied up at the pier or maneuvering through mine fields. Once at sea they were often over loaded with evacuees so they couldn't maneuver well. There was not "plenty of AA fire" it was rather limited and the RAF was certainly not over Dunkirk a good portion of the time. While they did manage to intercept some raids these interceptions usually took place some distance from the port (and thus the claim at the time that the RAF wasn't helping as much as it could).

You have a very modest interpretation of spectacular. The LW managed to damage or sink a very modest number of RN units during the Dunkirk evacuation and failed to prevent said evacuation.

 

That's a description of what happened. Hardly proof of what would have happened if the Germans hadn't continued with the offensive.

 

And your point is? A single even proves nothing in a discussion like this. While it's true that the Germans did manage to sink a very few DDs that were operating at speed and with a decent supply of AA ammo it was a rare event. More often the LW got chased off for no effect.

Look for instance at:
RNZN - Museum - The Naval Battle for Crete

 

Look lwd, I presented my opinion on the issue of the thread backed with my arguments.

I have no intention of hi-jacking the thread and making it Sealion thread with all the entrenched hostility and petty micro arguments that usually emerge from it.
I simply don't have the time to spare and frankly - if one is sufficiently entrenched in his perception of something Nothing can steer his mind.
Even if I bring you a full perfect computer simulation at sub-atomic level that proves my point, you'll still find reasons to disagree.

So just consider my arguments a food for thought.

Have fun!

 

Indeed you have. I was just hoping that there was some fact and logic behind them.

 

Just as I was hoping there'll be some fact and logic behind your refuting.

Btw , if this is a contest of "Who posts the last post" then you won.
Lol

 

Whatever about cork and the like if operation sealion had gone ahead there are 2 things that could have happaned but the outcome would have been the same,

1,the invasion was succesful and britain was knocked out of the war,
2,the invasion wasnt successful and britain is knocked out of the war because the rn gets destroyed.

Luftwaffe beats RN,thats all there is to it,at norway the luftwaffe really made the RN pay the price,
the AA destroyers were unable to offer any protection against dive bombers,
The rate of fire of the 4inch guns was too slow and the quad mounted .5 inch guns envelope was too small.

 

The Germans were smart enough that they weren't going to launch Sealion while the RAF and the RN were still capable of defeating it. Which effectively meant they weren't going to launch it. I see no way that the Wehrmacht could come close to achieving the necessary preconditions. Even if the Germans had achieved those conditions it wouldn't have meant destroying the RN just Home fleet.

The RN payed a price at Norway but not a very severe one. The KM on the other hand was gutted and the LW lost a significant portion of their transports.

The loss rate of RN vessels does not support your opinion.

 

I should be careful with Wikipedia ;ex:there are some posts saying that 09 / 11 was a conspiracy of Bush But returning to Dunkirk:200000 British and 300000 French were encircled .They had how much artillery ? I do not know .Was there a chaos ? I don'tknow . Fot the Germans :they had how many operational tanks(let's forget the Pz I without gun and armour ),2 of the Panzer divisions were diverted to Calais and Boulogne ,how much artillery (with tanks you can't capture a city ,how much infantry ,a lot of infantry and supplies having only crossed the German frontier ? I do not know. I haven't seen yet a detailed study proving that the Germans could capture Dunkirk on may 24 . And the most important question:would the British have said after the fall of Dunkirk:having lost 200000 men of the BEF,we will give up ? I don't know,neither you ,in fact nobody knows,one can only speculate .

 

If you don't mind I'll mark your points with numbers and then answer those. (makes it more readable)

1) But it actually was a conspiracy!! (joke)

2) It was more like 338 000 british and ~130000 French
The German forces surrounding them were ~800000
3) The Dunkirk itself was not defended seriously in may 24. Only after the delay of 3 days
that resulted from AH's orders did they manage to establish a defensive perimeter.
German tanks of Kleist panzergroup had already crossed the only water barrier and were in front of Dunkirk.
According to Manstein and Tippelskirh (I hope I didn't make too many spelling errors) If the panzers weren't stopped by the order they would have taken the city.
Now taking the city and countinuation of the drive would have meant that the surrounding force would have no port to embark from and resuming of the attacks from all sides would have caused complete chaos (the usual result of blitzkrieg)
How many could have escaped...?
Probably a tenth of what actually happened at best.
4) Of course, but if you look at the name of the section - it's called "what if" - it's purpose is to speculate and extrapolate.
The opinion that without AH orders there would have been be no evacuation is widely accepted as far as I know. So it's not my idea.

 

1) Then why did they leave in such a hurry? Felt homesick I suppose...
2) You must be joking, USA also has severe economical problems today ,but still pays trillions
for oversees fleets and what not. Germany was controlling the whole Europe, try to grasp that concept.
3) And I've got news for you, the effect of the interaction is not worth mentioning.

 

1) Actually it is.
2) There were no german mine fields around Dunkirk. But there would have been during Sealion.
3) Let's see in 2 clear and 8 overcast days we have 5 destroyers sunk, 19 damaged (half the homefleet destroyers) and 200 smaller vessels sunk - all while heavy attacks from the RAF
in addition 170 RAF planes downed.
Hmmmm, if that's modest ... what will be spectacular for you? Landing in Buckingam palace and kidnaping Churchill?

 

1) My point was stated several times. Read up.
2) Try to decide, you wanted facts - I gave you. Now you don't like them - that's between you and the facts....
Btw what "kind of discussion " is this , maybe you are in a different discussion.
3) Actually battle of Crete proves my point - 9 warships lost by Allies and 18 damaged in 10 days....

 

1) That's a wish, not a strategic plan.
2) They knew very well that they are not catching any planes on the ground.
3) They knew that their initial doctrine is wrong long before switching to London.
Did nothing about it since didn't have sound strategic plan in advance.
4) If you have arguments, state them and support them." Doesn't sound to me" is not a mature argument.
5) Completely wrong. Stukas were withdrawn from inland bombing after 18 aug.
They were never withdrawn from channel ship bombing. Battle of Britain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
6) Not according to the recorded history
Battle of Dunkirk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
7) If the destroyers are going to port which port would that be?
According to my scenario all the ports in southern UK are bombed in the month preceeding the operation.
And while the destroyer is in port how is it going to maneuver against attacking planes.
Think about Pearl Harbour.
8) I've provided facts, logical explanations and even math calculations.
you've provided only your vague unbased opinion, arguments of the "Doesn't sound to me" type.

 

Sitting in harbor, out of AA ammo. Big whoop. Fish in a barrel sounds about right.

 

1) Not true.
2) Why out of AA ammo? - cause they were shooting it at LW planes previously.

 

Your point 2 :338000 was the TOTAL number that escaped,of which 198000 British ,the rest of the British(140000 ) escaped from the West coast. Your point 3 :Manstein was not present at Dunkirk:he commanded a reseve infantrie corps that was engaged only in the 2 nd phase in june (Fall Rot ) your point 4:yes it is a what if sectionbut you should be logical:saying if Dunkirk was captured :OK ;but saying they could capture Dunkirk,but Hitler...:not OK,because you are starting from a unproven point .The opinion that without Hitler no evacuation widely accepted:what is widely ? It is an unproven point:no information on the German and allied strength :"German tanks of Panzergruppe Kleist .....":how much ? 10? 20 ? ..and again :tanks without support are very vulnerable :the omnipotence of the tanks is a myth ;the break-trough at Sedan was not caused by the tanks,bur by the stukas,used in a role of flying artillery

 

If anything the Navel battles of Crete show the Luftwaffe's inability to be an affective force against the RN. With over 500 aircraft deployed all they could manage in a week and a half is 3 cruisers and 9 destroyers, while damaging others which were later repaired. It should also be noted that most of those loses occurred because of the RN ships being docked, caught alone, or low on AA ammunition (a problem not encountered in home waters). 3 cruisers and 9 destroyers may seem like a lot but compare that to the force of 5 battleships, 1 battle cruiser, 6 heavy cruisers, 8 light cruisers, and 30 destroyers, plus another 36 destroyers on channel duty, which the Luftwaffe is going to have to face if they launch Sealion.

Another thing the Luftwaffe can't do is operate at night. The RN would have pretty much free range once night falls.

 

Sorry I haven't read the other posts to this skimmed over some of the more fanciful ones so excuse me if it's been said before. Hitler had only one way of winning. To use the Allies to fight the Russians How could he have done this? well there's the rub, by patience. If he hadn't Pushed on into Poland and instead discussed the annexation of the Polish corridor diplomatically with the Uk and France , whilst still planning to annex by force. He could have pulled the Russians in first to annex eastern Poland and then rush to the rescue, first of the Ostprusse and then of Poland whilst asking for aid from the British navy to block Saint Petersburg, thus tying up the soviets to the Northern shores, whilst moving the land army onto Moscow or the oil fileds its your choice. He could have signed an non agression pact with the Poles prior to the annexation assuring Poland of its borders from attack, but not from negioation, as in the Sudeten Lands. The problem with that scenario is , or was America , which would have been needed by the German/Polish/UK forces to provide oil and supplies during the conflict wouldn't have been too happy to fight Japan and Russia in the pacific. of course there the added problem of National Socialist policies would we have traded a stalement, after the Possible defeat of Russia, for the resttlement of the Jews to a non European outpost(Madagascar/Palestine etc)and what would become of the newly conquered Russia we certainly wouldn't have shared Hitlers vision? IT would have been war or another version of the stalement that was the cold war.

 

1) Most of the high command wasn't actually present at the battlefield as well, how is that relevant.
Manstein was the brain behind the Fall Gelb, he knew what he was talking about.
He was considered a military genius not only by his german peers , but by many Western and Eastern generals as well.

2),3) On 25th the 1st panzer division was in front of Dunkirk , ready to attack , that's:
~200 tanks + 1 artillery regiment + tank hunter battalion + AA battalion + engineers+ reconissance + infantry battalion etc.
Behind them there were several more divisions just hours away.
There was no coherently organized defense of the city at 25 june.
It's possible even that the Allies would have fled at the site of the armored advance , just as they fled when Rommel feinted panzer attack to Cambrai earlier.
4) Why wouldn't they have support? They had all LW stukas to support them in 20 minute
notice.