How Hitler could have won

Alright, I agree my statement was a little too harsh. However, to move on, the quotes I provided from your website clearly show the difficulties of night attacks.

 

I provided you with information and references from both sides, I gave you numbers and reasonable approximations about the forces involved and the timing.
My conclusion concurs with that of Manstein , Tippelskirh, Montefiorre and many others,
if the order to stop the tanks wasn't given, Dunkirk would have been occupied by germans, probably the same day (25 may).

If you want to argue with that, fine - provide facts and reasoning which refute my extrapolation and lets discuss that.
But so far your only argument is that you don't know nothing... what kind of argument is that?!

 

I agree.

 

Dunkirk is similar to Crete in showing Luftwaffe faliure

 

FRom 'the Blitzkrieg Legend' P 293 :It must be emphasized that the Panzers were already stopped by the close-up order issued by Kluge and Rundstedt ,dated 23 may -in other words long before the famous halt order of 24 may .

 

Many others ?? Names please .
I should appreciate if you would not distort my words: 'you do not know nothing ' WHERE did I write that ? Where ? My position is that there is not enough information to declare that Dunkirk could be captured .

 

These orders were tactical, and the final stop didn't occur until approximately half a day after the orders were given.
They are irrelevant anyhow since the real decision wasn't made at the army group level, but at the level of high command by AH.
It should be noted that the OKH's generaloberst Halder was insisting in continuation of the armored attack and only AH's personal intervention stopped that from happening.
My point is and remains that had there been a strategic plans and intent for UK invasion in advance such intervention on AH's part would be unthinkable.

 

1) I gave enough names and quotes on both sides of the event.
2) Fine. No disrespect intended.
3) I gave you sufficient information to back my argument.
In light of that your position seems more like a monologue than part of a discussion.

 

For fear of labouring the point i'll keep this short,LW V RN = LW win.

This whole LW couldnt attack ships is crazy,as can be seen at norway and crete,they were quite effective despite specialised AA destroyers.

 

They only had enough mines to lay (impliment) a very thin field (ie no more than a couple of lines with gaps big enough that a ship would have a very good chance of not hitting a mine). They also lacked enough minelayers to lay the fields in the period rerquired. Furthermore many of their mine layers were tasked with other duties during Sea Lion.
Check out Axis History Forum • View topic - Seelöwe - German & British mining operations and some of the other threads on it over there.

Well if I read:
Royal Navy, warships, WW2, battleships, battlecruisers, aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers, submarines, escorts
correct home fleet had over 80 DDs for one thing. 56 was the number involved in the recue. Then many of those damaged were back in service with in a month or so. So crippling no, teeth shattering not really. Significant yes but sustainable.

That seems to be in dispute. The 170 number may be the total RAF losses for that periord or an approximation of them.

 

OK. From:
Fighter Command Airfields of 11 Group

And your point is not valid. They had no way of knowing ahead of time that they would not catch planes on the ground. Indeed they did.

I'm not sure if this properly speeking even qualifies as doctrine. However the Luftwaffe aim was to achieve air superiority by attriting the RAF on the ground and in the air. So while the doctrine wasn't working they thought it was. IE they had no reason to change it.

Some facts, more assumptions, and a lot of faulty logic. For the most part I've been pointing out the faulty logic.

This doesn't seem to answer my response.

They were capable of night raids but like most other peoples night raids they would have been mostly ineffective. "Blowing" a port is non trivial. How long was PH out of action? Or the British East coast ports? Daylight raids on ports such as Scapa and the west coast ports would have shattered the LW. They would have been intercepted coming and going and taken massive losses to AA fire.

How long do you think it takes a ship to get underway?

You are way to dependent on Wiki. From:
Order of Battle - Pearl Harbor - 7 December 1941

So ~13% destroyed but 36% damaged or destroyed. You can't do that too many times in a row and have an airforce left. And as I said that was against a totaly unprepared opponent with no fighters in the air when the raid arrived.

But you are proposing they gain this range with drop tanks. This means that if they or the planes they are escroting are intercepted early on there goes their extra range.

 

So some time in what 1938 or 1939 you are going to go to Portugal and Spain and convince the cork growers there that you want a good portion of their product in 1940 and that you'll pay for it as soon as they deliver it to you in France after you've conquered France along with Poland, Holland, Denmark, Norway, etc ..... What do you expect them to say other than: "Can I have some of what you are drinking?"

Or are you saying in June of 1940 I want a good portion of your years production and I need it by what the end of August? What are the odds they have it on hand? Or that most of it isn't already spoken for. Remember Cork was used in life preservers at the time and the demand for them would have started going up with the U-boat attacks and the naval expansions of the time.

In other words your wishful thinking.

 

Well here's some info from the Polish campaign from:
The Winter Lions

http://books.google.com/books?id=QTSVYQZpT0wC&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=Panzer+division+operational+tanks+1940&source=bl&ots=lYtgvbWKnz&sig=8SQ3FSfYMMpu1-ptvhIaIbsW5Ks&hl=en&ei=4pC3SunGNdPQlAfy-9GbDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepage&q=operational%20tanks%20&f=false
Also has some good info. Copying from page 60
4 PD for instance on 16 May has a total of 68 operational Px Is, 53 operational PZ IIs, 18 Operational Pz IIIs and 9 operational Pz IVs.

 

Opinion rather unsubstantiated by history. And of course around Britain it would be LW vs RAF and RN.

No one has said the LW couldn't attack ships. However it's pretty clerar that they weren't particularly effective at attacking warships at sea capable of maneuvering well with a decentl load of AA ammo. That's the real lesson of Crete and Norway.

 

Oh???? Did they stop the RN off of either Norway or Crete from evacuating their troops? Did the RN have any fighter coverage at all over Crete or Norway? They would have some fighter cover over the Channel or English Beaches. Also look at the USN & IJN in the Pacific at what they had to throw at BB leadd forces to stop them. What about Operation Pedastal? It was the Italian Airforce that seemed to do the Lion's share of the damage not the Luftwaffe. Did the Luftwaffe have any special night fighting ability? How many torpedoe carrying aircraft did the Luftwaffe have?

 

Oh please, "ickysdad" has already corrected you on the Norwegian operations, and I'll point out the other lack of ability in the LW. There is no way anybody is going to make Seelowe work. One has to look for specialized anti-shipping units, both recon and attack, like torpedo bombers, armor-piercing bombs for dive bombers, and training facilities for such at the time of the proposed Operation Seelowe. A look at the historical record, WHERE ARE such planes, training, and ordnance? Germany had NO torpedo-bombers! Germany had no armor-piercing bombs to take out armored warships at the time! Germany had no maritime reconnaissance units and no dive-bombing units trained to hit warships! And no aerial delivered torpedoes that functioned.

So in 1940, when Germany was going up against Great Britain, a noted and recognized maritime power, she had NO anti-shipping units capable of engaging warships any larger than destroyers! HOW are they going to stop or even slow down the warships of the Royal Navy coming to decimate Seelowe? In reality, small ships like destroyers would be better suited to wade in amongst the Seelowe invasion convoy, so how would the Luftwaffe fare against them? We only have to look at the DISMAL performance of the Luftwaffe in trying to hit the destroyers involved at Dunkirk for the answer. The Nazis only managed to sink 6 RN destroyers at Dunkirk while they were taking on troops, and the Kreigsmarine was responsible for two of them. The French lost three destroyers, but one of the French destroyers hit a mine, another was sunk by an E-boat, and only one was hit by the Luftwaffe. This in a target rich environment of 39 destroyers, and 36 mine-sweepers being used as "taxis" and sitting at anchor taking on passengers.

Fast-forward to late 1941 and we see the Germans trying to rectify this flaw in their maritime interdiction forces with Fleigerkorps X in the Mediterranean. Now we actually have Luftwaffe torpedo-bombers (He-111 and a few Ju-88's) and properly-equipped Ju-87 dive bombers, and subsequent harassment of the Royal Navy there, but...how many heavy cruisers, battleships, or carriers did the Luftwaffe sink? NONE. The heavy cruiser York was heavily damaged by the Luftwaffe; but was only put permanently out of action later by Italian explosive motor boats. The PRE-DREADNOUGHT Greek Lemnos was sunk in harbor by Stukas (but she was not armored against aircraft attacks).

The warship losses at Crete were 3 RN Light cruisers, HMSKashmir, Kelly, and Calcutta, (WWI C class ship), and 6 destroyers and another 12 warships were lightly damaged, but those were repaired to fight again another day. The ships they sank were for the most part either at anchor, un-armored for aerial attack, or had run out of AA ammunition or a combination of "all of the above".

This again was a full year after the proposed Seelowe Operation, and the dismal performance of the Luftwaffe at Dunkirk.

 

Lwd :interesting information,but I have only the Blitzkrieglegend and there the figures are 2439 tanks,of which 525 PzI ,for the 10 PZ Divisions,but nothing for the separate divisions,how can one than have a tankstrength for the 1st PD on 24 may ?Having nothing for the 1st PD on may 24,how can one then declare with certainty that the 1st PD could capture Dunkirk ?Besides ,having no information on the allied forces opposing the 1st PD,one can not say that they were to weak,neither that they were strong enough to resist a German attack . I am wondering why there is no detailed information on the German panzerdivisions on 10 may 1940,while that information exist for 22 june 1941 . Cheers

 

Even having them one would be going out on a limb saying anything with certainty. That said asking on the Axis history forum might get you a run down for the date. Some people there seem to have access to the detailed German records. Might be off a day or three in either direction though.

 

Lwd:thank you very much;I will contact the AHF

 

1) Interesting discussion.
It mentions that even before any serios minefields were laid, 2 destroyers were sunk and 1 damaged by german mines in the channel.
Now obviously the Germans could use more mines and more minelayers.
But according to your very link they had some 12000 mines (part of them acoustic) and that's nothing to snub at.
There is an additional nuance to mine use that you miss - the invasion fleet has to cross the channel in two single files and then return,
The RN has to enter the channel and block it completely by constant patrolling - the latter involves much more different "threads of movement"
across different areas with lot of lurking dangers therefore increasing in several orders of magnitude the chance of hitting a mine.
It may seem a difficult concept to grasp , but try to think about it at least!

2) That's Odd, so the atlantic fleet had only 15 destroyers at its disposal?? In spite of constant U-boat dangers to convoys?
I think you are projecting 1939 figures incorectly to 1940.
In any case the RN had some 184 destroyers all over world, what counts is how many were capable of reaching the channel in less than 3 days.
I doubth that figure would exceed 30-40 if my scenario preconditions are taken into accout.
And after the first wave lands, the strategic situation changes dramatically.

3) Maybe there is a dispute , but it surely isn't going under the 170 figure.
This link states 474 RAF planes lost for that period:
Dunkirk evacuation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4),5) 3 planes on the ground!! after 2 months of attacks?? Compare that to ~2000 thousand russian planes bombed on the ground in first few days and
you'll get the picture.
Their doctrine was more than just catching the planes actually on the ground surfice.
It was about difference in altitude between the attacker and the defender .
In France , when LW attacked the enemy planes may have taken off , but they were nowhere near high altitudes and fighters need high altitude prior to
engagement to be most effective.

The LW pilots knew perfectly well even during the first few days of BoB that something is not right, since the fighters they met were already at high altitudes and ready to attack.
Why are you refusing to understand that?

6) You seem to dislike logic in general.

7) It actualy does.

8) AA fire was causing ~10 % of LW losses in BoB historicaly so I wouldn't bet on that.
As for the interception , sure. As I said earlier, Kannalkampf losses on both sides show
that the attrition rate was much worse for the RAF fighters than the LW fighters.
So it's like having a BoB , but in much more favorable situation - above the sea.
Also the Radar warning is much shorter and the path for the interceptors much longer.

9) In the ideal situation, whith the crew ready on the ship and no vessel blocking their exit path ~-
maybe half an hour to just clear the port entrance.
In the middle of ammunition loading or damage repairing- more like an hour.

In both cases the destroyer /cruiser gets whooped big time since best Home chain warnings were ~ 20 min.
It can't maneuver inside the port - it's trapped.

10) Let's see ... an airplane does the most complicated trick of landing on a little floating airfield... And you label it
in the same category as a plane that crashed and burned???? i.e. "damaged and destroyed" as if it's practically the same thing...
Lol, you sound like a used car salesman in reverse!

11) That's correct.
But keep in mind that while in flight they use fuel from the drop tank.
So when they drop it, they still have half the flight time left intact.

12) More like in the beginning of 1940, arrange for it and put some downpaiment upfront to secure the deal.
Ohhh and I forgot.... lol take the stock of 2/3 s of Europe. And after few months of the whole Europe.

France was big wine producer ,Just for kicks, how do you think that is relevant? Lol

And btw, why are you so fascinated with cork? I said there are many other materials.

13) Wishful thinking? Why would you think I wish that? It's about "what if" scenarios from the past.... why on earth would I wish for
WWII to repeat itself?