Discussion in 'What If - European Theater - Western Front & Atlan' started by T. A. Gardner, May 26, 2008.
nice to have such clear definitions. on the other hand, they weren't that terribly hard to understand, even without wiki. the drift of the exchange was lost somewhere back.
I think that Hitler could have finished off Britain had he not changed his tactics. By that I mean when Britain bombed Berlin during the battle, Hitler changed his focus and bombed London. Had he stayed with his initial plan, he could have finished them off, in my opinion, by the end of September, 1940.
How would he have been able to get armor across the channel? I invite you to read the other 100 or so posts in this thread.
You would think that some would read them wouldn't you Jeff? LOL MY God how many times will people keep briging this up? There are IIRC at least 3 threads about "Sealion" and God knows how many posts about it.
:headbash: :headbonk: :deadhorse:
Probablly at least three hundred all over the the internet on these discussion boards. My fave is one where it is proposed the Germans build hollow concrete cylinders which will be filled with supplies and transported across the Channel by submarine. The proponent, who argued these things endlessly thought this would get around any possible interdiction by the RAF or Royal Navy.
What if the Channel Tunnel construction was brought forward some 60 years - without having the Brits notice this?
They'd be in for a surprise. And meticulous as the Germans are, I bet they would think of small details like lane switching.
Sure invading a country is very nice and pretty but please respect the traffic rules!
Oh I've heard of the cilinder tubes theory before did they actualy planed to do that or is that just some more of the "I heard once German army was so good, that one German soldier could take out 12 Russians alone with his teeth..."
Thats a good one!!!! . I guess some will go to any lengthts to try and make it so Germany can win. And of course if they had we wouldn't be here .
I got a good one,
Why don't they move some rail guns over to the channel and face them to France. Then load special shells full of ammo and supplies in the breachs and fire them across to the channel to the Fallshirmjaeger troops waiting,
A perfect plan. lol
They tried that and it almost worked... except the shells kept exploding killing all of the Germans... the English government didn't want anyone to know that they had been invaded so the covered it up, then when the aliens showed up they sent them over to Germany to do experiments but they got lost and ended up in Russia and this is how all the purges went on, and other bad things too. When Stalin found the aliens he had them shot and cried because he doesn't like killing, but something had to be done about them.
When the aliens families found out that they had been murdered the sent down the bet hunter they had and he killed lots of people, the problem was that it took him 40 years to get her and he could never land in the right country (probably because the USSR didn't exist, but New York is close enough) so he went around killing bade guys and anyone else with a gun or weapon, but there was this cop... and he won. So yeah. Thats what Germany couldn't cross the channel.
i remember seeing a caricature made during napoleon's time, showing the french invading england. ships were of course crossing the channel, as were hot air balloons carrying troops, and miners tunneling under the the channel floor.
more than 128 years and no better solution was found!
Tik, I find your post excessively facetious. May I remind you that this is the What-If section, posting here is to be made in an appropriately serious manner.
I am sorry, I tried to resist but it didn't work.
Please forgive me.
This is probably the 'grand daddy' of all what ifs!
IMHO, Germany in 1940 was incapable of mounting an amphibious assault on the British Isles without taking extraordinary risks. This opinion is based upon a comparison between the resources available to the Western Allies in 1944 when they undertook the invasion of France.
Anyone who has read anything about D-Day will know of the incredible level of preparation spanning over years of intelligence, resourcing, training and planning, so I wont digress into that detail. The essense is that even with the combined weight of a fully mobilised USA & British Commonwealth, a cross channel amphibious operation was still considered an ambitious and difficult task with little margin for error.
Although it could be argued that the UK in 1940 was a weaker target than Germany in 1944, that margin for error would be much less for Germany in 1940 considering its lack of amphibious equipment, experience and short preparation time.
For this reason, my hypothetical scenario would be that Germany goes for a softer target in September 1940 in the form of Africa purely as a political gambit. The doves in Westminster were definately cooing in late 1940 - a catastrophic defeat in North Africa (the one ray of hope for the British in 1940) and no BOB 'finest hour' might have been enough for Churchill's opponents to take control and bring the Brits to the table. That is a big MIGHT, but we are talking hypotheticals here. It is also questionable whether the axis could achieve a complete victory in Africa in late 1940, but I'll save that analysis for another day.
An early African campaign does represent a smaller gamble (again I admit that is open to debate) than an attack on the British Isles, so with Hitler staring a stalemate in the face, it might just have been one of the few options remaining to him.
A peaceful settlement may have been the result with some reparations, arms restrictions, perhaps some zones of German occupation and the loss of some or all of Britain's colonies. This would probably have represented the German 'best case' scenario for 'finishing Britain'.
A nice 'what if' for another day would be whether Japan would need to start a Pacific war if Britain were forced to cede her resource rich colonies in SE Asia to her as part of the treaty.
Food for thought.
there are 2 strange events:
- Dunkirk, the germans could destroy british army but they didn't
- Hess mysteriously flew to england
Hitler didn't want to invade england as first option, but he tried to find an agreement with Churchill in order to rule in Continental Europe. German army had not any amphibious vessel or unit, and no unit undertake any specific training for this. All the attempts to create an invasion landing force were too hurried (following the resistance of Churchill) and it was too late.
True the invasion area had a modern fort with 9.2 inch and six inch guns with a full stock of ammunition as well as suplementry batteries of old 4.5 and six inch guns from first world war ships with about a hundred rounds a gun.
>>Air superiority trumps navel superiority. With air superiority
the channel crossing becomes viable.<<
That assumes two things that they could gain ascendancy in the air british Pilot training and Aircraft production was higher than Germany's in 1940 the Germans had built up a superiority in numbers by rearming earlier but Beaverbrook had boosted fighter production to levels much higher than losses. The major danger in 1940 was running out of pilots by the ned of 1940 this wasnt such a danger especially with pilot training in Canada south africa and Australia being ramped up.
The plan was for light forces to oppose the landing and for heavier units to force their way in about twenty four to fort eight house later imagine the effect on DD ay if the Germans had placed a few dozen cruisers and battle ships behind the landing and shelled it at point blank.
The Luftwaffe would have inflicted losses on the fleet but the fleet had been attacked by specialy trained elite german air units around Malta and losses in actual war ships were serious but not critical and those engagements went on for 8 or 9 days. The German pilots were trained to attack ships the general uftwaffe were not and the fleet had no aircover at all.
The Germans invasion would have face the 18 submarines available to the RN as well as the entire fleet air arm who would have been attacking a fleet protected by a german naval force that had lost half its strength in Norway.
The Royal Navies desperate determination can be judged by the ramming and crippling of a German heavy cruiser in a suicide attack in Norway given that they would have been in home waters and that the German transports were barges from Holland rafts of oil drums with out board motors it seems the invasion flleet would have been a bit vunerable their heviest unuits were two pre dreadnought battleships which the gemans planned to beach as support bateries.
If you read a number of the previous posts on this subject you will find that the RAF was actually stronger at the time of the change in tactics, than it was at the start of the battle.
If you're fighting an attritional battle and your enemy is still getting stronger, it means only one thing......you are losing the battle
I do not want to offend anyone on this Forum or thread, but the “if” should at least contain a grain of a possible scenario.
What would have happened “if” Hitler would have listened to his Generals and had opened up the Kursk battle about 8 weeks before? This would be an “if” that I could follow up with.
But “if” Hitler decides to finish Britain is like “if” Hitler had decided to like Jews, or communists.