What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Locked
glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#151

Post by glenn239 » 11 Nov 2019, 19:51

ljadw wrote:
10 Nov 2019, 08:13
You ''forget '' two things = that there were only 3/4 months that Sealion was possible : may/june/july/august .And that it would take at least ONE year to build Siebel Ferries/MFP's and to have the crew for them.And how would these Siebel Ferries/MFP's go to the Channel ports ?
Yes, start in June 1940 with the building program to be ready for May 1941. The invasion season ran from May until September, after which some of the forces pinned in Britain could move elsewhere. In terms of moving shipping, the Germans ran coastal convoys along the French coast all the way up to Normandy in 1944.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#152

Post by glenn239 » 11 Nov 2019, 19:56

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
11 Nov 2019, 00:15
glenn239 wrote:Step 1: Don't invade Russia
Step 2: put all your resources into naval/aviation.
Step 3: watch Stalin build up 500 divisions on your eastern border.
Step 4: lose your natural resources when Stalin doesn't renew trade agreements.
Step 5: watch the U.S. render Step 2 futile via the 2-Ocean Navy Act.
Step 6: choose between resource starvation and futile attack on SU with a weaker Heer vs. a much-bigger RKKA, all while the West bottles/destroys your fleet and ruins your cities.
Step 3 - Speculation.
Step 4 - More speculation.
Step 5 - If the US enters the war, concentrate on securing the Med and good relations with the USSR.
Step 6 - Germany is going to invade the Soviet Union to stop air raids on German cities? That doesn't even make sense. Are the Germans confused and thinking the US 8th Air Force is based in Soviet Poland?


glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#153

Post by glenn239 » 11 Nov 2019, 20:02

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
11 Nov 2019, 02:20
To argue for 3, Glenn must believe that the SU wouldn't have been opportunistic against a Germany fully committed to building the air/naval forces necessary to beat the SU.
Chances of Barbarossa defeating the USSR - about 0%
Chances of the Soviet Union attacking Germany if no Barbarossa - not more than 50/50.
Chances the Soviet Union allies with Germany and joins the Axis - not more than 50/50.

If a person has cancer and one treatment option has around a 0% chance of working, and the other has about 50/50 chance, why would the patient ever select certain death? Your previous list was a series of worst case scenarios speculating on what the Soviets might do. But the invasion of Russia made it certain that the Soviets would do everything on the list you itemized. To invade the Soviet Union for speculative fear of a Soviet attack is called suicide for fear of death. In diplomatic usage, it means that countries should not engage in self-destruction for fear of outcomes that may not occur.
Last edited by glenn239 on 11 Nov 2019, 20:08, edited 1 time in total.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#154

Post by glenn239 » 11 Nov 2019, 20:06

HistoryGeek2019 wrote:
11 Nov 2019, 02:56
Yes, this is exactly what made Barbarossa a stupid idea, even without the benefit of hindsight. To ignore the logistical difficulties of a 3 million man invasion into the largest country by area on the planet is the very definition of stupidity.
I've long argued - under heavy internet fire from all sides - that Sealion was the obvious strategic choice for Germany, and that Barbarossa was insane. By invading Russia, Germany lost 1,000,000 casualties in the east in 1941 for 0 British casualties. Sealion was likely to go bad for Germany easily, but there was no possible Sealion outcome that would be 1,000,000 German casualties and 0 British casualties.

HistoryGeek2019
Member
Posts: 399
Joined: 06 Aug 2019, 04:55
Location: America

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#155

Post by HistoryGeek2019 » 11 Nov 2019, 20:35

glenn239 wrote:
11 Nov 2019, 20:06
HistoryGeek2019 wrote:
11 Nov 2019, 02:56
Yes, this is exactly what made Barbarossa a stupid idea, even without the benefit of hindsight. To ignore the logistical difficulties of a 3 million man invasion into the largest country by area on the planet is the very definition of stupidity.
I've long argued - under heavy internet fire from all sides - that Sealion was the obvious strategic choice for Germany, and that Barbarossa was insane. By invading Russia, Germany lost 1,000,000 casualties in the east in 1941 for 0 British casualties. Sealion was likely to go bad for Germany easily, but there was no possible Sealion outcome that would be 1,000,000 German casualties and 0 British casualties.
It certainly would have been the best of all scenarios for Germany to conquer the British Isles in 1940 or 1941, but could they? Germany would never have had air superiority or naval superiority, since the British were outproducing Germany in both areas, and the British army was recovering from Dunkirk and becoming a stronger force every day.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#156

Post by Richard Anderson » 11 Nov 2019, 20:52

glenn239 wrote:
11 Nov 2019, 19:51
Yes, start in June 1940 with the building program to be ready for May 1941. The invasion season ran from May until September, after which some of the forces pinned in Britain could move elsewhere. In terms of moving shipping, the Germans ran coastal convoys along the French coast all the way up to Normandy in 1944.
Okay, well you have the 27 prototype Siebel, but the design for the MFP-A wasn't completed until the fall of 1940, with the first was laid down at Weimann's Yard 346 on 15 December and then 20 more on 20 December 1940 at 16 different German, Dutch, and Belgian shipyards (apparently so each could gain experience in the initial design before going to mass production). The initial one was completed quickly, in only four months, but the rest took seven to eight months. Mass production began in April 1944, when 22 were laid down in Bulgaria, 22 in Germany, and 15 in Italy. They all took three to six months to complete. The largest initial order, 70, were laid down 12 May in Dutch and Belgian yards and took eleven or more months to complete as resources kept getting diverted to more urgent projects. Note I'm not counting the 30 A-Typ completed as minelayers. They could be completed as troop carriers, but of course would then reduce the number of minelayers for the cross-Channel barrage.

So I would estimate using the German, Dutch, Belgian, Bulgarian, and Italian shipyards, about 120-160 could be built every four months or so, assuming the resources were there. So expect about that number ready for a May attempt, double that for an August attempt, and then it is 1942 if you want more.

The MFP-B design was not completed until early 1941, with the first laid down in May. MFP-C was August 1941, MFP-D in May 1942.

Anyway, at 200 men each, that gives you an initial powered lift of 32,000 men...so about the same as OMAHA, GOLD, or JUNO, but with nowhere near the number of craft. In terms of LCT - most comparable to the MFP - there were 312 planned for UTAH, 266 for OMAHA, 280 at GOLD, 218 at JUNO, and 266 at SWORD with 92 more in the WTF follow-up Force B and 100 in the ETF follow-up Force L.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#157

Post by T. A. Gardner » 12 Nov 2019, 00:14

In this scenario, what Germany needs is a way to defeat Britain, or at least bring them to negotiate a peace, without invasion. I seriously doubt whatever the Germans do they're going to collect the necessary lift, transport, and naval vessels to pull off an invasion and sustain it once they do get ashore.
In my view, this means they need a way right from the start of the war to wage a massive and concentrated commerce war at sea. If the Germans can start sinking a much larger number of ships sooner and keep that up, Britain's economic output would be hurt badly by it. The second thing they can do post fall of France is play the game the British like to play: Peripheral sniping. That is, they don't focus on taking Britain but rather disrupting or taking parts of the Commonwealth.
With somewhat better coordination with Italy, and a focus on places other than Britain itself, a Germany military that is using a larger combination of improvised naval assets and construction of smaller craft like the MFP, focus on making the Mediterranean an Axis "lake." They also cobble together some sort of plan to keep Italian East Africa in Axis hands. That would give them a base for commerce raiding. Surface commerce raiders need only capture a few merchants (a tanker or two loaded with refined fuel would be excellent) could potentially supply the colony for quite a while. Maybe they could fly in troops and equipment along with some supplies. A handful of Me 110 would make short work of the crap the British have available for that campaign.
At the same time, the Luftwaffe maintains a lower intensity air war over and around-- particularly around-- Britain. That is regular and random attacks on shipping near the British coast.

Those ideas are loose ones. The intent is that Germany makes moving logistics by sea so expensive and overseas losses of possessions are a big enough hit that Britain is forced to the negotiating table.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#158

Post by Richard Anderson » 12 Nov 2019, 00:56

Just for S&G, here is the outline OOB for British forces in the UK (not including Northern Ireland, which had III Corps and a couple of divisions):

Home Forces, Spring 1941:

GHQ Home Forces:
1 Armoured Division
45 Infantry Division
54 Infantry Division
I Canadian Corps
1 Canadian Infantry Division
2 Canadian Infantry Division

Scottish Command:
51 Infantry Division
52 Infantry Division

Northern Command:
11 Armoured Division
I Corps
1 Infantry Division
2 Infantry Division
Lincolnshire County Division
Yorkshire County Division
IX Corps
59 Infantry Division
Durham and North Riding County Division
Northumberland County Division
X Corps
No divisions assigned?
XI Corps
15 Infantry Division
42 Infantry Division
Essex County Division

Eastern Command:
6 Armoured Division
II Corps
46 Infantry Division
Norfolk County Division

Western Command:
18 Infantry Division

Southern Command:
8 Armoured Division
V Corps
3 Infantry Division
4 Infantry Division
Dorset County Division
Hampshire County Division
VIII Corps
48 Infantry Division
Devon and Cornwall County Division

Southeastern Command:
IV Corps
9 Armoured Division
38 Infantry Division
47 Infantry Division
55 Infantry Division
XII Corps
43 Infantry Division
44 Infantry Division
56 Infantry Division

By spring 1941 all had more or less its full U/E, albeit was 2-pdr AT and still a strong admixture of 75mm American guns substituting for 25-pdr, but otherwise a much stronger force than as of September 1940. Beach defenses, obstacles, and fortifications were also much more complete. IIRC all the Emergency batteries were in place, fortified, defended, and supplied with ammunition. So I would not be sanguine about a German success, especially given their ability to project airpower at will over the UK was unlikely to last in the face of the strengthened FC.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

pugsville
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 05:40

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#159

Post by pugsville » 12 Nov 2019, 02:34

Not to mention the RAF had grown substantially in strength, and the obsolete and poor aircraft like the battle had been replaced. Naval attack aircraft the Beaufort and Beau fighter were now in service. Fighter command front line strength was about double compared to 1940. In 1940 British fofcres were ill equipped and lacking much equipment , 1941 it's no longer the case.

The British had grown much much stronger in 1941 compared to 1940.

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#160

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 12 Nov 2019, 03:51

Glenn239 wrote:Step 3 - Speculation.
Step 4 - More speculation.
Yeah and your Sealion 1941 is just fact, no speculation.
This is "what if", we're all speculating. Stick to substantive arguments about the quality of speculation, please.
Glenn239 wrote:Step 5 - If the US enters the war, concentrate on securing the Med and good relations with the USSR.
Step 6 - Germany is going to invade the Soviet Union to stop air raids on German cities? That doesn't even make sense. Are the Germans confused and thinking the US 8th Air Force is based in Soviet Poland?
To be clear, I don't see your Sealion 1941 succeeding, so the bombers are coming from England.
Glenn239 wrote:I've long argued - under heavy internet fire from all sides - that Sealion was the obvious strategic choice for Germany,
Respect for putting forward a controversial argument.
Glenn239 wrote:To invade the Soviet Union for speculative fear of a Soviet attack is called suicide for fear of death. In diplomatic usage, it means that countries should not engage in self-destruction for fear of outcomes that may not occur.
The problem with resolving arguments via proverbs is there's a proverb for everything. One that contradicts your stance is "always prepare for the worst thing the enemy could do to you." I.e. don't assume that, if enemies can destroy you, they'll be too stupid to apprehend the opportunity.

As with much else in this thread, all depends on whether Sealion 1941 would work. If it doesn't, Germany is in a worse spot than OTL by far.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#161

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 12 Nov 2019, 08:22

JAG13 wrote:SOME weaknesses? It was a farce, Finland should have been overrun rather quickly, the RA made a mess of it confirming the damage the purges caused.
Everyone drew the wrong lesson from the Winter War, including most historians today.
The war showed that the Red Army was inefficient, yes. It needed overwhelming material/manpower superiority to achieve victory.
Most critically, however, the war showed that the Red Army didn't break. There was no mass surrender, disobedience, or collapse of morale. This is unusual, especially in contrast to the WW1 Czarist army whose morale qualities Hitler envisioned seeing once again.
Hitler should have realized that the Red Army would keep fighting even after losing battles. From the 5-1 casualty ratio of the Finish war, he should have realized that a poorly-managed Barbarossa could cost him millions of men even if he reached Vladivostok. From these facts, Hitler should have prepared for a Red Army that would fight until pushed behind the Urals at least, should have realized that no logistical scheme existed for a full-scale advance so far in one campaign season, and should have prepared for at least a two-year war. That would have left him plenty of time to turn west before the USA can deploy serious ground forces in Europe.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#162

Post by T. A. Gardner » 12 Nov 2019, 10:03

Richard Anderson wrote:
12 Nov 2019, 00:56
By spring 1941 all had more or less its full U/E, albeit was 2-pdr AT and still a strong admixture of 75mm American guns substituting for 25-pdr, but otherwise a much stronger force than as of September 1940. Beach defenses, obstacles, and fortifications were also much more complete. IIRC all the Emergency batteries were in place, fortified, defended, and supplied with ammunition. So I would not be sanguine about a German success, especially given their ability to project airpower at will over the UK was unlikely to last in the face of the strengthened FC.
And, that's why the Germans should focus on the empire and Commonwealth rather than Britain. Defeat in N. Africa, clearly a real possibility when the British face full German attention to doing that without a campaign in Russia, won't give the Axis the oil they need but rather deny that resource to Britain.
Worse, if the KM takes up a larger degree of commerce raiding (surface and U-boat) in the Indian Ocean as a result, more resources become scarce or at a minimum costly to ship.

So, Britain remains uninvaded but faces greater losses of merchant shipping at sea, is slowly being stripped of her colonial support, and faces the decline in economic power that goes with that.

I agree, that invasion is very unlikely, and even less likely to succeed. But, it probably isn't necessary to get Britain to negotiate so long as the Germans can manage to keep the US neutral and Britain can't goad them into joining the war. Britain needs allies to win. If Russia and the US are unwilling to become so and Germany isn't dumb enough to force them in by attacking or declaring war on them, Britain is largely screwed overseas anywhere the Germans are able to place a sizable army and support it.

pugsville
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 05:40

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#163

Post by pugsville » 12 Nov 2019, 11:00

T. A. Gardner wrote:
12 Nov 2019, 10:03
And, that's why the Germans should focus on the empire and Commonwealth rather than Britain. Defeat in N. Africa, clearly a real possibility when the British face full German attention to doing that without a campaign in Russia,
But no Russian campaign it changes little in north Africa. Logistics, the Axis were unable to support a significantly larger force in North Africa. More stuff in Europe does not help. It needs to shipped, unloaded, trucked to the front and supplied and maintained when it gets there. They were unable to do so with what they had in North Africa. They were at their logistical limit, Building larger ports, railways woudl take a lot of time. A lot of time.

Conversely lend lease to Russia will not be required, with a much bigger logistical bases the British would be able to deploy more forces to North Africa. No Russian campaign could a favor the British in North Africa. While freeing up much less resources those resources could actually be deployed.

Logistics matter.
T. A. Gardner wrote:
12 Nov 2019, 10:03
won't give the Axis the oil they need but rather deny that resource to Britain.
British Oil needs for the European theater was from the Americas. Middle East Oil was only used in theater so Even the loss of the middle East woudl not impact on British Oil supplies Elsewhere.
T. A. Gardner wrote:
12 Nov 2019, 10:03
Worse, if the KM takes up a larger degree of commerce raiding (surface and U-boat) in the Indian Ocean as a result, more resources become scarce or at a minimum costly to ship.
The KM would have the exact same amount of Merchant Raider resources. Exactly the same why would they be anymore successful. Naval strategy is build strategy (to quote someone) . It requires large lead times and large amounts of infrastructure which the Germans did not have. No Russian campaign and No Russian lend lease makes more resourc4s (shipping / US Aid) which could actually be deployed and make an effect. A large German army sitting around doing nothing in central Europe does not help either in North Africa or the Atlantic.

To a degree the British just managed the North Atlantic after the initial crisis they could have quite easily deployed more resources into the North Alantaic. Diverting just a few long range aircraft to close the air gap. More merchant carriers, remarkably cheap to adapt and deploy., Shipping without Russian lend lease would be substantially freed up. It was certianly much easier for the British to do so than the Germans.
T. A. Gardner wrote:
12 Nov 2019, 10:03
So, Britain remains uninvaded but faces greater losses of merchant shipping at sea, is slowly being stripped of her colonial support, and faces the decline in economic power that goes with that.
And how is any of this actually achieved. Almost none of the German resources used in the invasion of Russia were either calpable of being deployed or suitable to used either in North Africa, or the Atlantic. Panzer divisions don't do anything in the North Atlantic.
T. A. Gardner wrote:
12 Nov 2019, 10:03
I agree, that invasion is very unlikely, and even less likely to succeed. But, it probably isn't necessary to get Britain to negotiate so long as the Germans can manage to keep the US neutral and Britain can't goad them into joining the war. Britain needs allies to win. If Russia and the US are unwilling to become so and Germany isn't dumb enough to force them in by attacking or declaring war on them, Britain is largely screwed overseas anywhere the Germans are able to place a sizable army and support it.
But the Germans were totally incapable of doing so anywhere outside mainland Europe. So it just is not a factor,

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#164

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 12 Nov 2019, 11:14

pugsville wrote:Conversely lend lease to Russia will not be required, with a much bigger logistical bases the British would be able to deploy more forces to North Africa.
Exactly. Allied shipping to the Persian Corridor alone reached ~100k tons/month by 1942. https://history.army.mil/books/wwii/per ... x-a.htm#t1

Assuming 25lbs/soldier-day, diverting that shipping to Middle East Command from SU would enable supporting ~300k additional soldiers in Egypt. No way the Axis can match that. And that's to say nothing of shipping used on the Northern Russia and Far East routes.

The only way for the Axis to overcome the logistics bottleneck in the ME/NorthAfrica is to conquer Turkey and establish rail lines of communication in 8th Army's rear. That's obviously a big undertaking in itself, but also likely implies Soviet cooperation or resistance.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#165

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 12 Nov 2019, 11:22

T.A. Gardner wrote:I agree, that invasion is very unlikely, and even less likely to succeed. But, it probably isn't necessary to get Britain to negotiate so long as the Germans can manage to keep the US neutral and Britain can't goad them into joining the war.
You've identified the precise quandary but resolved it with optimistic bias from Hitler's PoV, IMO: Hitler knows that any peripheral moves against UK are nullified the moment the US enters the war. And he can't say for certain when/if the US will enter. So on your recommended course of action Hitler is supposed to gamble everything on the US staying out of the war - at a time when the U.S. is actively killing German sailors and spending huge portions of its national wealth to arm Germany's enemies.

Meanwhile, he knows for certain that the SU has >2x his manpower, nearly equal industrial resources, and is building up its armies. If he spends a couple years on a peripheral strategy against UK then the US nullifies that strategy, he's suddenly facing a 10mil Red Army on his eastern border and 50% of the world's GDP across the Channel. Stalin doesn't even need to attack to screw his western front; Stalin can just close the spigot on trade and Germany is facing the West with severe shortages of food and fuel.

Not a wise war strategy IMO. Better to take your chance knocking out the SU, gaining its resources, then facing the UK/US on something approaching economic parity. OTL the only hitch in this strategy is Hitler thought the SU would be a cakewalk.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

Locked

Return to “What if”