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
User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

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

#991

Post by Takao » 14 Mar 2020, 15:39

glenn239 wrote:
14 Mar 2020, 14:39
That's an underway refuelling. They're moving at 7kt transferring fuel for 3 hours. It does not state how much fuel was transferred, but from what I've read on IJN UNREP, I would suspect something between 300 and 600 tons.
Glenn...Glenn...Glenn.

Your still not reading your source. Stop Cherry-Picking your source for snippets that you think fit your preconceived notion of what you think the Germans are doing.

Why are the Germans steaming at 7 knots? The answer is not that the Germans are conducting UNREP - At least, not conducting UNREP as you, us, & the US Navy understood it. Why were the Spee & Altmark stopped to replenish?

Now, are you beginning to grasp what is occurring?

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..

#992

Post by glenn239 » 17 Mar 2020, 19:13

The source states 7kt to 10kt for 1941, (Graf Spee was 1939). If you're saying that this was just to maintain headway against a wind, I don't care. For the purposes of this discussion, all I care about is that UNREP for the KM was good enough it did not interfere in mid-Atlantic ops in the winter months. Since Italian warship crews were not incompetent, nor poorly trained, there is no reason to suppose their captains would be worse at it than the Germans.

Anyways, back to Liverpool. How much trouble do you think a major LW bombing and mining campaign in 1941/1942 might be if the focus was the major UK ports involved in Atlantic trade, and how much would the "bending" of convoy routes you described effect the LW bombing of Liverpool? :^)


Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
Location: Ottawa

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

#993

Post by Rob Stuart » 17 Mar 2020, 20:23

glenn239 wrote:
17 Mar 2020, 19:13
Anyways, back to Liverpool. How much trouble do you think a major LW bombing and mining campaign in 1941/1942 might be if the focus was the major UK ports involved in Atlantic trade, and how much would the "bending" of convoy routes you described effect the LW bombing of Liverpool? :^)
At https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/the-liverpool-blitz there is an Imperial War Museum story on the 1940-41 bombing of Liverpool. The final part reads as follows:

During the May [1941] Blitz, nearly 70 out of 140 berths in Liverpool's docks were put out of action. Many roads and rail routes through the city were also blocked. Tonnages of cargo handled at the docks were substantially reduced. Two main electricity generating stations were damaged as were all main telephone lines. After the raids in early May, the German bombers switched their main focus to Hull. Winston Churchill later concluded that if the German attacks on Liverpool had continued 'the Battle of the Atlantic would have been even more closely run than it was'.

The attacks on UK ports ended later in May, when the bulk of the Luftwaffe re-deployed to what would become the Eastern Front in June. You foresee there being no war with Russia in 1941 but apparently you would have a lot of Luftwaffe units deploy from France to the Med and to Spain instead. Perhaps fewer than were sent to the Eastern Front, but still a substantial number, so the attacks on UK ports would necessarily be weaker once your re-deployment takes place. And the quote notes that the switch to Hull allowed time for the damage to the Liverpool docks to be dealt with. I suspect that your reduced Luftwaffe bomber force in France would be able to inflict substantial damage on UK ports but would not be strong enough to close any one of them unless it ignored the others. And, of course, the RAF was getting more and better radar-equipped night fighters all the time, so more and more German bombers would be lost as the year progressed.

As for minelaying, Britain in 1941 was not Japan in 1945. The RN had lots of minesweepers to deal with moored mines and by 1941 a major degaussing program had been underway for about a year, so the magnetic mine threat was under control.

If you want to knock the UK out of the war through blockade then you need to minimize the re-deployment of German twin engine bombers to other theatres, including the Med and/or Spain.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

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

#994

Post by Takao » 18 Mar 2020, 00:56

glenn239 wrote:
17 Mar 2020, 19:13
The source states 7kt to 10kt for 1941, (Graf Spee was 1939).
Really? It does? Let's see...He added knowingly.
3. Battleship "Gneisenau" reported that on 27th February, 1941:

At 0910 hours:
The tanker "Brerne" steered a course of 310° against a very long and very heavy swell, speed 6 knots, own speed revolutions for 4 knots.
Well, it is 1941. However, Gneisenau is making revolutions for 4 knots! 4 knots is not 7 knots, nor is it 10 knots. Your source is saying 4 knots in 1941. Your own source has proven you wrong.

glenn239 wrote:
17 Mar 2020, 19:13
If you're saying that this was just to maintain headway against a wind, I don't care.
Ahhh...He did find it.
The tanker steamed seven knots against the wind. The speed had to be chosen in order to allow "Gneisenau" to answer the helm in weather conditions prevailing.
Ahhhh, but now you don't care, because your "source", yet again, directly contradicts you.

Why do you even bother citing sources, if your just going to ignore what they say?

glenn239 wrote:
17 Mar 2020, 19:13
For the purposes of this discussion, all I care about is that UNREP for the KM was good enough it did not interfere in mid-Atlantic ops in the winter months. Since Italian warship crews were not incompetent, nor poorly trained, there is no reason to suppose their captains would be worse at it than the Germans.
Except, of course, your source is telling you that the Germans did not conduct UNREP, although they did refuel at sea, some times underway, but only to maintain heading.

glenn239 wrote:
17 Mar 2020, 19:13
Anyways, back to Liverpool. How much trouble do you think a major LW bombing and mining campaign in 1941/1942 might be if the focus was the major UK ports involved in Atlantic trade, and how much would the "bending" of convoy routes you described effect the LW bombing of Liverpool? :^)
I see that Rob Stuart has already brought the Liverpool Blitz to your attention.

So, yes Glenn, without a Soviet war to distract them, the Germans had already tried it. The Germans tried to knock out Liverpool several times, and they always failed. However, despite the destruction and deaths...not to mention Churchill's exaggerated quote. The stats for loading & unloading, along with turnaround times do not show this. The docks were quickly brought back to full effort & turnaround times were not greatly effected. Convoys still came in unloaded & went back out.

So, the only answer to your question...
How much trouble do you think a major LW bombing and mining campaign in 1941/1942 might be if the focus was the major UK ports involved in Atlantic trade?
Is "Not much."

As Rob Stuart has pointed out to you, and I had earlier pointed out to you...Despite not having a war with Russia, your sending bombers to Italy, Spain, and possibly the atlantic coast of North Africa. Thus diluting your bomber force far more than the Eastern Front. Therefore your "major LW campaign" against English ports in 41/42, will accomplish less than the German's major LW campaign against English ports in 40/41.

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
Location: Ottawa

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

#995

Post by Rob Stuart » 18 Mar 2020, 20:59

glenn239 wrote:
07 Mar 2020, 18:24
We're talking three things with land based air in the Atlantic.

First, the strike range of twin and four engine bombers against ships when based in France, Spain, and perhaps Dakar and Cape Verde.
Takao wrote:
10 Mar 2020, 01:02
Excedrin POD Headache #4,359 & #4,360. There is no Vichy France, only Germany, and Germany has occupied those French colonies within it's grasp...Although, if Germany occupies all of France, does Dakar stay Vichy or go over to the Allies? Possibly occupied by the Americans?
glenn239 wrote:
12 Mar 2020, 22:00
Who said anything about a German occupation of Vichy France?
Takao wrote:
13 Mar 2020, 01:04
Umm...you did.

German bombers operating out of Casablanca implies that with Germany has occupied Vichy France or Vichy France has wholly gone over to the Axis.
glenn239 wrote:
13 Mar 2020, 19:37
Vichy Syria and Vichy Indochina were occupied by foreign powers without the occupation of Vichy France. Frankly, on the whole Vichy thing - in particular Vichy North Africa - it's another dynamic altogether to any what if scenario.
Glenn, you really need to check things before you post. Syria was not occupied by the Axis powers. In May 1941 Vichy permitted German aircraft to stage through Syria on their way to support Rashid Ali's revolt against the British in Iraq. This prompted the invasion of Syria by British, Australian and Free French forces. So far as I know, the Germans and Italians generally respected the the terms of the June 1940 armistice until November 1942. They did not, for instance, make any request to station aircraft in Algeria, which would have facilitated air raids on Gibraltar and Allied ships passing through the Straits.

The Germans did not want to occupy Vichy. This would have resulted in the scuttling of the French fleet at Toulon and the defection to the Allied cause of all French colonies and all overseas French forces and merchant ships. And of course US reaction would have been hostile. It was far better for Berlin to have a pliable and anti-British regime in power at Vichy controlling unoccupied France and the French colonies. So the Germans were not going to undermine Vichy for the sake of putting aircraft at Dakar or the Cape Verde islands, especially when it would have been a serious logistics problem to support them there. And, of course, it would further weaken the Luftwaffe bomber force in northern France with which you wish simultaneously to bomb and mine the hell out of UK ports.

As for the Japanese occupation of French Indo-China, Japan was not a party to the 1940 armistice with France, so this event is not any kind of a precedent for the establishment of German or Italian bases in Vichy colonies.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10056
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

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

#996

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 19 Mar 2020, 14:13

Rob Stuart wrote:
17 Mar 2020, 20:23
glenn239 wrote:
17 Mar 2020, 19:13
Anyways, back to Liverpool. How much trouble do you think a major LW bombing and mining campaign in 1941/1942 might be if the focus was the major UK ports involved in Atlantic trade, and how much would the "bending" of convoy routes you described effect the LW bombing of Liverpool? :^)
At https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/the-liverpool-blitz there is an Imperial War Museum story on the 1940-41 bombing of Liverpool. The final part reads as follows:

During the May [1941] Blitz, nearly 70 out of 140 berths in Liverpool's docks were put out of action. Many roads and rail routes through the city were also blocked. Tonnages of cargo handled at the docks were substantially reduced. Two main electricity generating stations were damaged as were all main telephone lines. After the raids in early May, the German bombers switched their main focus to Hull. Winston Churchill later concluded that if the German attacks on Liverpool had continued 'the Battle of the Atlantic would have been even more closely run than it was'.

The attacks on UK ports ended later in May, when the bulk of the Luftwaffe re-deployed to what would become the Eastern Front in June. .... And, of course, the RAF was getting more and better radar-equipped night fighters all the time, so more and more German bombers would be lost as the year progressed.

As for minelaying, Britain in 1941 was not Japan in 1945. The RN had lots of minesweepers to deal with moored mines and by 1941 a major degaussing program had been underway for about a year, so the magnetic mine threat was under control.
Any sources to recommend for this air campaign? I'm particularly interested in the aircraft losses of both sides, both combat and operational.

Thanks


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..

#998

Post by glenn239 » 19 Mar 2020, 19:25

Rob Stuart wrote:
17 Mar 2020, 20:23
The attacks on UK ports ended later in May, when the bulk of the Luftwaffe re-deployed to what would become the Eastern Front in June. You foresee there being no war with Russia in 1941 but apparently you would have a lot of Luftwaffe units deploy from France to the Med and to Spain instead. Perhaps fewer than were sent to the Eastern Front, but still a substantial number, so the attacks on UK ports would necessarily be weaker once your re-deployment takes place. And the quote notes that the switch to Hull allowed time for the damage to the Liverpool docks to be dealt with. I suspect that your reduced Luftwaffe bomber force in France would be able to inflict substantial damage on UK ports but would not be strong enough to close any one of them unless it ignored the others. And, of course, the RAF was getting more and better radar-equipped night fighters all the time, so more and more German bombers would be lost as the year progressed.
Not a bad outline. The Allied bombing campaign was most effective when targeting bottlenecks such as oil. The LW was starting to focus on port infrastructure, which undoubtedly was the most vulnerable strategic target.
As for minelaying, Britain in 1941 was not Japan in 1945. The RN had lots of minesweepers to deal with moored mines and by 1941 a major degaussing program had been underway for about a year, so the magnetic mine threat was under control.
Mining, and in particular aerial mining, was one of the historical dogs that didn't bark as much as it otherwise might have. In the time period you specify of 1941, the RN did have good countermeasures that suggest that bombing was probably more effective than mining, but even with effective minesweeping, it takes time and there would be damage, and mine technology was outpacing minesweeping technology. Probably a mix of about 2:1, but as the newer mines came on board, (free floating minelets and pressure mines), then the efficiency needle would have swung back towards mining, maybe even to the point of exclusively mining and no bombing.
If you want to knock the UK out of the war through blockade then you need to minimize the re-deployment of German twin engine bombers to other theatres, including the Med and/or Spain.
Who said anything about the UK getting, "knocked out of the war?"

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..

#999

Post by glenn239 » 19 Mar 2020, 20:17

Rob Stuart wrote:
18 Mar 2020, 20:59
Glenn, you really need to check things before you post. Syria was not occupied by the Axis powers. In May 1941 Vichy permitted German aircraft to stage through Syria on their way to support Rashid Ali's revolt against the British in Iraq. This prompted the invasion of Syria by British, Australian and Free French forces. So far as I know, the Germans and Italians generally respected the the terms of the June 1940 armistice until November 1942. They did not, for instance, make any request to station aircraft in Algeria, which would have facilitated air raids on Gibraltar and Allied ships passing through the Straits.
Yes, we all know that the British occupied Syria and Japan occupied Indochina. The point I was making was that this was done without a general war with Vichy France, yet you argue that the Germans would somehow be the exception to this pattern if they decided to occupy Dakar?
As for the Japanese occupation of French Indo-China, Japan was not a party to the 1940 armistice with France, so this event is not any kind of a precedent for the establishment of German or Italian bases in Vichy colonies.
Who said anything about the German armistice terms with Vichy being fixed in stone?

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..

#1000

Post by glenn239 » 19 Mar 2020, 20:37

Takao wrote:
18 Mar 2020, 00:56
Except, of course, your source is telling you that the Germans did not conduct UNREP, although they did refuel at sea, some times underway, but only to maintain heading.
Source says that refuelling was done at up to 10kt. You say otherwise. I don't care either way - the KM could do at sea refuelling in WW2, so the Italians could learn from the Germans. Key bottlenecks identified are the demonstated ability of the RN to take out tankers at sea, and the question of fuel oil vs. crude oil.
I see that Rob Stuart has already brought the Liverpool Blitz to your attention.
Apparently I somehow thought Germany occupied Syria in WW2 and now I discover that I did not know the LW bombed Liverpool. :^)

So, the only answer to your question...
How much trouble do you think a major LW bombing and mining campaign in 1941/1942 might be if the focus was the major UK ports involved in Atlantic trade?

Is "Not much."
My take is that an increased surface threat in the BoA will force the British to adapt larger convoys in order to concentrate escorts. Larger convoys will tax port facilities more heavily since these cause greater stress than smaller convoys, so the knock on effect of combined arms warfare is more than you assume it might be. LW bombing of dockyards will not be significantly effective outside any combined arms effect WRT to oversized convoys, but it will be more effective than mining in 1941. However, by 1942, mining will start to become a more serious threat as better mines are used, especially after the combat debut of aerial pressure mines in 1944, and free floating minelet types introduced around 1942. (Damaged shipping requiring repair was a big problem for the UK).
As Rob Stuart has pointed out to you, and I had earlier pointed out to you...Despite not having a war with Russia, your sending bombers to Italy, Spain, and possibly the atlantic coast of North Africa. Thus diluting your bomber force far more than the Eastern Front. Therefore your "major LW campaign" against English ports in 41/42, will accomplish less than the German's major LW campaign against English ports in 40/41.
How did you arrive at the conclusion that a AH Luftwaffe campaign against British port infastruture into at least 1946 would accomplish less than the historical campaign that largely wrapped up by May 1941?

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

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

#1001

Post by Takao » 20 Mar 2020, 04:25

glenn239 wrote:
19 Mar 2020, 20:37
Source says that refuelling was done at up to 10kt.
Yes, Glenn...Note the phrase "up to". But, no instances are given of this occurring.
glenn239 wrote:
19 Mar 2020, 20:37
You say otherwise.
Wrong, Glenn. Your source says otherwise, and I have previously quoted you the passages where it does.

glenn239 wrote:
19 Mar 2020, 20:37
I don't care either way
Yes Glenn, I know you don't care what a source says when it proves you wrong.

glenn239 wrote:
19 Mar 2020, 20:37
- the KM could do at sea refuelling in WW2
That was not your argument and no one was arguing that they could not...Your argument was that the Kriegsmarine did UNREP as the USN understands it. An argument which has been proven wrong.


glenn239 wrote:
19 Mar 2020, 20:37
, so the Italians could learn from the Germans.
Maybe they could, and maybe they couldn't. They certainly did not when it came to submarine operations & tactics.

glenn239 wrote:
19 Mar 2020, 20:37
Key bottlenecks identified are the demonstated ability of the RN to take out tankers at sea, and the question of fuel oil vs. crude oil.
You forgot a lack of suitable tankers.

Fuel oil vs. Crude oil is not a bottleneck until you conclusively prove that there was a European source of crude oil that could be burned as bunker oil, as Borneo oil could. And that such a field was producing large quantities like those in Borneo.



glenn239 wrote:
19 Mar 2020, 20:37
Apparently I somehow thought Germany occupied Syria in WW2 and now I discover that I did not know the LW bombed Liverpool. :^)
Glenn, it is readily apparent that, unfortunately, you do not know much about the subject material. But, more on that later.


glenn239 wrote:
19 Mar 2020, 20:37
My take is that an increased surface threat in the BoA will force the British to adapt larger convoys in order to concentrate escorts. Larger convoys will tax port facilities more heavily since these cause greater stress than smaller convoys, so the knock on effect of combined arms warfare is more than you assume it might be.
Ahhh...more of that Magic Juju "combined arms".

The argument of convoys overstressing ports has been around for sometime and has thoroughly been disproved. Convoy arrival can be planned for, so that ports are stressed as little as possible & cargo can be unloaded in a timely fashion. Loss of productivity is far less with convoys as opposed to replacing sunken ships & lost cargo.

So, no Magic Juju for you.

glenn239 wrote:
19 Mar 2020, 20:37
LW bombing of dockyards will not be significantly effective outside any combined arms effect WRT to oversized convoys, but it will be more effective than mining in 1941.
Problem was the Luftwaffe could only really pound one port at a time. So, you put one port out of action, and the others take up the slack. So, the the LW pounds the second port and put it out of action - but, by then the first port is back online. Second verse, same as the first. Wash, rinse, repeat. The LW is too small to effectively conduct a bombing campaign that requires it to hit multiple targets over, and over, and over.


glenn239 wrote:
19 Mar 2020, 20:37
However, by 1942, mining will start to become a more serious threat as better mines are used, especially after the combat debut of aerial pressure mines in 1944, and free floating minelet types introduced around 1942. (Damaged shipping requiring repair was a big problem for the UK).
Excedrin POD Headache #5,311.

Not seeing it...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Losses_ ... e_Atlantic
Mines become less effective, not more effective.

Perhaps this is an "opposite alternative history"...more means less, less means more, you get the gist.
glenn239 wrote:
19 Mar 2020, 20:37
How did you arrive at the conclusion that a AH Luftwaffe campaign against British port infastruture into at least 1946 would accomplish less than the historical campaign that largely wrapped up by May 1941?
Ummm....Because the thread title is
What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..
Thus...If you are dragging this war out that long...You really are not making fighting Britain a serious consideration.

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
Location: Ottawa

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

#1002

Post by Rob Stuart » 20 Mar 2020, 15:31

glenn239 wrote:
19 Mar 2020, 19:25
Rob Stuart wrote:
17 Mar 2020, 20:23

If you want to knock the UK out of the war through blockade then you need to minimize the re-deployment of German twin engine bombers to other theatres, including the Med and/or Spain.
Who said anything about the UK getting, "knocked out of the war?"
glenn239 wrote:
19 Mar 2020, 20:37
Takao wrote:
18 Mar 2020, 00:56
As Rob Stuart has pointed out to you, and I had earlier pointed out to you...Despite not having a war with Russia, your sending bombers to Italy, Spain, and possibly the atlantic coast of North Africa. Thus diluting your bomber force far more than the Eastern Front. Therefore your "major LW campaign" against English ports in 41/42, will accomplish less than the German's major LW campaign against English ports in 40/41.
How did you arrive at the conclusion that a AH Luftwaffe campaign against British port infastruture into at least 1946 would accomplish less than the historical campaign that largely wrapped up by May 1941?
I did not consider any scenario in which Luftwaffe bombing of UK ports lasted into 1946 because that's completely loony. My conclusion is that while a post-May 1941 Luftwaffe campaign against UK ports (lasting into 1942) would still damage them it would not shut them down, because it would be weaker than the 40-41 effort, which shut no port, and the British defences would get steadily stronger.

From the two responses from yourself included here it appears that in your opinion:

(1) Hitler would wage air and sea warfare against the UK until 1946 or later without the aim of forcing the UK to stop fighting. So what would his aim be?

(2) By 1946 the Battle of the Atlantic would still not be won by either side

(3) During a maritime blockade lasting until 1946 there would be no accidental sinkings of US ships or any other incident that would bring the US into the war against Germany

(4) The RAF would not defeat the Luftwaffe's night bombing force long before 1946. (Are you not aware of the decimation of the early 1944 Luftwaffe bombing campaign against UK cities?)

(5) No war between German and Russia would break out

I don't see how you can defend any of these propositions.

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
Location: Ottawa

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

#1003

Post by Rob Stuart » 21 Mar 2020, 01:27

Rob Stuart wrote:
18 Mar 2020, 20:59
glenn239 wrote:
07 Mar 2020, 18:24
We're talking three things with land based air in the Atlantic.

First, the strike range of twin and four engine bombers against ships when based in France, Spain, and perhaps Dakar and Cape Verde.
Takao wrote:
10 Mar 2020, 01:02
Excedrin POD Headache #4,359 & #4,360. There is no Vichy France, only Germany, and Germany has occupied those French colonies within it's grasp...Although, if Germany occupies all of France, does Dakar stay Vichy or go over to the Allies? Possibly occupied by the Americans?
glenn239 wrote:
12 Mar 2020, 22:00
Who said anything about a German occupation of Vichy France?
Takao wrote:
13 Mar 2020, 01:04
Umm...you did.

German bombers operating out of Casablanca implies that with Germany has occupied Vichy France or Vichy France has wholly gone over to the Axis.
glenn239 wrote:
13 Mar 2020, 19:37
Vichy Syria and Vichy Indochina were occupied by foreign powers without the occupation of Vichy France. Frankly, on the whole Vichy thing - in particular Vichy North Africa - it's another dynamic altogether to any what if scenario.
Rob Stuart wrote:
18 Mar 2020, 20:59
Glenn, you really need to check things before you post. Syria was not occupied by the Axis powers. In May 1941 Vichy permitted German aircraft to stage through Syria on their way to support Rashid Ali's revolt against the British in Iraq. This prompted the invasion of Syria by British, Australian and Free French forces. So far as I know, the Germans and Italians generally respected the the terms of the June 1940 armistice until November 1942. They did not, for instance, make any request to station aircraft in Algeria, which would have facilitated air raids on Gibraltar and Allied ships passing through the Straits.

The Germans did not want to occupy Vichy. This would have resulted in the scuttling of the French fleet at Toulon and the defection to the Allied cause of all French colonies and all overseas French forces and merchant ships. And of course US reaction would have been hostile. It was far better for Berlin to have a pliable and anti-British regime in power at Vichy controlling unoccupied France and the French colonies. So the Germans were not going to undermine Vichy for the sake of putting aircraft at Dakar or the Cape Verde islands, especially when it would have been a serious logistics problem to support them there. And, of course, it would further weaken the Luftwaffe bomber force in northern France with which you wish simultaneously to bomb and mine the hell out of UK ports.
glenn239 wrote:
19 Mar 2020, 20:17
Yes, we all know that the British occupied Syria and Japan occupied Indochina. The point I was making was that this was done without a general war with Vichy France, yet you argue that the Germans would somehow be the exception to this pattern if they decided to occupy Dakar?
You are confusing my argument with Takao's. And in fact you omitted half of my argument when you quoted my post of 18 Mar 2020 at 13:59. (I've re-inserted it above, bolded and italicized.) My argument was that the Germans "were not going to undermine Vichy for the sake of putting aircraft at Dakar or the Cape Verde islands, especially when it would have been a serious logistics problem to support them there". They never put any bases in Algeria, and they did not put any forces into Tunisia until TORCH threatened its occupation by the Allies. Why would they seriously consider establishing unsupportable bases in the South Atlantic when they didn't make any move to put bases in Algeria or Tunisia, which would have been a far more realistic thing to do?
Rob Stuart wrote:
18 Mar 2020, 20:59
As for the Japanese occupation of French Indo-China, Japan was not a party to the 1940 armistice with France, so this event is not any kind of a precedent for the establishment of German or Italian bases in Vichy colonies.
glenn239 wrote:
19 Mar 2020, 20:17
Who said anything about the German armistice terms with Vichy being fixed in stone?
I have no idea what your point is here, insofar as the Japanese occupation of French Indo-China is concerned. The armistice terms are irrelevant in this context, so whether they were cast in stone or written with icing is neither here nor there. Japan simply took advantage of the fact that the Vichy French were in no position to defend their South East Asian possessions. In fact, even if these colonies had been controlled by the Free French the Japanese most likely would still have occupied them, but without the French governor-general agreeing to it.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6349
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

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

#1004

Post by Richard Anderson » 21 Mar 2020, 05:18

glenn239 wrote:
19 Mar 2020, 19:25
Rob Stuart wrote:
17 Mar 2020, 20:23
As for minelaying, Britain in 1941 was not Japan in 1945. The RN had lots of minesweepers to deal with moored mines and by 1941 a major degaussing program had been underway for about a year, so the magnetic mine threat was under control.
Mining, and in particular aerial mining, was one of the historical dogs that didn't bark as much as it otherwise might have. In the time period you specify of 1941, the RN did have good countermeasures that suggest that bombing was probably more effective than mining, but even with effective minesweeping, it takes time and there would be damage, and mine technology was outpacing minesweeping technology. Probably a mix of about 2:1, but as the newer mines came on board, (free floating minelets and pressure mines), then the efficiency needle would have swung back towards mining, maybe even to the point of exclusively mining and no bombing.
More free association, unsourced nonsense. 9. Fliegerdivision is wondering just WTF you think you are talking about. KGr 126 and III./KG 4 were organized, equipped, and trained specifically for aerial mine laying.

The problem was, RN mine sweeping assets far exceeded what aerial mine laying assets the Germans could deploy. Until 1944 mine sweeping technology actually far outpaced mine technology.
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

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10056
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

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

#1005

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 21 Mar 2020, 14:22

Rob Stuart wrote:
19 Mar 2020, 15:16
You could start here: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/U ... F-I-7.html
Thanks.

The combat losses of the German AF seem bearably low. Far below the 5% per sortie threshold. Operating losses were not mentioned. One would expect that rate to be higher from the difficult night flying conditions, but were they near a damaging level we might assume they would have been mentioned. The other side of the coin is the damage to the port and cargo ships is not high enough for any decisive strategic result. Or even a sustained operational result. Damaging, but not war winning. that leads me to the question of how loss might have increased had more damaging & aggressive tactics or operating methods been adopted.

Locked

Return to “What if”