Best Army of WWII?

[Hannibal3]

Captain Nemo,

You've made some excellent points. I don't know that I entirely agree with everything, but you have convinced me to a large degree.

The things that don't convince me about the invasion of Britain having no way of success is because of the British and American reactions. The British predicted the total elimination of the RAF in the summer of 1940 within six weeks. The Blitz allowed the pressure to be taken off of the RAF, so they could build more planes.

If the German invasion was so implausible. Why were the British so terrified of it? Why did they have their anti-invasion measures in place until the end of the war?

If the idea of the Nazis gaining British colonies was so ridiculous, why did Roosevelt and his advisors discuss it at great length? Granted, you make very good points about a Seolion success rate, but there must have at least been the potential.

And one other point, I think that you were right about the war in the Pacific. The only battle I would say was a toss up was Midway. Had a more experienced radio operator received the message about the water supply on the island, they might not have given away their intended target. But even with the element of surprise gone, the Japanese still had the Americans out-gunned and it was a stroke of luck that the American fighters found the Japanese carriers. That has been confirmed by the pilots. I saw a program on that.

Anyway, what I was really interested to know more about was the other conquered countries. Why DIDN'T the Germans gain Dutch, Belgian, and Danish territory? I thought that was part of war. You know the old "To the Victor Goes the Spoils" saying.

Also, from what you've shown, the Germans were totally incapable of taking England. If the Germans were in fact so weak even in 1940, why did it take 5 years to end the war?

And "What If" scenarios are interesting because in addition to just giving you a head-ache about the possibilities, they help you analyze what actually did happen. I mean look, you've already pointed out a whole lot of things to me that I wasn't really aware of.

[SixArmedMan]

Nemo,

You said once you considered Rundstedt to be one of the better German generals. Why do you think this? Some guy I know said he was too cautious and old fashioned to be as effective as say, Guderion or Manstein as exemplified during the invasion of France when he was against advancing through the Ardennes and was in favour of holding Guderion back, thus possibly negating any chance of thwarting the evacuation at Dunkirk (Dunkirque?). Like I said before, the only positive thing I've heard about him was he was in favour of holding the army back in case of an Allied landing and using it to counter-attack instead of stopping them at the beach as Rommel had proposed. Other than that though, I haven't heard many positive things about him.

[Harlan]

Seems like I've been in agreement with Cptn Nemo on most of the stuff in this post. Gotta disagree though about the invasion of Britain. If the Germans did manage to get troops on the ground in England, there is a very good chance they could have won. Especially if they struck early, right after the fall of France. The thing is, the British saved most of their men from Dunkirke, but lost almost all of their equipment. There were hardly any guns in England, the militias were literally practicing with brooms cos that's all they had. There were no million defenders if a defender is considered someone with a weapon- there weren't even 100,000. To make matters worse, the high command thought the attack would come from the northeast of London when in fact it was to be from the south, which was lightly defended and fortified.

The situation was nothing like Normandy, because in Normandy the Germans had years to prepare. The English were caught completely flat footed except luckily for their radar defenses. Now, it is a very big if if they could have gotten past the RAF and the Royal Navy, but if they could have, there wasn't much in England except angry citizens with pitchforks.

However, that doeesn't mean the Germans would have gotten the overseas empire. The big reason here is the inherent evilness of the Nazis. Just like in Russia, they would have shot themselves in the foot. You see, Hitler wanted to see the English pay heavily for being so stubborn in holding out. He planned, basically, a mass slaughter of the civilian population almost from the get go. Just like in Russia, needlessly making an enemy out of the civilian population before the invasion is even over.

What would have followed would have been incredibly fierce guerrilla warfare in the British Isles, as people took an "if I'm gonna die, I might as well go down fighting" stance. And with all that bloodshed, no overseas territory would be idiotic enough to invite the Germans over. The fretting of Allied leaders over the fate of the British colonies would not have happened had they known of Hitler's vengence plans.

The capitulating French were a very unique situation. A very large percentage of the population didn't have an objection to Nazism, and in fact analysts in the 1920s thought France was a much more anti-Semitic place than Germany, and people speculated about the ripe potential for the rise of a Jew hating demogague there.

As to why the Dutch and others didn't hand over their overseas territories to the Axis, well the key is getting there with troops to hold it. As long as the British or American Navy was around, that wasn't gonna happen.

---

Oh one last thing. The air battle over England was a very close call. Had it not been for the attack on Berlin leading to the wasteful attacks on London, many of the key players on the British side believe in restrospect they would have lost. The Germans were targeting airfields and were coming very close to reaching a critical mass where they put enough airfields out of commission so the British couldn't put enough airplanes into the air, making it easier to knock out the remaining airfields, now chock a block with aircraft making easy targets. It could have just spiraled out of control from there especially as the aircraft factories were also being targeted. British air command speculated at the time they were just days away from that "critical mass" happening, when the Berlin bombing took place. Also, talking about Churchill and his supposed bad ideas, his idea to bomb Berlin right then was a stroke of genius playing masterfully upon Hitler's psyche.



[This message has been edited by Harlan (edited September 27, 2000).]

[Hannibal3]

Yes, I have to agree for the most part. I'll retract everything about taking the overseas British territories and the Soviets being defeated, but I stand quite firmly by the plausibility of the invasion of England.

I agree with Harlan that Normandy is not a good example of the forces required to attack across the Channel. The Germans had the Atlantic Wall and were prepared for an invasion and STILL had more armed soldiers in 1945 than the British in 1940. The Germans would not have met the same kind of resistance the Allies did at Normandy. Also, Allied troops had to march clear across Europe, so they required more forces.

Okay, here's the specifics. The Royal Navy had 80 destroyers in the English Channel with more patrol craft in the Channel. The Home Fleet had orders to enter the Channel if an invasion force was spotted. Now, the Home Fleet was used primarily at this time to keep the Nazis from breaking out of the North Sea.

The first 'Sealion' Operation was intended to be a 255 mile front from Lyme Regis to Dover done by 13 divisions with a follow-up of 26 divisions. Later this was scaled down to a front between Worthing and Dover with a force of 9 divisions followed by 7 divisions to secure the lodgement area while a third wave was transported. Now the book I have "World War II: A Visual Encyclopedia" published by PRC Publishing in London says: "All depended, however, on the ability of the navy to transport the army in the face of the Royal Navy, which depended in turn on the Luftwaffe's ability to secure air superiority of the English Channel."

And losing England alone would have been a catastrophe in itself. England was essentially a huge aircraft carrier for the Americans. Not to mention, it was the British who developed the improved radar in the later years that turned the tide of the war in the Atlantic. As a result, the U-boats would have dominated the seas for at least a few more months, and the Allies would have had to take off from Iceland or some out of the way place just to bomb Germany. So inevitably, yes, the Germans and Japanese would have lost, BUT the liberation of Europe would have taken several more years... but here's the scary part. The Russians would have pushed past the Rhine and just keep going straight to the English Channel if the Allies were not there to stop them. Why wouldn't they? There would have been plenty of the German army left in Western Europe to justify an invasion of France or the other countries.

So even without all the rest, the history of the POST-WAR world would have been very different.

Oh. One question for Captain Nemo since he probably knows this: What were the prospects of the Russians joining the Three-power pact and making it the Four-power pact? Would an English defeat have influenced their decision? I was just wondering because Stefan Härtel posted something about the Soviets having meetings with the Germans.

And where would a British defeat have put Franco on the proposition of joining the Axis?

------------------
"...The highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's plans; next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities." - Sun Tzu

[Captain Nemo]

Hannibal and Harlan:

On the Soviets joining the Axis: Very unlikely. Stalin hated Hitler as much as vice-versa... He was himself setting up plans for an attack on Germany by 1942 at the latest and knew that War with Germany was unavoidable. However he also thought that the Red Army was far superior to the German Army and that was the greatest surprise of 1941... The Non-Aggression Pact was just seizing an opportunity to get half of Poland without getting the blame...not any true affinity between the two nations.

On the invasion of England, I still believe it was a REALLY long shot. I was not referring to the ability to get troops on land but simply to the ability to sustain an army fighting across the Channel. The British certainly left most of their heavy weapons behind in France but they still evacuated 340,000 troops from Dunkerque and these had light weapons as did the home guard and the balance of the British Army (Not the entire British Army was assigned to the BEF)... Granted they had only 500 artillery pieces.

An amphibious operation is very difficult to execute and does require an even BIGGER effort in the following days and weeks to sustain it.
Here is my "historical" outcome of Sealion:

The Germans gain Air Superiority in SOUTHERN ENGLAND.

Day 1: The Germans launch Sealion under good weather conditions and reach the Southern Coast of England. But the landing operation is very slow. The Germans land only 25,000 troops and 75 tanks on the first day. British Submarines and Destroyers sink a dozen German ships. Germans lose about 5,000 troops and a few tanks and artillery when transports sink. British bombers based in Northern England and Scotland start attacking the German invasion fleet.
On the ground the German troops gain some ground but face about 200,000 British troops.

Day 2: The Home Fleet sorties into the Channel. The German bombers attack the ships and sink several but the German invasion fleet loses another 12 ships. Only another 12,000 troops and 50 tanks can be landed. Troops fighting the British defenders start running out of ammunition and supplies and can't make any progress.

Day 3: The Germans try to reinforce their beachheads but British planes and ships continue to take a heavy toll on the transport fleet in the Channel. The British lose several capital ships but the Germans lose many thousand troops and vital supplies when their transports sink. Another 10,000 troops and 50 tanks are landed this day but losses at sea far exceed that number.

Day 4: Same scenario as day 4 but the German invasion fleet is so severely depleted that the Luftwaffe bombers must be diverted to drop supplies for the hard-pressed Germans in Southern England. New troops landed in England can't make up for the German losses on this day.

Day 5: A forceful attempt to reach the invasion beaches pits a fleet of German destroyers and transports against British Battleships, Cruisers and destroyers. German losses are tremendous as the British sink 20 transports loaded with troops and equipment... The German invasion force in Southern England is doomed.

Well, it's all fantasy but I think the challenge of crossing the inhospitable Channel waters is kept out of all the equations that state that Sealion could have been successful. I'm not talking about landing troops but sustaining them, for a long campaign... because the British were by no means going to be a push-over and the Germans were totally under equipped and unprepared for amphibious warfare. In 1941, almost a year after the hypothetical Sealion should have taken place, their poorly organized attack on Crete showed how inept they were at this game...in a much smaller scale.

Regarding the German forces available in July 1940, the Germans had not yet developped their full war potential. In France, they had approximately 1,500 tanks but 800 of those were Pzkw I and II and there were only about 400 Pzkw VIs. Capital ships like the Bismarck and Tirpitz weren't even completed yet. In the battle of Britain they threw in everything they had as far as aircraft and took heavy losses. They, by no means, had the kind of airpower required to prevent the Homefleet from entering the Channel or to create Normandy-like conditions over England.

I do understand that the British were afraid of an invasion (Who wouldn't) and felt their situation was desperate but I don't believe that a wholesale destruction of the British airfields or airplane industry was possible with the kind of airpower that the Germans possessed in 1940. It could not inflict the kind of damage seen in Germany in 1944 and 45. The entire Blitz over England in August-September-October 1940 delivered about 20,000 tons of bombs as many as a single raid on Hamburg by the USAF and RAF in 1944...and victims were 10,000 to 40,000 for the single Allied raid.

The effectiveness and impact of air supremacy in 1940 versus 1944 was dismal and hence I would maintain that Luftwaffe air control over England would not be a real factor in the success of Sealion.

But more significant the Chief of Staff of the Kriegmarine, Admiral Schniewind, declared in July 1940, just after the victory in France: "Landing on the British Coast will not be possible, neither will supporting an invasion from the sea be, during this current year. The prospect for such an operation are very doubtful and we cannot accept responsibility"

Hitler still scheduled the operation but it was a half-hearted effort and most of the German generals did not believe in it.

One good thing about this: I am quite hyped and am considering making a Battle of Britain scenario next!
We will have to see...But it sounds like fun.

[Captain Nemo]

SixArmedMan:
After furhter research, I withdraw my statement about Von Rundstedt. He was not the best of Generals, though reliable and more capable than the High Command in Berlin.
Manstein, Guderian and Rommel were remarkable.

[Case]

quote: Originally posted by Hannibal3 on 09-27-2000 04:42 PM Not to mention, it was the British who developed the improved radar in the later years that turned the tide of the war in the Atlantic. As a result, the U-boats would have dominated the seas for at least a few more months

Actually, the U-boats never even came close to dominating the Atlantic. During the war only 1% of shipping crossing the Atlantic was sunk, and in the worst months the Germans only managed to sink 10% of shipping going to or from Britain (and these months were very few and far between). I hugely recomend "Hitler's U-Boat War" by Clay Blair if you want to read more about the battle of the Atlantic.



------------------
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error
-John Kenneth Galbraith

[klesh]

Ok, the question revolves around the Battle of Stalingrad. I'm sure all of you guys are familliar with the supposed Duel of Snipers. If not, here is a quick write up on it... But, I have also heard reports that there was no such standoff. This debate has been raging over at the WWII Online forums (which you guys should check out, great game!!![wwiionline.com])
and there are several people citing that it in fact did not happen. I have read that the German sniper was named 1.Thorwald, 2.Koening. I have read lots of inconsistant information about this "event". Perhaps we are all informed about this, and we can have our own little debate here.

Any thought?

[klesh]

I have a good debate topic for us, boys...

But I will need a few moments to properly pose the question and provide links...

Stay tuned...

------------------
I am the Ukrainian Anti-Pope!
Großdeutschland!

[Captain Nemo]

Difficult to say if it is true or not. I have read the account both in one of my WWII books (Time-Life series?) and I read the Bestseller "War of the Rats" which is a detailed retelling of that exact same story. The fiction book and the historical account are very similar, to the point of seeming copied from one another down to the smallest details. This makes me suspicious because there is not that level of detail in any other war account that I have read. Sounds more like an embellished propaganda story with lots of compelling details added for "flavor".
It will probably make a great movie and the book was fascinating too.

[klesh]

Well, you know that there is gonna be some dumb love story crap in there for the movie...I hope it doesn't ruin it.

It seems like a nice piece of propaganda to me; you know, two expert masters of their craft duking it out. The true expert capitalizes on the amaturish mistakes of his enemy. This is straight out of some fairy tale.

I have read that the Germans didn't have such a sniper school outside of Berlin, that it didn't even exist. Anyone with contradictory evidence?

Has anyone seen the piece on the History Channel that is about snipers? It retells this story as well as others from the US Civil War to Vietnam... I wonder which of those can be trusted as well?

------------------
I am the Ukrainian Anti-Pope!
Großdeutschland!