Well, they might have been repulsed, but even so they would have taken up valuable troops that were used during 1941 to stop the advance on Moscow (1000 tanks at least were mentioned above)- and that’s assuming that Stalin didn’t ridiculously over-react and maybe start diverting troops away from the Western front (something he was quite capable of doing). Add in the lack of lend-lease, a probable British surrender by 1942 at the latest (Britain was, IIRC, within four weeks of starvation when American intervention started shipping grain back across the Atlantic), and I think that the Germans would have been able to take Moscow and maybe as far east as the Urals.
I trust then that you will get busy and search down all the threads where Americans are refered to as “Yanks”, in order to correct the racist bastards who use that term as well? Don’t forget our fine Canadian brothers who are frequently called “Canucks”. The “limeys” on the board might have something to say about how they are being descrtiminated against verbally too. All of those terms are far, far more descriminatory (and even allowing that it comes to “not much”) then a simple shortening of “Japanese” to “Japs”.
Jesus, this is the piss poorest “MODERATOR NOTE” That I have ever seen on these boards. “Japs” is a perfectly acceptable shorthand for “Japanese”. If China Guy wants to go get offended, well, that’s his business. It doesn’t mean there is actually anything to be offended about. You screwed the pooch big time with your ridiculous, out of place outrage on this one, Buck.
On second thought… Only on an specific context it can be used, but to say it is perfectly acceptable is not correct:
While one can make a good point of being ok outside the USA and only among Japanese, this being an American board, I have to side with the Moderator on this one, as the history of that “shorthand” in the USA is reprehensible.
I disagree. Strongly. “Japs” is just shorthand for “Japanese”, it is in no way synomous with “nip”, “gook”, “slant”, “zip”, etc… Claiming it is is exactly what I labled it above: PC run amok. Back in WWII I’ll admit that it was used disparigingly, but that was over 60 years ago. To get offended over it now is…stupid.
You know what? I’m gonna fold my tent on this one, for 2 reasons. #1 I’m hijacking an interesting thread, and #2 because I’m somewhat wrong. I do think the moderator note was ridiculously heave handed and a perfect example of the PC bullshit that infects our society today, but the facts of the matter are that “Jap” was used as a pejorative 60 years ago, and it’s fair to believe that some of that baggage still hangs from the word. I personally don’t think that it’s anymore offensive than (as I mentioned before) “Yanks”, “Canucks” or “Limeys”, but I can see how some people would. Mea Culpa.
Oh and BTW, did anyone else find this Google link puzzling?
100,000 Hitler stores. A fascinating concept. Just the place to go to get a deal on Hitler!
Nah, nah, it’s a set of stores run by Hitler (after he immigrated to Argentina) and his business partner, More.
I’m thinking that the overall result of a Japanese invasion of Siberia really depends on what the US does. If FDR still turns off the taps, Japan is really screwed. They still have to go South to get oil and are now fighting on multiple fronts. Given the state of Japanese equipment, mainly their tanks and artillery, it’s hard not to see the Soviets completely stomping them into the ground. If Japan did have some initial success, they would have had to ship supplies over to the mainland and then transport them across Siberia. All the while, the Soviets would have been falling back on their supply lines.
To me, a more interesting scenario involving Japan is a Japanese push south that avoids a conflict with the United States. No Pearl Harbor and no invasion of the Philippines means no outrage in the United States and Hitler probably not declaring war on the US. Would Australia and India have fallen after Singapore? Could England have stayed in the fight as its empire was being overrun?
In response to some of the posts about a possible airborne invasion of England, I was curious to get everyone’s thoughts on the matter but some really weird comments have been thrown out. Yes, I know England is an island. Second, I realize a single infantry division would never be able to take over England(where that came from I have no idea). Third, I would never expect infantry units with no armor support to Blitzkrieg across England.
The idea is that first the Germans concentrate their air power over a very small portion of England. They then use paratroopers to capture one or more airfields. At this point, a continous stream of transports begin moving infantry and supplies to these airfields. Anti-tank mines and Stukas would be used against the Matildas while light anti-tank guns go after the small prey. It’s not a matter of a massive assault so much as a very focused and well planned assault on a small area with the idea of expanding this area as forces build up. The fighters provide a corridor for the transports(including everything from Luftwaffe transports to civilian planes) to fly mostly unmolested. It’s not some form of massive blitzkrieg such as happened in France. It’s a cancer which slowly spreads.
“As has been pointed out by others, the amateur thinks about initial available forces while the professional thinks about the longterm logistical support for those forces.”
Sorry David, yes I am an amateur as I have never commanded the armed forces of an entire nation. I’ll leave it to your professional opinion that it would never have worked.
England hasn’t had an empire since IIRC the 15th century or so (and then it only stretched as far as parts of France), the UK on the other hand.
The loss of part or parts of the Empire/Commonwealth would not have forced the UK out of the fight. Even the loss of the UK itself wouldn’t have forced the UK out of the fight, it would have merely had a government-in-exile somewhere like Canada (I believe that the government wanted the Royal Family to evacuate to Canada in 1940, but they refused).
Chemotherapy, amongst other things, would cure the cancer.
Churchill would have ordered 30,000 tonnes of phosgene and mustard gas deployed in the invasion area, whether or not there were civilian or friendly military about. I have no doubt that the invasion would have been met by saturation bombing and artillery. Anti-aircraft weaponary (guns, spotters, searchlights barrage balloons etc) would be deployed along the south coast, which in addition to RAF patrols with the guidance of RADAR would form (as it did against the V1) an extremely difficult to penetrate air curtain. The slow moving supply aircraft would have been torn to shreds long before they made it very far past the white cliffs.
As a quick question, how would they shift tanks and artillery in by air?
Without these, how would they hope to gain any ground.
Also if we’re talking about the period immediately after the return of the BEF, post-Dunkirk, how would a small paratroop force deal with 338,000 or so British and French troops, and the associated armour, artillery and close air support and God knows how many Home Guardsmen and pissed off farmers?
There’s no way that the Luftwaffe had the airlift capacity to supply even a small force for any length of time, even if we grant them unopposed air supremacy (which they never actually had). The only way Germany defeats the UK is if they starve them out to the point of suing for peace by winning the Battle of the Atlantic. Any actual invasion was doomed to failure by completely inadequate logistics.
To address the original question, whether Sealion was ever practical.
No, definitely not, not even close.
The logistics involved in an Amphibious invasion are ridiculous. You need a ton of shipping capability, specialized logistical equipment (docks, amphibious landing ships) if you’re not going to manage to capture a major port, specialized troop organizations and training, and other stuff.
Overlord, the invasion of Normandy, took years of preparation, with a much larger amount of troops, naval and air capabilities, and production base. The massive scale of logistics involved absolutely dwarfed the small capabilities the Germans early in the war.
And even then, it was a difficult invasion, that could’ve been squashed with better planning.
On the other hand, the Germans had no real sea lift (or air lift) capabilities. They were scraping up river barges and ferries and such for the invasion. They were relatively lacking in transport aircraft and such - there’s no way they could’ve landed anywhere near a division at once.
Even if you factor out the RAF and RN completely - if you suppose that they were both completely defeated, Germany would still have no chance of invading Britain. There’s no way Germany could’ve staged an amphibious landing against the defenses arrayed, and even if they somehow could, their miniscule sealift capability would’ve meant that what few troops they landed would’ve been underequipped and quickly drained.
Germany had to defend a much larger area in Overlord, against a VASTLY larger amphibious force with uncomparably superior sealift capabilities, with low quality troops generally unsuitable for the eastern front, who were war weary and undertrained. And even then, Overlord was a very difficult operation.
Britain, on the other hand, had fairly sizable land forces that were extremely highly motivated defending their home, that were the best troops that were available (granted, a lot of Britain’s troops were overseas), with less area to defend (there were really few places practical for the Germans to try to invade), against German forces that didn’t have the logistical capabilities to land or supply even a small fraction of the forces required to put up a serious fight.
Sealion was so unrealistic as to be absurd. There was no chance, even under the most favorable circumstances you can come up with for the Germans, that it ever had a chance of succeeding.
This is misguided. Germany essentially had it right, building tactical, rather than strategic bombers. In Western cultures, we overvalue WW2-era strategic bombing. It was, aside from a few cases, nearly worthless. It was the bulk of what we did, though, for several years, and so we play up its role beyond what’s historically accurate. You can read the US Strategic Bombing Survey for more information. Essentially, though, strategic bombing targetted towards factories and such was generally ineffective. There were some campaigns, such as the rail/transport campaign in France in early 44, and the oil campaign, that had some effects, but for the most part, it was more show - more feeling that we were doing something - than actually effective against the German war machine.
So if Germany had concentrated on strategic bombers, they’d have done nothing but weaken their tactical air forces to little or no gain.
Barbarossa was very nearly successful. You have to understand that the blitzkrieg victories had a psychological component to them. Essentially, when a country had their army destroyed by it, they gave up and surrendered. This happened in Poland, the low countries, France, and others. That’s why Germany hadn’t planned for fighting in the winter in Barbarossa - the plan hinged on winning the war quickly, winning the psychological battle to achieve surrender, and avoiding protracted resistance. If you were expecting that resistance, then getting into a Blitzkrieg war, as planned, didn’t make any sense. So it does make sense that Germany planned as it did. If France had given them similar resistance, the war would’ve taken much longer - but they didn’t, and they didn’t expect Russia to do that either.
And they were extremely close to achieving exactly that. The losses they inflicted upon the Red Army in 1941 were devastating. They captured a massive amount of ground, and routed large parts of the Red Army. Stalin was very nearly on the verge of surrender - at one point he was so destitute that he locked himself in a room for several days, not wanting to deal with the reality of the situation. It wouldn’t have taken much at all to push him over the edge. And so, in reality, Barbarossa wasn’t a pipe dream - it was extremely close to being succesful in reality.
Any real edge might’ve pushed it the other way. And treating the Slavic people better, as was asked in the OP, might’ve been part of that. If they came as liberators, the will to resist would’ve been even less, and that might’ve been enough to push Stalin over the edge.
As it is, though, if Barbarossa had started on time, it most likely would’ve been successful.
Not even close to that - it was closer to 80 million vs 160. Not favorable for the Germans, but not nearly the gap that you’re suggesting. And as I explained, with the psychological component inflicted by Blitzkrieg, surrender was entirely possible. France could’ve put up some form of organized resistance for several times longer than they did - but they didn’t, simply because they knew they were defeated and didn’t want to commit to a bloody, protracted total war. Similar to the low countries, and to some extent Poland (Poland resisted more fiercely, and for longer, though). Nearly the same deal with the Soviet Union.
You can’t just say “A country with X population can’t beat a country with Y population” out of context. Not every war is a world-shattering, protracted, total war. The Russo-German conflict ended up being that way, but it nearly ended the same way as France, Poland, etc.
Right. Late in the war the strategic air forces started to attack German transportation and the effect was far greater than trying to bomb factories. It doesn’t matter how much stuff you have if you can’t get it to the right place in time. You can’t move a railroad or a bridge to a safe place and they are there waiting to be hit. They can be camouflaged but aerial photography will reveal them in time and there are enough landmarks around for the bombardier and navigator to get to them. Sure, they can be repaired but the continual bombing of such facilities greatly hinders the vital logistical support. It also makes planning difficult. You never know for sure if you can count on a steady flow of adequate materiel.
The Me 323 “Gigant” could carry 15 tonnes of freight, which was more than enough to lift Field Guns (PaK 40s, for example) or pair of PzKpfW II tanks, or a stripped down PzKpfW III or IV tank.
Of course, the Me 323 had it’s own problems and would have been torn to shreds by Ack-Ack fire (or even farmers with shotguns) before it got anywhere near the English coast, but the fact was that the Germans did have the ability to airlift artillery and light tanks- albeit not until late 1941.
And as for what would have happened to the rest of the Empire if the UK had sued for peace?
It’s a subject that has greatly interested me, and my educated guess would be that- assuming the Japanese weren’t involved- the rest of the Empire probably would have taken their bat and ball and gone home once the peace agreement between the UK/Germany was signed.
If the Japanese had gotten involved, of course, the rest of the Empire would have kept fighting anyway, especially since the US would be involved- although it would be The British Empire and US vs. Japan, which meant the war probably wouldn’t have lasted as long, IMO.
I started a great debate on jap versus japanese
was for the Germans to plunge they Panzer armies deep into Russia, and ignore the horse-drawn, plodding infantry divisions. It was this crazy obsession with keeping the infantry and panzers together that lost the war for Hitler. In many ways, Hitler though a LOT like a WWI general-he had such a great fear of exposed flanks However, has the armored generals like Manstein and Guderian had their way, Moscow , Leningrad, etc., would have been ignored. Had this strategy been followed, the Germans would have been at Moscow in late September, not late December, when there was still good weather for operations. Guderian himslf felt that the delays had doomed the Germans-having troops in the filed during the hellacious Russian winter made no sense-and the Germans had no winter equipment to speak of. I read that the German army implored its citizens to DONATR fur coats for the troops! It shows how close to disaster Barbarossa was! :eek:
It also wasn’t available until 1943 in the ‘real world’ timeline, and even with many of these things, I’m sceptical that it would be feasible to transport large amounts of heavy materiel across to England with them.
Fundamentally, whether it was feasible for the Germans to invade Britain in the summer of 1940 (given better much better preparation and the failure of Operation Dynamo) comes down to the result you expect from a confrontation between:
-Well-trained experienced soldiers dumped into England in ‘pigpile’ formation, fighting with few crew-served weapons and virtually no artillery, limited resupply and reconnisance, but with strong aerial support
-Green militias and elderly veterans, with even more limited weaponry but better supplies, fighting on home ground with some armour support but no air support.
I think the Germans might have pulled it off if the people in charge were truly ubermenschen of planning and organisation - the training, doctrine and tactical leadership of the Germans was usually better than the trained militaries they came up against, never mind militias.
Once the British had a chance to get ‘Dads Army’ properly organised and equipped, and some rudimentary defences established on the beaches and along the stop lines, then the window of opportunity is closed for several years, assuming Germany leaves Russia alone, keeps the US out of the war, and focuses on Britain. A second front or US involvement guarantees disaster.
With respect to the hypothetical chemical weapon defense, the two major issues I have with that are that it presupposes a capability of delivery (the necessary Luftwaffe air superiority would hamper air delivery, roaming paratroopers would hamper artillery) and secondly that chemical weapons are ineffective unless used in saturation. Trying to blanket the south-east of england would result in a lot of long-term damage to all concerned, but fail to incapacitate troops unless they could be targeted with some degree of precision. However, if it did work, the Nazis would then be free to respond in kind - a chemical Blitz might make Britain crumble on its own.
My personal feeling about the Empire is that it would be a negligible threat unless it was effectively a US proxy. How could the Dominions create a credible military force and project it against the Axis? The industry just didn’t exist.
Weirddave, your outrage is somewhat puzzling, given that the poster in question admitted he was using it as an insult:
Hmmm… And just how were these panzer divisions to stay alive once an enemy formation moved across their rear? There’s no way they could have carried enough fuel, munitions and spares to operate without a supply line, and there weren’t enough motorized divisions available to form a spearhead and a screening force for the axis of advance. The fear of exposed flanks is not irrational - letting the enemy cut off your advance is a very good way of getting your entire force obliterated.
Germany would have had to crank up production to a full war footing right at the get-go instead of only starting in 1942. That might have allowed sufficient vehicle availability to motorize the infantry divisions and allow for a higher-speed war of manouevre. That, along with a clearer strategic direction, might have let Barbarossa succeed.
Well maybe, but who is going to guard the roads needed to bring fuel and ammunition to those tanks? This reminds me of all the kudos to Patton for driving his units so fast after the Normandy break-out that the tanks ran out of fuel. There are few things in this world as forlorn as a tank that is out of fuel in enemy territory.
Well, it is a long chain of what ifs, but…
(As was mentioned before) What if Japan was notified of Germany’s intention to invade Russia, they collude and attack simultaneaously, and kept the U.S. out of the war by not having Pearl Harbor, and staying out of the Phillipines? This does make Russia more likely to not have the resources to fight them off, especially witout lend-lease shoring up their mechanized rescources. Of course, this would have required for the Axis to act more like real allies than they did, and I have no idea how Japan gets the resources they need out of the eastern side of Russia. While the Germans would probably occupy the western side, where I think that the developed resouces were. But as long as they kept the U.S. out of the war, they could wait on taking England.
If all that happened…
Then Germany might have the tech to make a competent sea/land attack aircraft with the range to neautralize the English navy? Maybe I am giving them too much credit technologically, and yes, they would have to go to a full war economy at least before going into Poland. That would tip their intentions much earler, and warn the rest of Europe, but inertia often rules, who knows, they might still get the same concessions early on.
But, if all that happened, maybe they, instead of Japan, would be the ones who would prove air power can destroy sea power quite effectively. It was possible with 1943 technology to make aircraft that can patol most of the North Atlantic from France, at least all of England and Ireland. Then they have more control of the seas, and you could possibly have men and equipment in the landing area ready to be attacked with gas.
Yeah, that is a lot of what ifs, and there really is no sure fire way for keeping the U.S. out forever. The blockading of England is going to sink too many American cargp ships and escort ships eventually. Plus, I have no idea how Germany’s economy lasts that long. I do not remember where, but I want to say I read that the Nazis thought their economy could not survive more than 4 years of war. But, they did make some nice torpedoes. I think they could have done it, fortuneately they weren’t able to see far enough into the future, or cooperate. Which works out for us, huh?