Where Hitler went wrong on the U-Boat campaign

[Achtung Englander]

My friend at work and I are fanatic SH3 gamers. We constantly talk about the game and have lunch time chats about WW2 in general. Playing the "What If" game of alternative universes we often discuss what we would do, in hindsight, to win the war for the Nazis

For the sea campaign its dead easy

- build no surface fleet with prestigeous battleships that take up huge resources

- build and maintain over 5,000 U-Boats and have at least 300 - 1000 UBoats operational at any one time. You basically sink anything that floats

WW2 won on the sea !

[Drebbel]

You build 5000 uboats ??? That is an awfull lot, think about the resources (material, rephlenishment, ammo, personell) you need, but ok, I go with you.

But what-if the allies build 50000 ASW vessels and 50000 ASW planes ?

You loose the war :D

[JetSnake]

It would have prolonged the war because allied radar and sonar still would rule the day.

[AceChilla]

It would have prolonged the war because allied radar and sonar still would rule the day.

Well maybe if the U-boat would have managed to starve the British from American supplies enough so that they couldn't continue the fight. That was a very real posibility in the beginning of the war.

With Brittain out of the picture it would have been a whole different ballgame.

[STEED]

U-boats were a huge waste of resources there is no way you can just starve and defeat the world's greatest naval power the Royal Navy. England was receiving a lot of aid from the world's second greatest naval power the U.S Navy. Germany should had built some four aircraft carrier groups instead. Anyway, Hitler should have let Raeder to do his job and not interfere which seems to have been Hitler's favourite hobby and pass time.

[DerKaleun]

They should have build the XXI überboot since 1939. In fact the XXI was build with technolgy which was 1939 available. If they were building just that type of sub, they would own every damn convoy.

Hit, run and dive to 300m. Bevor a damn can sinks to 300m you are far away at 16knots.

[AceChilla]

U-boats were a huge waste of resources there is no way you can just starve and defeat the world's greatest naval power the Royal Navy. England was receiving a lot of aid from the world's second greatest naval power the U.S Navy. Germany should had built some four aircraft carrier groups instead. Anyway, Hitler should have let Raeder to do his job and not interfere which seems to have been Hitler´s favourite hobby and pass time.

Well someone should have told Churchill that, because he was pretty worried about it ;)

[Sulikate]

They should have build the XXI überboot since 1939. In fact the XXI was build with technolgy which was 1939 available. If they were building just that type of sub, they would own every damn convoy.

Hit, run and dive to 300m. Bevor a damn can sinks to 300m you are far away at 16knots.

I cannot say this wouldn't work...

[VonHelsching]

I like those "what if" scenarios. :P

As it proved later, the victory points would be:

- No battleships
- Yes to carriers
- No Balkans
- No Russia
- Invade England
- Raid Gibraltar

U-boats would then serve the ancillary purpose of guarding. If Germany wanted then to advance to the West:

- Invest in air technology
- Invest in ASW / Radar etc.
- Harrass the west front. But no possibility of invasion without real navy.

Thank god, these things never happened.

[ParaB]

U-boats were a huge waste of resources there is no way you can just starve and defeat the world's greatest naval power the Royal Navy. England was receiving a lot of aid from the world's second greatest naval power the U.S Navy. Germany should had built some four aircraft carrier groups instead. Anyway, Hitler should have let Raeder to do his job and not interfere which seems to have been Hitler´s favourite hobby and pass time.

Couldn't disagree more. Look at how few Uboats with only a couple of thousand crewmen sunk hundreds of thousands of tons of shipping and supplies until 1943 when the allies got the upper hand in the battle of the Atlantic. Uboats were an extremely efficient means of fighting a naval war for a country with such a small Navy as Germany in 1939.

No battleships and heavy cruisers but 100 more type VII boats when the war started would've put the Royal Navy under tremendous pressure.

[Sulikate]

I like those "what if" scenarios. :P

As it proved later, the victory points would be:

- No battleships
- Yes to carriers
- No Balkans
- No Russia
- Invade England
- Raid Gibraltar

U-boats would then serve the ancillary purpose of guarding. If Germany wanted then to advance to the West:

- Invest in air technology
- Invest in ASW / Radar etc.
- Harrass the west front. But no possibility of invasion without real navy.

Thank god, these things never happened.

Good point

[CCIP]

Well, historical "what ifs" are only that.

Game what-ifs on the other hand... :hmm:

A lot of possible neat gameplay there.

[Takeda Shingen]

You build 5000 uboats ??? That is an awfull lot, think about the resources (material, rephlenishment, ammo, personell) you need, but ok, I go with you.

But what-if the allies build 50000 ASW vessels and 50000 ASW planes ?

You loose the war :D

I cannot believe it, but I am about to agree with Drebbel. The advent of RADAR was the death knell for the conventional submarine of the early 20th century. Yes, it is true that the XXI was a landmark that was used by a multitude of nations for early Cold War designs, but is was produced with so many new advances that it proved highly unreliable in practical use.

The second world war was simply part of a cycle of ASW/ASUW seasawing that has occured throughout the 20th century. The submarine was at a technologic advantage in WWI. By the 1940's the pendulum had swung over to the ASW side (it went, way, as evidenced by uboat losses in the last 36 months of WWII). The advantage went back to the submarine in the early Cold War, so much so as to cause the development of the hunter/killer submarine and SOSUS monitoring stations (not to mention satellites).

Germany could have had 5000 uboats. Once RADAR came along, it was all over. In the end, they just couldn't build them fast enough. Now, if you will excuse me, I will be heading to the doctor's office. I must not be well.

[Dutch]

Prolonging the war may have been the only result in this case, but! Prolonging the war may have been just what the Germans needed.

Type XXI anyone? Had enough of these gotten into the waters the german would have easily won the war in the seas.

For fear of Uboat threats D-Day may have been postponed.

Saying that prolonging the war would have been all bad for Germany might not be true, the allies won thanks to great timing not by taking thier time.

[STEED]

Type XXI anyone? Had enough of these gotten into the waters the german would have easily won the war in the seas.

An empty victory if it happened the U.S.S.R still would had crushed Germany.

[Sulikate]

Type XXI anyone? Had enough of these gotten into the waters the german would have easily won the war in the seas.

An empty victory if it happened the U.S.S.R still would had crushed Germany.

Then it's another conflict... Who knows... If Germany had won the battle against England, it would certanly invest a lot in V2 in order to cause "some" damage in URSS.
It's hard to say who would have won anyway.

[STEED]

Type XXI anyone? Had enough of these gotten into the waters the german would have easily won the war in the seas.

An empty victory if it happened the U.S.S.R still would had crushed Germany.

Then it's another conflict... Who knows... If Germany had won the battle against England, it would certanly invest a lot in V2 in order to cause "some" damage in URSS.
It's hard to say who would have won anyway.

Please remember one thing Hitler waged a war of genocide against the Jews, Communists, and the mentally ill and so on. :nope:

[Sulikate]

Type XXI anyone? Had enough of these gotten into the waters the german would have easily won the war in the seas.

An empty victory if it happened the U.S.S.R still would had crushed Germany.

Then it's another conflict... Who knows... If Germany had won the battle against England, it would certanly invest a lot in V2 in order to cause "some" damage in URSS.
It's hard to say who would have won anyway.

Please remember one thing Hitler waged a war of genocide against the Jews, Communists, and the mentally ill and so on. :nope:

Agreed. Besides all of that, he wasn't nearly the best strategist I've ever heard about...

[STEED]

Agreed. Besides all of that, he wasn't nearly the best strategist I've ever heard about...

TRUE.

[kiwi_2005]

My friend at work and I are fanatic SH3 gamers. We constantly talk about the game and have lunch time chats about WW2 in general. Playing the "What If" game of alternative universes we often discuss what we would do, in hindsight, to win the war for the Nazis

:rotfl: ADDICTED! :D

If 300 TYPE XXI on patrol every month say from 1940 onwards, would of made a HUGE difference to the war of the atlantic.

[Hartmann]

With more u boats in the war begins and aircraft carriers like japanese in the pacific, and build or buy the Zero aircraft, with his range the england battle could be different.

Also more I+d in Asw /radar,and early snorkels

And dont make some big mistakes

Change the strategy in the england battle
delay in arrive to moscow
lose the whole 6 army in Stalingrad

[Achtung Englander]

i still maintain that if Hitler had 300 operational UBoats from Winter 39 the British would have been too scarred to deploy the navy in case of heavy losses

Hitler could have had a stranglehold around Britain - he could have quite literally starved the UK into submission

[Tonnage_Ace]

I think most of you are missing the point. Hitler invaded Russia instead of keeping the pressure on the British, he sent some three million troops into Russia, possibly more, which if sent into Britain would've been the end of the supply route to Europe. If Japan hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor and Germany concentrated on Britain like I said earlier, they could attack the US from two sides, the only way to defeat America.

The bottom line is that Germany or Japan alone could not compete with America's industrial complex, 300 type XXI's or no type XXI's. Same goes with Russia, Germany was pretty much bogged down in Stalingrad and was fighting a losing battle, despite taking much ground in Eastern Europe, the supply lines were stretched extremely far. Again, having a Japanese Expeditionary force on the other side of Russia, coming in from the East would've made quite the difference.

All in all, the war of WW2 was won on the ground, in large part. Not to say that this will always be so in future wars, as nuclear submarines can decimate whole countries...

[Heibges]

And if you've played Axis and Allies, you know that the Axis cannot win unless Japan starts building a factory in China on her first move.

[Tonnage_Ace]

And if you've played Axis and Allies, you know that the Axis cannot win unless Japan starts building a factory in China on her first move.
:rotfl: And if you consider yourself a pro in Starcraft, that's the equivalent of a five star general...

[Salvadoreno]

is that how u win?? Psh man i stunk at that game. :nope:

[Heibges]

I have never played Starcraft, but here wonderful things about it from folks who do. Especially the unit balancing.

That and Germany needs to get some lucky roles attacking Leningrad.

[Takeda Shingen]

XXI's early in the war would serve to expediate the development of the USN's homing torpedoes, especially active homers. The bottom line is that for all of their advancements, the XXI was still a submersible torpedo boat, bound to the surface.

[Torplexed]

You build 5000 uboats ??? That is an awfull lot, think about the resources (material, rephlenishment, ammo, personell) you need, but ok, I go with you.

But what-if the allies build 50000 ASW vessels and 50000 ASW planes ?

You loose the war :D

I have to go with Drebbel's original statement. As it was Germany was forced to ransack high to mid voltage transmission lines throughout France and other occupied countries for copper just to boost U-Boat production. In the fight for finite resources a land animal like Hitler wasn't about to cut back on tank production and increases in the number of Army divisions to build and man a fleet of 5,000 submarines. Germany's industrial might only went so far.

Frankly, if Hitler could have traveled from 1945 back to 1933 with a couple of blueprints he probably would thrown everthing into early Tiger and Panther tank production and research on anti-ship missles (which the Germans had by 1943).....the latter a lot cheaper anti-merchant weapon than submarines.

On the other hand if Hitler had had a time machine....he probably would have traveled to back 1914 and dumped all these goodies on the Kaiser. :o

[Harry Buttle]

Couldn't disagree more. Look at how few Uboats with only a couple of thousand crewmen sunk hundreds of thousands of tons of shipping and supplies until 1943 when the allies got the upper hand in the battle of the Atlantic. Uboats were an extremely efficient means of fighting a naval war for a country with such a small Navy as Germany in 1939.

Completely wrong.

You are focussing on tonnage of shipping sunk. who cares?

Look at percentage of incoming cargos that were sunk and you will see that the U-boats were trivial.

In their best year (42) the U-boats only sank 9.7% of the incoming cargos.



No battleships and heavy cruisers but 100 more type VII boats when the war started would've put the Royal Navy under tremendous pressure.

Again wrong, if you triple the cargos sunk you still dont have a great impact on Britains ability to continue the war.

You also (like most who put forward these alternative plans) assume that the alliese would not react, if the Germans built a serious number of subs pre war the allies would divert resources from cruisers and battleships to ASW assets.

[finchOU]

ah but it was mother nature that killed the Germans and won the war (and a little bit of arrogance and ignorance on Hitlers part with respect to tactics)....hell the germans were in spitting distance of Moscow before "worst winter in 300 years" ground the Nazies to a halt...giving the time advantage to the side of the Russians.

Hard to say about the U-boat side of the house...maybe a true blockaide and widespread Wolfpack tactics...who knows...and like someone one else said...thank god they didnt win.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

It seems pretty obvious to me: the war was lost when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, and his declaring war on the U.S. was just extra insurance to make sure he lost. "What ifs" might have dragged out things, but the Allies would have eventually won.

[VonHelsching]

Completely wrong.

You are focussing on tonnage of shipping sunk. who cares?

Look at percentage of incoming cargos that were sunk and you will see that the U-boats were trivial.

In their best year (42) the U-boats only sank 9.7% of the incoming cargos.



Well, you're right with the 9,7%, but it's about cargos. I think in numbers of ships sunk vs ships built they managed to break it almost even for a month or two.

Also look an alternative in a real sub campaign. The Pacific. I don't have the figures with me, but I remember reading a thesis about the Americans sinking 90% of Japan's merchant fleet. Of course it was a smaller fleet, and it was also not replenished like the UK / US fleet.

If the Germans had more subs that percentage should be a lot more. But totally agree with you that they could not win a war with tonnage war. The Allies would have to find countermeasures and eventually they would.

But if again the Germans threw in the XXI in 1941 for ambush / anti TF duties then... :-j

Again, thank god these things never happened...

[rogerbo]

I think the whole is much more complex and my guess is that the U-Boot side is only part which by it alone would not have made a big change of the whole outcome. If Hitler would not have isnsisted that all the ME262 should have Dive bombing qualities and If the Heads of the Luftwaffe would not have insisted in not needing al long distance Bomber, and if they would havw taken Malta when they had the chance to keep Rommels back free then many things would look different today.

[Harry Buttle]

Well, you're right with the 9,7%, but it's about cargos. I think in numbers of ships sunk vs ships built they managed to break it almost even for a month or two.



But that simply doesn't matter - by the time they were close the allies were building up a force to invade europe, not trying to defend Britain, all the Germans could hope to do was delay the invasion.



Also look an alternative in a real sub campaign. The Pacific. I don't have the figures with me, but I remember reading a thesis about the Americans sinking 90% of Japan's merchant fleet. Of course it was a smaller fleet, and it was also not replenished like the UK / US fleet.



Smaller fleet, incompetently managed, barely protected and the allies were routinely reading their mail.



If the Germans had more subs that percentage should be a lot more. But totally agree with you that they could not win a war with tonnage war. The Allies would have to find countermeasures and eventually they would.

But if again the Germans threw in the XXI in 1941 for ambush / anti TF duties then... :-j



ah, the early type XXI! why would Germany introduce a type XXI? it was purely designed as a reaction to the utterly unexpected ability of the allied airpower to devestate the U-boat fleet.

If Germany knows they need the XXI, its already too late for Germany.

[rogerbo]

Many things have come to late just because they thought they don't need it. If we look at the PQ Convois, if the Germans would had more success in blocking / Sinking the Cargoes then the outcome of the Eastern front would have changed, but they realy did to less to late so the russians could reequipe the whola Armie with new Tanks, Plains and Weapons in such a short time that the Germans had no chance at all. So basicaly the real question is how and with what measurements the germans could disturb all these Transports.

The blocking of England and Russia with U-Boats alone would have required much more of them or a much more active role of the Main Fleet, wich the Germans also didn't want (mainly Hitler who didn't wanted to Risk the Tirpitz). So it reminds me a little of the WW I (i'm rteading the Battle of the Skagerat right now) and there was the same Problem with the Kaiser as they didn't wanted to Risk the Fleet.

[Harry Buttle]

The blocking of England and Russia with U-Boats alone would have required much more of them or a much more active role of the Main Fleet, wich the Germans also didn't want (mainly Hitler who didn't wanted to Risk the Tirpitz). So it reminds me a little of the WW I (i'm rteading the Battle of the Skagerat right now) and there was the same Problem with the Kaiser as they didn't wanted to Risk the Fleet.

The problem with that is that the Germans would lose their surface fleet and once it was gone the entire Brit Home fleet could be moved into productive areas of combat - the Tirpitz was far more effective as a threat than the Bizmark ever was as a warship.

[SilentOtto]

Smaller fleet, incompetently managed, barely protected and the allies were routinely reading their mail.

Well, in the Atlantic it was more of that reading... I thought everyone knew that the war was won/lost (depends on p.o.v) at Bletchey Park by Alan Turing & friends... Allied intelligence helped by Hitler's stupid tactical decisions...[/quote]

[rogerbo]

The problem with that is that the Germans would lose their surface fleet and once it was gone the entire Brit Home fleet could be moved into productive areas of combat - the Tirpitz was far more effective as a threat than the Bizmark ever was as a warship.
I know that the Tirpitz was used as a threat for the Home Fleet, but when you think on the PQ 17 Drama where the British did spread the Convoi just because the Tirpitz had left the fjords and then what did the Germans do ? they did make a turn with the Tirpitz and returned without any real contact. My point actualy is that it was a shame that the germans didn't let the Tirpitz, Bismark,Blücher and the other bigies go out on a raid all together. I'm sure a coordinated action as it was planed in 1916 with the help of the U-Boats would have had a big impact in the British fleet and may would have changed a few things.

Yes i know the Germans had a small fleet, but they had (at least at the begining) still a technical advantage over the Brits as the ships where newer.

[Mart!jn]

nice topic....
i don't think hitler did something wrong with his u-boat war.
he made only 3 mistakes.
- he didn't let his air-general continue to bomb the airfields in England, instead he orderd for bombing londen. and because of that, england had space to repair his airfields and build up an airforce.

- i think he was stupid to fight the sovjet union

- he made also a stupid mistake in ignoring his generals

[MarshalLaw]

All are good points, in reality if a few minor things had gone differant. WWII would have had a differant ending for both the Atlantic and the pacific. Steed and I had several "What if threads" on the Red devils site. Good reading, and it will make you think. Most of the points discussed we covered in our what if threads.
One of my favorites was Germany building 2 essex class style Aircraft carriers, and how they were used. Below is the url if anyone would like to read them.

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/dominicobaggio/silenthunterIII.html

[jasonb885]

...
Couldn't disagree more. Look at how few Uboats with only a couple of thousand crewmen sunk hundreds of thousands of tons of shipping and supplies until 1943 when the allies got the upper hand in the battle of the Atlantic. Uboats were an extremely efficient means of fighting a naval war for a country with such a small Navy as Germany in 1939.

No battleships and heavy cruisers but 100 more type VII boats when the war started would've put the Royal Navy under tremendous pressure.

I'd read up on Spring '42, when the U-Boat War essentially turned in favor of the Allies. You're off by at least 6 months.

[Achtung Englander]

absolutely about bombing the airfields - we almost lost the war because the air force was on its last legs. The city bombing was a huge relief

Hitler made some huge mistakes in 41 / 42, the biggest being the invasion of Russia

If he had consolodated his position after the fall of France and sought a truce with Britain I wonder whether we would have liberated Europe ?

[Type XXIII]

The problem with that is that the Germans would lose their surface fleet and once it was gone the entire Brit Home fleet could be moved into productive areas of combat - the Tirpitz was far more effective as a threat than the Bizmark ever was as a warship.
I know that the Tirpitz was used as a threat for the Home Fleet, but when you think on the PQ 17 Drama where the British did spread the Convoi just because the Tirpitz had left the fjords and then what did the Germans do ? they did make a turn with the Tirpitz and returned without any real contact. My point actualy is that it was a shame that the germans didn't let the Tirpitz, Bismark,Blücher and the other bigies go out on a raid all together. I'm sure a coordinated action as it was planed in 1916 with the help of the U-Boats would have had a big impact in the British fleet and may would have changed a few things.

Yes i know the Germans had a small fleet, but they had (at least at the begining) still a technical advantage over the Brits as the ships where newer.

They did make a few attempts of raidng convoys with surface ships. The first, and most succesful, was the cruise of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau January-March 1941. They sank 20-some ships.

The second was Operation Rheinübung, which we all know how ended. After that, the concept was largely abandoned.

[Bustoff]

Forget uboats, jets, assault rifles (stg44), etc...

Germany lost WWII because of one thing, THE INVASION OF RUSSIA!

Hitler had an iron-clad non aggression pact with Russia and Stalin had no means of attacking Germany after the great purges. It was absolute folly to attack Russia at that time.

In fact Hitler and Stalin would have probably been great friends for Stalin was no communist. He was just another meglomaniacal dictator like his buddy Adolf!

Hitler was obviously not a student of history because good ol' Napoleon tried the same thing with the same result.

In fact I wish all politians were required to hold doctorates in history. So much of what any nation faces today has been dealt with already in the past.

[STEED]

Forget uboats, jets, assault rifles (stg44), etc...

Germany lost WWII because of one thing, THE INVASION OF RUSSIA!

True and declaring of war on America. :yep:

[Tonnage_Ace]

Forget uboats, jets, assault rifles (stg44), etc...

Germany lost WWII because of one thing, THE INVASION OF RUSSIA!

True and declaring of war on America. :yep:
Well it was because of Japan's raid on Pearl Harbor that caused America to declare war on Germany and Japan. If Hitler had told Japan's leadership that he would help invade America in due time, they both could've attacked from both sides. That and the fact he invaded Russia, which is amazingly stupid tactically, you'd think Hitler was working for the allies when he did that. :rotfl:

[CCIP]

Well it was because of Japan's raid on Pearl Harbor that caused America to declare war on Germany and Japan.

False! Hitler declared war on America himself, for reasons we don't understand - after all, Japan refused to attack Russia when Hitler did so, even after all the pleas by Germany. Roosevelt was all the happier for it, but it is unlikely that he would have declared it immediately himself - the American public at the time would not have been very happy with declaring war without being attacked.

[Bustoff]

That and the fact he invaded Russia, which is amazingly stupid tactically, you'd think Hitler was working for the allies when he did that.

Hitler WAS working for the Allies. At least that is what my Flat Earth Society/Conspiracy Theorist Guild friends tell me! :doh:

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE...

[STEED]

Well it was because of Japan's raid on Pearl Harbor that caused America to declare war on Germany and Japan.

False! Hitler declared war on America himself, for reasons we don't understand

It is unconfirmed that Hitler made a remark about Japan's attack something on the lines "In a thousand years of history Japan has never lost a war." Probably believed the war can be won and so on.

[dize]

ah well the good old what if scenarios. the post war perception of ww2 is full of semi true stories, over simplifications and sheer myth.
just an example is that "if the lw would have continued to bomb the airfields, instead of switching to london, raf would have collapsed". infact, the raf was never ever realy at a breaking point. they had squad rotation, airfields out of german striking range, and a industrial fighter aircraft output beating the german one around 3:1. infact the whole "the few" saved the day is a myth too. the raf and lw forces where about even, when comparing all aircraft. u can not just compare raf fighters, and include all lw aircraft. the uneven looking engagements where caused by the way how the raf comitted its units.

[sixpk]

Hitler's war was to start in 1945.
By then the Germain Navy would have been much larger.
The invasion of Poland did not expect war with England or France because of Munich 1938.
The Allieds jumped the gun so to speak:)

[Sulikate]

Hitler's war was to start in 1945.
By then the Germain Navy would have been much larger.
The invasion of Poland did not expect war with England or France because of Munich 1938.
The Allieds jumped the gun so to speak:)

I don't know if this is correct, but makes sense.

[Bilge_Rat]

The problem with a lot of these what if scenarios is that they assume that you can only change one thing in isolation.

As someone else pointed out, if germany had built 5,000 U-boats either before or during the war, the USA and UK would have reacted and built even more ASW ships and aircraft to compensate.

The other issue is whether these additional ships, assuming they could be built, would have had a great impact. Germany commissioned 1, 154 U-Boats in 1935-45, but only about 700 ever saw combat. In 1939, the U-Boat service was an elite force, but the quick expansion quickly dumbed down standards.

In reading on the Battle of the Atlantic, one thing which always struck me was the large number of brand new U-Boats manned by green skippers and crews which were sunk on their first patrol before they even sank a single ship. A large number of kills were accounted for by a relatively small number of U-Boat aces.

So multiplying the number of U-Boats by 5 might only have multiplied the number of kills by a factor of 2.

They could have achieved the same thing just by making better use of their resources, for example:

-not wasting U-Boats on secondary missions, such as defending Norway or helping Rommel.

-changing standard U-Boat operating procedures when it should have been obvious that the british had broken the Kriegsmarine code and were using Huff-Duff to locate U-Boats.

:ahoy:

p.s. - Did you know that during the war, the Allies discussed whether they should make a serious attempt to assassinate Hitler, but came to the conclusion that he was of more help to the allied cause if they left him in control.

[sixpk]

A quick reply:
USA was an isolationish nation (at that time) and would do very little. The Plan was for 300 U-boats in 1945.

[STEED]

Hitler's war was to start in 1945.

Are you joking Germany had the upper hand in 1939-1942. Hitler knew from 1942 the Allies would catch up on Germany. Hitler had to go to war in 1939 for a fast victory but by the autumn of 1941 he lost the gamble. Or so Hitler's age was against him and his health.

[von Stahlhelm]

im happy that hitler was so stupid - otherwise, if he had win the war i had to grown up an scream "sieg heil" all the day.
but what if scenarios are some fun.
what if when hitlers starts the war against the udssr not as an "vernichtungskrieg", a planned genozide and slavery for the russians.
what if he had start the war against the udssr only as an war to kick stalin out of the way? in the beginning of "operation barbarossa" the russians where really happy - they think the germans are going to free them from stalin -
but soon they see that hitler was a much bigger slaughter than stalin and want to force them to slaves - so the fight.
as an war only to kick stalin out of his way and free the russians - barbarossa
has only last 2 - 3 month an be won- what then? with millions of thankful russians with enthusiasm for the nationalsozialism that free them?
huh....that idea makes me fear.......

[dize]

ok well
the whole question if the uboat war was effective, or what happened if the km had 5k boats etc, can not be answered, by simply adding all number from 39-45 up, and draw a conclusion out of that.
the war as a whole was lost for the axis in 43. there wasnt realy much what the axis could do, to prevent the ultimate defeat. big numbers of produced liberty mechants, cheap destroyer escorts en masse or fancy accoustic torpedos where a realitiy, but they where an answer to the impact, the km had with the uboat force. its cause and effect. an aswer that was given by the allies from mid 42 on.
a interesting "what if" to me, can only come out of a realistic scenario. the question what happened if the nazis had the bomb in 44 is simply not interesting imho. what would have happened if spiderman would be fighting for the chinese in 38 has the same appeal to me. its just fiction.
could the km have went into ww2 with like 250 VII/XI boats? of course they could have done that. a bismarck/tirpitz bb roughly equaled the cost/material/manhour of around 100 VII type boats. uboats had a devestating effect in ww1. guessing that in a comming conflict, uboats would be of great value isnt rocket sience imho.
the amount of goods, importet into the uk got halved by dec 40, from a hand full of operating uboats, a fraction of the calculated 200-300. the two years, 1940 and 1941 where the deceicive timeframe. the devestating impact, a force of 250 boats, operating from french, norweigian and german bases in 40 and 41 would have had, can not be negated. in may 1941, the operational status of the km uboat force reached a low, with a nr of operating uboats so small, its almost ridicilus.

[79TransAm]

Hitler's war was to start in 1945.
By then the Germain Navy would have been much larger.
The invasion of Poland did not expect war with England or France because of Munich 1938.
The Allieds jumped the gun so to speak:)

I have to disagree. The allies did very little in the beginning of the war. They saw what was happening and they could feel the tension building between Germany and her neighbors but they decided to wait it out in hopes of avoiding the conflict. During the first year of the war there was a Sitzkrieg in the west and the Allies (pretty much the UK) were trying to negotiate a end to the war. Also you must take into account that while the Brittish and US were allies, they initally did not trust eachother.

Hitler had many mistakes or things go wrong for him
1. Provide the infantry with a semi automatic rifle. (used mostly bolt action)
2. Produce the Me 262 earlier in the war. Desiged in 1940
3. Withdraw from africa sooner. 250,000 soliders were captured when the germans surrenderd at Tunsia and another 100K either kIA, WIA, MIA, or captured in sicily
*****4. Dont switch prioritys so much in the Battle of Brittin. Went from shipping, to RAF instilations, to cities.

Thats just what I think.

[MarshalLaw]

Many mistakes were made, As for a LW switching from Shipping to Airfields to cities. The progression was coreect. The only problem is that the Lufwaffa stopped too soon before going after the cities.
The first thing they did was attack shipping and radar sites along the british coast. Next they went after the airfields. Had they continued pounding the airfields like they did. The british Air force would have have been destoryed. Most surviving RAF pilots have said in many interviews that the RAF was only weeks away from being defeated. Had the Germans been successful ,Operation "sea lion "would have went forward sometime in early to mid 1941. By controliing the skys would have canceled out the Royal Navy having much of a impact with the German landings that were planned. I believe Hitler attacked Russia just out of frustration over the Battle of Britian going sour.

If The Germans had won the Battle of Britian, Hitler would not of attacked Russia. If he did it would have been much later. Also remember one thing about Russia Stalin depended on MASSIVE aid from Britian and the US. Had England fallen. Russia would not of stood long, due to lack of War material. The Russian factories were a joke early in the war.

As for the u-boats if more were availible at the begining of the war say only 100 instead of the 30-50. The merchant shipping losses would have been twice as bad as it was in reality. Less material coming in less for the Royal airforce to defend with......All things have a impact.

[Torplexed]

If The Germans had won the Battle of Britian, Hitler would not of attacked Russia. If he did it would have been much later. Also remember one thing about Russia Stalin depended on MASSIVE aid from Britian and the US. Had England fallen. Russia would not of stood long, due to lack of War material. The Russian factories were a joke early in the war.

Have to disagree with you on that one. When Operation Barbarossa began in June 1941 Russian factories were either overrun or evacuated to east of the Urals mountains so production was certainly drastically effected. However, Britain was strictly limited in the amount of aid she could send and the United States would be neutral until Dec 7th 1941. By that time Hitler's armies had already ground to a halt before Moscow and were shortly to begin losing ground to the first Russian winter counteroffensives. Even then it took a long time to get convoys and overland routes established. Russia certainly benefitted from Western aid, especially in trucks, food and uniforms as the war went on but she won the critical phase pretty much alone. Russia also tended to look askance at some of the second line equipment she was sent preferring to use her own. British and American tanks and planes often got sent to secondary fronts and training units.

[STEED]

Hitler wanted to expand the living space to the east long before he came to power. And after taking power and winning the war in the west in 1940 he was itching to turn east. This was his main goal all along.

Hitler on Lebensraum
In an era when the earth is gradually being divided up among states, some of which embrace almost entire continents, we cannot speak of a world power in connection with a formation whose political mother country is limited to the absurd area of five hundred thousand square kilometers. --- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf; page 644.

Without consideration of traditions and prejudices, Germany must find the courage to gather our people and their strength for an advance along the road that will lead this people from its present restricted living space to new land and soil, and hence also free it from the danger of vanishing from the earth or of serving others as a slave nation. --- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, page 646.

For it is not in colonial acquisitions that we must see the solution of this problem, but exclusively in the acquisition of a territory for settlement, which will enhance the area of the mother country, and hence not only keep the new settlers in the most intimate community with the land of their origin, but secure for the total area those advantages which lie in its unified magnitude. --- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, page 653.

The myth of the RAF was only weeks away from being defeated is wrong. On the 5 September Air Vice-Marshal Park commander of 11 Group spoke to his Chief Controller Lord Willoughby de Brooke " I know you and the other controllers must be getting worried about our losses" Park said "Well I've been looking at these casualty figures, and I've come to the conclusion that at our present rate of losses we can just afford it. And I'm damned certain the Boche can't. If we can hang on as we're going, I'm sure we shall win in the end"

On the 7th September the Luftwaffe bombed London

The RAF had been badly hit, especially the aircraft and airfields of 11 Group, but only rendered marginally effective on a temporary basis. It took less than an 8 day respite from Luftwaffe air raids for all of 11 Group's airfields, their compliment of aircraft and pilots to be brought back up to a full, 100% operational capability status. That doesn't sound like a group that was ever in any danger of being wiped out by overwhelming numbers.

The Battle of Britain was a stupid move by Germany as this was to pave way for the invasion the German build up was a joke. Here’s my post from the General Topics Forum -

Operation SeaLion 1940 (Final Conclusion)

Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:02 am Post subject: Operation SeaLion 1940 (Final Conclusion)

Just to inform everyone this issue is closed military experts today made a study of the military academy Sandhurst re-enactment in 1974 with veterans from England and Germany and those who were part of the planning of SeaLion, would have ended in a military defeat for Germany, the invasion area Dover they would have only got 18 to 20 miles in land and after a week of fighting forced to withdraw.

[MarshalLaw]

well if it was a Myth, then alot of RAF pilots bought into it. I have seen many programs and read material that all said the same thing. "Thank God the Germans switch to the cities, gave us a needed breather."
There were plenty of aircraft for the British, However they lacked experienced pilots, The replacements were rushed into combat and most died on thier first or 2nd flight.. If the Germans had kept up the pressure. The RAF would have broke. No Question.

As for the invasion, To launch in sept. 1940. I agree it would have failed. However if Postponded until the spring of 41 . It had a chance to to successful. More time for the Germans to prepare and to have soften up military targets, naval assets etc. Even if landings went ok. It still would have been a long and drawn out affair.

[Harry Buttle]

absolutely about bombing the airfields - we almost lost the war because the air force was on its last legs. The city bombing was a huge relief

That is the commonly believed myth.

if you look at the amount of available pilots and immediately available single engined fighters (in reserve) in RAF fighter command they both stayed consistently high.

Fighter command was not on its 'last legs', frankly the Luftwaffe could not defeat the RAF - had the RAF been heavily damaged, they just withdraw to the north (out of fighter range) and come back to dominate the invasion.

[Harry Buttle]

the devestating impact, a force of 250 boats, operating from french, norweigian and german bases in 40 and 41 would have had, can not be negated.



Actually you are ignoring the fact that, in that timeframe the Brits were busily wasting vast amounts of long ranged bombers in bomber command (exporting bombs in the general direction of Germany) - if the U-boats were having a serious effect, you would expect a major diversion of resources from bomber command to coastal command and suddenly the Germans are facing exactly what defeated them in real life - major long ranged airpower.

[Harry Buttle]

well if it was a Myth, then alot of RAF pilots bought into it. I have seen many programs and read material that all said the same thing. "Thank God the Germans switch to the cities, gave us a needed breather."

Thats why you don't ask front line troops about the strategic situation - they simply don't know.

As noted above, the Brits had plenty of reserves that could be brought into play - in the entire BoB the amount of immediately available spare fighters never dropped below 191 and at the start of the BoB fighter command never dropped below the amount it started with (in fact it increased by almost 500 pilots over the battle).



There were plenty of aircraft for the British, However they lacked experienced pilots, The replacements were rushed into combat and most died on thier first or 2nd flight.. If the Germans had kept up the pressure. The RAF would have broke. No Question.



Rubbish, the Germans were losing pilots faster than the Brits - the Brits got many of their shot down pilots back, the Germans got almost none back.



As for the invasion, To launch in sept. 1940. I agree it would have failed. However if Postponded until the spring of 41 . It had a chance to to successful. More time for the Germans to prepare and to have soften up military targets, naval assets etc. Even if landings went ok. It still would have been a long and drawn out affair.

The Luftwaffe had no ability to sustain such an offensive, so it would have been just a longer disaster for the Luftwaffe than the BoB historically was, throw in the fact that the Kriegsmarine had no ability to support an invasion and the Army had no credible plan to execute an invasion and it would have been a fiasco.

[STEED]

If the Germans had kept up the pressure. The RAF would have broke. No Question.

Sorry no the R.A.F would had pulled back at best and only for a short time. Before returning to their southern bases.



As for the invasion, To launch in sept. 1940. I agree it would have failed. However if Postponded until the spring of 41 . It had a chance to to successful.

England was well defended by the army the home guard along with saboteurs, strong points defensive lines and that was in 1940.
By 1941 even stronger defence SeaLion was dead in the water no hope at all.

[BettingUrlife]

If The Germans had won the Battle of Britian, Hitler would not of attacked Russia. If he did it would have been much later. Also remember one thing about Russia Stalin depended on MASSIVE aid from Britian and the US. Had England fallen. Russia would not of stood long, due to lack of War material. The Russian factories were a joke early in the war.

Have to disagree with you on that one. When Operation Barbarossa began in June 1941 Russian factories were either overrun or evacuated to east of the Urals mountains so production was certainly drastically effected. However, Britain was strictly limited in the amount of aid she could send and the United States would be neutral until Dec 7th 1941. By that time Hitler's armies had already ground to a halt before Moscow and were shortly to begin losing ground to the first Russian winter counteroffensives. Even then it took a long time to get convoys and overland routes established. Russia certainly benefitted from Western aid, especially in trucks, food and uniforms as the war went on but she won the critical phase pretty much alone. Russia also tended to look askance at some of the second line equipment she was sent preferring to use her own. British and American tanks and planes often got sent to secondary fronts and training units.

Even Stalin has been quoted as saying that Russia would never have won if it weren't for the convoys and the supplies that came in from the US and the UK.

[Harry Buttle]

Even Stalin has been quoted as saying that Russia would never have won if it weren't for the convoys and the supplies that came in from the US and the UK.

Combat a/c production 1940

Ge - 6201

USSR - 8145

Tanks + SP guns production 1940 (excludes light tanks)

Ge - 1643

USSR - 2794

Arty (inc AT + AA) production 1940

Ge - 6730

USSR - 15300


I don't doubt that the convoys helped a lot, but clearly the USSR was producing enough BEFORE the convoys to get the job done.

BTW, production for the USSR went up quite steeply in all categories once the war started (Arty production in 1943 for example was 130,300 guns - Gemany only made 46,100 in the same year ).

[jasonb885]

Even Stalin has been quoted as saying that Russia would never have won if it weren't for the convoys and the supplies that came in from the US and the UK.

...

I don't doubt that the convoys helped a lot, but clearly the USSR was producing enough BEFORE the convoys to get the job done.

BTW, production for the USSR went up quite steeply in all categories once the war started (Arty production in 1943 for example was 130,300 guns - Gemany only made 46,100 in the same year ).

What about quality versus quantity?

Although later Russian armor was formitable.

[CCIP]

Nor was the lend-lease material exactly the cream of the crop! (the US kept the best stuff for themselves, expectedly enough) :yep:

A little goes a long way though. I don't doubt the extra supplies had been a key help at moments, but I think the Soviet production was ultimately able to be self-sufficient.

[thyro]

It seems pretty obvious to me: the war was lost when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, and his declaring war on the U.S. was just extra insurance to make sure he lost. "What ifs" might have dragged out things, but the Allies would have eventually won.

Exactly...

If Hitler didn't think that was able to conquer in weeks his idiology arch-enenmy (communism)... The war in other front (UK then US) would be very bloodiest one.

But Germany required resources and a possibility for US to enter the war made pression... and no better country for resources... Russia.

That made Hitler to think about conquer his comunist "allied". He migh have tought... Germany get them in weeks, the Reds were not prepared and their army isn't equiped.

But like Napolion, Hitler forgot Russia's wheather and a blitz campain that was for weeks took months and end-up with a backslash until the doors of his bunker.

Again "what if", if Hitler avoided another combat front at east of Germany... I really doubt that we would live in the world of today.

But again it was a necessity to attack Russia and their vast resources to support the war on the other side against UK and US... without that Germany were doomed and this is what happened.

[Manock]

There was a book written by a professor that made the talk show rounds around 6-9 yrs ago that presented a credible scenario where Germany could have won the war. It mainly centered around holding the Mediteranean. There was discussion on the History Channel about it.

Posters here might find it interesting.

A genuine degreed librarian at your local library might be able to help someone find it.

Does anyone remember the name of the book just a few years ago about the dive team that discovered, and explored a Type VII wreck off the New England coast? Sounded intriguing.

[Torplexed]

Even Stalin has been quoted as saying that Russia would never have won if it weren't for the convoys and the supplies that came in from the US and the UK.

...

I don't doubt that the convoys helped a lot, but clearly the USSR was producing enough BEFORE the convoys to get the job done.

BTW, production for the USSR went up quite steeply in all categories once the war started (Arty production in 1943 for example was 130,300 guns - Gemany only made 46,100 in the same year ).

What about quality versus quantity?

Although later Russian armor was formitable.

Actually a lot of early Russian armour was quite formidable. Certainly a good portion of the pre-war Soviet tank fleet was composed of light models like the BT-5 and the T-70. However, it also included the revolutionary T-34 and the hulking KV-1. Tanks which dumbfounded the Germans as their armor was virtually inpenetrable by anything less than the rather immobile 88mm AA gun. Plus, the T-34 with it's wide tracks was much better in cross-country performance then the German MK IIIs and Mk IVs. The later German Tiger and Panther tanks were born in a crash program to try and match these Russian tanks in quality. That being said the quality of German tank crews and generalship did a lot to compensate for the inferiority of German tanks through much of 1941-42. Actually you could make the same comment about France 1940 as many of the Allied models were superior there too.

[dize]

the devestating impact, a force of 250 boats, operating from french, norweigian and german bases in 40 and 41 would have had, can not be negated.



Actually you are ignoring the fact that, in that timeframe the Brits were busily wasting vast amounts of long ranged bombers in bomber command (exporting bombs in the general direction of Germany) - if the U-boats were having a serious effect, you would expect a major diversion of resources from bomber command to coastal command and suddenly the Germans are facing exactly what defeated them in real life - major long ranged airpower.

i think im not getting this one right. ur saying that the brit could have switched their bomber forces to asw duty, anytime they want? this is a bit far out imho, but still another interesting what if.

[Antonin]

The bottom line is that Germany or Japan alone could not compete with America's industrial complex, 300 type XXI's or no type XXI's. Same goes with Russia, Germany was pretty much bogged down in Stalingrad and was fighting a losing battle, despite taking much ground in Eastern Europe, the supply lines were stretched extremely far. Again, having a Japanese Expeditionary force on the other side of Russia, coming in from the East would've made quite the difference....

The point, though, is TIME. With 300 Type XXIs (or 500-600 Type VIIs) operating in 1940, the UK might have been starved into reaching an 'understanding' with Germany before America's industrial might could be brought to bear.

We get even deeper into speculation when we talk about Japanese expeditionary forces in Siberia. Japan had no cultural (or even strategic, IMHO) interest in a 'northern' strategy. Japan operating in the USSR in cooperation with Germany's strategic interests...it's just so unlikely as to be mere alt-history novel fodder. The Asian and European arms of the Axis had very little in common. I think theirs was an alliance of convenience.

[Antonin]

..The other issue is whether these additional ships, assuming they could be built, would have had a great impact. Germany commissioned 1, 154 U-Boats in 1935-45, but only about 700 ever saw combat. In 1939, the U-Boat service was an elite force, but the quick expansion quickly dumbed down standards.

But I'm reminded of a quote by retired US Army Col David Glantz, speaking of the WW2 Red Army: "Quantity has a quality all its own." I think more boats deployed sooner would have tipped the scale.


...They could have achieved the same thing just by making better use of their resources, for example:

-not wasting U-Boats on secondary missions, such as defending Norway or helping Rommel.


Quite true. Sending U-boats into the Med was just plain wacky.

[BettingUrlife]

Even Stalin has been quoted as saying that Russia would never have won if it weren't for the convoys and the supplies that came in from the US and the UK.

Combat a/c production 1940

Ge - 6201

USSR - 8145

Tanks + SP guns production 1940 (excludes light tanks)

Ge - 1643

USSR - 2794

Arty (inc AT + AA) production 1940

Ge - 6730

USSR - 15300


I don't doubt that the convoys helped a lot, but clearly the USSR was producing enough BEFORE the convoys to get the job done.

BTW, production for the USSR went up quite steeply in all categories once the war started (Arty production in 1943 for example was 130,300 guns - Gemany only made 46,100 in the same year ).

I think this is being a little selective. The Russians didn't particulary like Allied aircraft or tanks early on during the war. And especially with the improved production numbers of vehicles like the T-34 as the war progressed what need would they have of the Sherman or a British tank for that matter?

The supplies that the Russains needed most (not in order) were food, raw materials and transport (trains and trucks) and even things such as explosives for use in demolitions. I think if you had a look at those figures you will change your mind.

[Harry Buttle]

i think im not getting this one right. ur saying that the brit could have switched their bomber forces to asw duty, anytime they want? this is a bit far out imho, but still another interesting what if.

Yes, I am saying exactly that, I don't see what is so far out about it (in fact one of the mysteries of WW2 is why Bomber Harris wasn't told to sit down, shut up and hand over most of his force to coastal command until the U-boat threat is considered under control).

Many of the same types of bombers were used as long ranged maritime patrol aircraft and the H2S bombing radar was basically an ASV radar pointing down (it would require some minor changes to production priority, training and so on).

Keep in mind that even an untrained crew in an unconverted plane without radar, circling a convoy, forces the U-boats to dive and potentially lose contact - so you start to get a benefit even before the crew + a/c is fully converted.

[Harry Buttle]

I think this is being a little selective.



The categories selected are main categories of materiel used in modern war.



The Russians didn't particulary like Allied aircraft or tanks early on during the war. And especially with the improved production numbers of vehicles like the T-34 as the war progressed what need would they have of the Sherman or a British tank for that matter?



They were free and they added to the amount of available units.



The supplies that the Russains needed most (not in order) were food, raw materials and transport (trains and trucks) and even things such as explosives for use in demolitions. I think if you had a look at those figures you will change your mind.



without the convoys the soviets would have just taken longer to win, the Germans faced all the same problems.

[don1reed]

ZUG ZWENG

is the term, IIRC, in chess, which describes that no matter what move the player has, the results = disaster.

...that said, judging by the number of 'enthusiastic' responses on this topic, I can see you, nay, we're all ready for that Sim that was posted on SubSim's front page some weeks ago. The one where you get to 'play' Dönitz...oh yes, you're sooo ready...


cheers,

[Bilge_Rat]

But I'm reminded of a quote by retired US Army Col David Glantz, speaking of the WW2 Red Army: "Quantity has a quality all its own." I think more boats deployed sooner would have tipped the scale.

Interesting discussion. Certainly, if germany had 300 U-Boats in 1939 instead of 65, they would have been in a better position, but I don't believe it would have won the war.

First, the Allies would not have sit idly by while Germany was building up a large U-Boat fleet. In the thirties, the US and Great Britain were already building up their navy in response to the German and Japanese buildup. They would have increased their own production of destroyers and escort vessels to compensate.

Secondly, the US would not have waited on the sidelines while England was being starved to death. In WW2, the US started to get involved as soon as the Battle of the Atlantic started heating up after the fall of france, transferring 50 old destroyers to the UK, repealing the neutrality act and making US shipyards available to repair and build british ships. Then in 1941, taking over escort duties in the western approaches. By the fall of 1941, before Pearl Harbour, the US navy was already in an undeclared war with German U-Boats. If the U-Boatwaffe had been a decisive threat from 1939, I believe this would have accelerated US involvement in the war.

So certainly, 300 U-Boats in 1939 would have led to a bloody conflict right from the start, but I doubt it would have tipped the scales in favour of the axis.

[tbarak]

I think Hitler time and time again ignored the sound advice of his generals and often indulged grandiose schemes that smacked more of pride and ego rather than sound tactics. Hitler's treatment of the u-boat ranks was no different. Goering foolishly indulged in inter-service bickering which prevented the u-boat arm from receiving adequate supplies of reliable and long ranged scout planes. Locating enemy shipping by assigning search grids was a very inefficient way to locate the enemy in the vast Atlantic, and u-boat operations would have benefited immensely from the support of these planes.

The German navy did a horrible job of protecting the Enigma machines and codes and in an inexplicable move they supplied small unarmed, remotely stationed weather ships with the machines and codes. The British raided two such ships and captured the codes. I think by mid-war British intelligence was de-cyphering German naval radio intercepts with-in 24 hours, then re-routing their convoys to avoid interception.

The u-boat fleet lost its early window of opportunity to drive the British to their knees by starving them early in the war. Churchill's famous quote about the u-boats being the only thing that really worried him tells us something. I think Dornitz's plans would have worked if he had been given adequate resources. The British were unprepared for the onslaught early on but Germany lost the initiative and eventually the technological race. This story played out on virtually all the theatres of the war. Just plain bad leadership and the fighting men paid for it.

[Antonin]

But I'm reminded of a quote by retired US Army Col David Glantz, speaking of the WW2 Red Army: "Quantity has a quality all its own." I think more boats deployed sooner would have tipped the scale.

Interesting discussion. Certainly, if germany had 300 U-Boats in 1939 instead of 65, they would have been in a better position, but I don't believe it would have won the war.

First, the Allies would not have sit idly by while Germany was building up a large U-Boat fleet.

...Secondly, the US would not have waited on the sidelines while England was being starved to death...

So certainly, 300 U-Boats in 1939 would have led to a bloody conflict right from the start, but I doubt it would have tipped the scales in favour of the axis.

Well, you've hit upon the central problem with all "what if" discussions.

History is like a bank of sliders. Most "what if" discussions speculate on what would have happened if the position of one slider had been changed, without considering how other sliders would have moved to compensate.

"What if" discussions are therefore pointless....but they are lots of fun. :yep:

[STEED]

What if" discussions are therefore pointless....but they are lots of fun. :yep:

Not all of them are pointless but as you say lots of fun. ;)

[Bilge_Rat]

"What if" discussions are therefore pointless....but they are lots of fun. :yep:


Yes, a big part of the fun of studying history is trying to figure out how it might have turned out differently, which can make for interesting discussions. :know:

[Karl-Heinz Jaeger]

England was receiving a lot of aid from the world's second greatest naval power the U.S Navy .

After England, it was Japan who had the second largest, most modern Navy back in WWII, then the Yanks.


:yep:


And I think everyone is missing an important point. It was on the Eastern front that WWII was won. Without the D-day landings, Russia would still have beaten the Germans with or without Allied help. I tend to think that a very large part of the reason why Overlord was given the go ahead was because Roosevelt and Churchill were afraid if they didn't do something, then they would meet smiling Russian faces when they eventually got to mainland Europe.

Entirely too much credit/attention is given to D-day being the turning point of WWII, and the beginning of how British brains and American muscle won the war in Europe, usually in American made movies, books and games. Certainly the Allies shortened the war considerably, and contributed to the overall victory over Fascist Germany but it was the boundless Motherland of Soviet Russia who turned the tide of Nazi aggression at places like Stalingrad and Kursk, and it was on this front that the entire war was decided.

[Fishmachine]

I think this is being a little selective. The Russians didn't particulary like Allied aircraft or tanks early on during the war. And especially with the improved production numbers of vehicles like the T-34 as the war progressed what need would they have of the Sherman or a British tank for that matter?


The main reason, why they didn't like Western equipment was it's complicated design and high maintenance required. They even disliked their own more sophisticated designs (as the SWT or AWT automatic rifles), because most of the troops, especially in the beginning of war, were poorly trained, low qualified peasants, literally "taken off from plows".


The supplies that the Russains needed most (not in order) were food, raw materials and transport (trains and trucks) and even things such as explosives for use in demolitions. I think if you had a look at those figures you will change your mind.

Yup. I think, that the trucks were what mostly won the war for Stalin. If not these Studebakers, how would troops and weapons went to the frontline. Watch these old chronicles of conquering Berlin and see, what are those "russian" trucks, riding everywhere ;)

[Fishmachine]

And I think everyone is missing an important point. It was on the Eastern front that WWII was won. Without the D-day landings, Russia would still have beaten the Germans with or without Allied help. I tend to think that a very large part of the reason why Overlord was given the go ahead was because Roosevelt and Churchill were afraid if they didn't do something, then they would meet smiling Russian faces when they eventually got to mainland Europe.

Entirely too much credit/attention is given to D-day being the turning point of WWII, and the beginning of how British brains and American muscle won the war in Europe, usually in American made movies, books and games. Certainly the Allies shortened the war considerably, and contributed to the overall victory over Fascist Germany but it was the boundless Motherland of Soviet Russia who turned the tide of Nazi aggression at places like Stalingrad and Kursk, and it was on this front that the entire war was decided.

Yup.
And one more thing - I think, that there are just too many people here, thinking that Hitler actually could not to invade USSR. That's the funniest thing, when reading this topic. Actually, mid 1941 was the last moment, when he could succeed.

USSR was already in the final stages of preparing their own offensive against Germany. They dismounted all and every fortification on the Stalin's Line, and gathered most of their offensive equipment near the border. That was one of the major factors of Hitler's first victories in USSR - there were simply no deffensive equipment between the border and major cities.

Just read some documents about the offensive - the "T34 shock" has happened, when Germans finally met some freshly produced T-34s and the pre-war, heaviest KV tanks, in battles on the outskirts of big cities. And what with all of the earlier, light and medium, offensive tanks? They were destroyed or captured in the first days of the offensive :D

So, the only scenario, that you can think of, is that Hitler would cease operations against UK and focus on destroying military forces of the USSR. Could this succeed? I think, that without military operations from the Germany, the UK would cease any acivities against them, even without official truce. I just wouldn't believe in the UK, solely invading Germany, without official American support. In the meantime, if not the cardinal Hitler's mistakes, he actually could succeed in conquering USSR. But it's all whatifs ;)

[dize]

England was receiving a lot of aid from the world's second greatest naval power the U.S Navy .

After England, it was Japan who had the second largest, most modern Navy back in WWII, then the Yanks.


:yep:


And I think everyone is missing an important point. It was on the Eastern front that WWII was won. Without the D-day landings, Russia would still have beaten the Germans with or without Allied help. I tend to think that a very large part of the reason why Overlord was given the go ahead was because Roosevelt and Churchill were afraid if they didn't do something, then they would meet smiling Russian faces when they eventually got to mainland Europe.

Entirely too much credit/attention is given to D-day being the turning point of WWII, and the beginning of how British brains and American muscle won the war in Europe, usually in American made movies, books and games. Certainly the Allies shortened the war considerably, and contributed to the overall victory over Fascist Germany but it was the boundless Motherland of Soviet Russia who turned the tide of Nazi aggression at places like Stalingrad and Kursk, and it was on this front that the entire war was decided.

the war was won by the american factory/farm workers and the russian infantry men. only the combo of these two factors realy ensured the total vic in eu. one of those missing, would probably lead to a different outcome, and that would not only include a total axis vic. there are many realistic scenarios, which includs some sort of agreements between the sides. it is by now proven that stalin made a far reaching armistic offer to the axis in fall 41, which included conceeding most of the german held territories. so it wasnt that all or nothing thing which is the general perception of ww2. the whole "we go for it all" policy, only became a lasting thing, after it became obvious that germany would be defeated, and that every1 of the allies "would get there share".
the singel most important erroneus decision hitler made im ww2 is (imho) the abandoning of the original barbarossa plan in 41. hitler ordered, agains the advice of guderian, the soutward movement of the heeresgruppe mitte, in favor of the huge encirclement on th southern sectors around smolensk. this lead to the largest battle of annihilation in human history, but also diverted the all decisive (imho) strike agains the heart of the bolshewik sytstem. moscow. i know that many ppl are cmming up with the usual "but napolen had moscow too, and it didnt helped him" argument. but comapring the stance in the folk, which the red regime had in 41, and the czarisic rule back than is not valid. if heeresgruppe mitte would have continued towards moscow, the city would have had only ~30 ill equiped divisions for its defence. totaly insufficiant for a successful defence.
around 80% of all euro axis losses in men occured on the eastern front. this figure alone showed how much of a "no go" a continental invasion from the western allies would have been.
on the other hand, after fall blau succeeded in conquering most of the ukrain and some part of the caucasus, russia became dependend to a import good that has not much to do with wepaons, ammo or other equipment. food. in 42 and 43, russia would have had to fight a severe starvation issue without wetsern allied help, since the ukrain was the "grain chamber" of europe. this alone was one of the main reasons for hitler to go for it.

[Antonin]

the war was won by the american factory/farm workers and the russian infantry men. only the combo of these two factors realy ensured the total vic in eu.

I agree there, although I would put the Soviet infantryman first.

Here in the US, when I was in elementary school (the 1960s), the overwhelming focus in our classroom studies was on D-Day and the fighting in the Pacific. Sadly, we were taught very little about the contributions of the USSR. I don't know how history is taught today in American schools, but IMHO our "learning" in the 1960s was far, far too US-centric. And I say this even though my father and uncle served in the US forces in Europe.

It wasn't until the early 1970s when I began doing my own research that I discovered that "other countries" had contributed mightily to the war effort.

But getting back to the topic of U-boats, when we talk about "what ifs" I don't think we should assume the result in real-life 1945 was necessarily the only one the leaders on the allied side would have accepted. A force of 600-700 Type VIIs, with 250 on patrol at any given time, might have starved Britain into making a deal with Hitler before the US could bring itself to enter the war openly.

Then what? One possibility is that Hitler could have reached an understanding with the UK and the US on the "real" enemy of "the West" and moved east with the tacit approval of the Anglo-Americans. Remember, before 1941 there was no love lost between the Anglo-Americans and the Soviet Union.

The possibilities are endless.

[fredbass]

I thought I should start by stating that Hitler wasn't quite right in the head, which didn't help. :doh:

He just wanted too much and he underestimated the Russians which was a major mistake, though from what I've heard and read, the Red Army would have never been able to sustain their fight without aid from other countries, especially the USA.

Hitler's grand ideas put his country in a position where they had to fight too many opponents. He became overmatched. Without the involvement of the Americans or should I say with less involvement from the Americans, I think Hitler could have achieved many of the goals that he wanted, but his ambition wasn't realistic.

Edit: I just realized this topic is about where Hitler went wrong with the U-boat campaign. I'll have to get back with you on that one. :hmm:

[kholemann]

U-boats were a huge waste of resources there is no way you can just starve and defeat the world's greatest naval power the Royal Navy. England was receiving a lot of aid from the world's second greatest naval power the U.S Navy. Germany should had built some four aircraft carrier groups instead. Anyway, Hitler should have let Raeder to do his job and not interfere which seems to have been Hitler´s favourite hobby and pass time.

Rather than wasting time building a navy, the Brits should have just had a lot of bouys with a large Union Jacks upon them instead. This would have killed the Germans due to sheer fright.

Just kidding!

Hitler was insane. It wouldn't matter what he woulda/coulda/shoulda done, he would have lost. The only way he could have won would have been to never start a war. To play the devils advocate, he could have used diplomacy alone to succeed.

Given the supposition that re-arrangement of the deckchairs on the Titanic would have made a difference in whether or not it sank, several good points were made about the war plan being circumvented by having the war starting years earlier than the Z plan called for.

Had the Z plan been completed, it still would not have guaranteed any victory but it would have made for a longer war. If Germany would have had more submarines at the start of the war, then again, it would have only prolonged the inevitable demise of Germany.

If they would not have used the Donitz idea of using radios with or without the beloved Enigma machine, they would have had a better chance of surviving in the Atlantic because the Allies found out where the subs were just when they used the radio to call headquarters. Yea, it may have decreased the effectiveness of the subs by removing the wolfpack attacks but that would make one wonder if the wolfpack ideas really made a difference in the Battle of the Atlantic. After all, if stealth is the key to the success of a sub, why tell everyone where you are with a radio signal that the Allies triangulated and used to find the subs in the first place?

[tbarak]

And I think everyone is missing an important point. It was on the Eastern front that WWII was won.

Well we were speaking to the u-boat operations. But yeah, too many good quality opponents was the recipe for ultimate defeat.

Still, the u-boats were an unconventional weapon that Germany used with great affect against the England in both Great Wars. I think there's enough evidence to support that Germany had a real opportunity to deal England a crushing blow early in the war by smashing their supply lines. Yes England's fleet was awesome, but it was a surface fleet, and at the time it didn't have many counter-measures against u-boats. Besides, I don't think battlewagons stand a chance against subs anyway.

Hitler told his Admirals to expect a war around 1946, so the navy's production was geared to produce a balanced fleet according to that time table. Of course that didn't happen, and the u-boats - albeit a potent weapon - was all Germany had to really take decisive action at sea against England. But like in so many other instances Hitler didn't have the leadership qualities (or sanity as others have said) to follow through. 3/4 of his u-boat sailors died as a result.

[IrishUboot]

Maybe it's because I'm Irish that I've always wondered -- what if the German high command had made a greater effort to strengthen ties with the 26 county Irish state, particularly early in the war against Britain, playing on the old adage that "England's difficulty was Ireland's opportunity". Surely, Ireland could have played a huge strategic role in the outcome of the U-Boat war, not to mention the obvious advantage to the Luftwaffe. The Irish Government of the day was by no means entrenched following years of civil unrest and if de Valera was to be replaced from within, so be it. Having suffered years of turmoil, extended periods of civil war and the English problem, Ireland may just have been the perfect place for National Socialist sentiment to catch on. The IRA remained actively opposed to much of de Valera's policies at this time. Ireland's position was uneasy to say the least.

Ireland had the strategic location and the ports which may have allowed the Kriegsmarine to effectively blockade Britain. Any opposition from the British in the North would surely have been shortlived in the face of large numbers of German troops deployed in the country.

Throwing this in to see what the reaction is.

[U-snafu]

Hitler's mistake w/u-boats--sending them in 1939 to operate against britsh!:nope: ---i remember reading somewhere that even if sealion was a victory there were plans to relocate U.K. goverment and royals to canada. thus hitler would of been atomized in 45. Also remember reading that even without the destruction of the germany heavy water plant in norway, the germans were far behind in atomic reaerch and did not even really concentrate on it with all the other wonder weapons.

(sorry -read lot of military history for hobby and interest but not academic enough to back up my claims:rotfl: :rotfl: )

[Wilko]

That's a interesting point there Irish, like you say if Ireland had done a deal with Germany and allowed German UBoats and Fighters to launch from there it would have put a different spin on things, how much I don't know...

[andy_311]

Am just glad that Germany did lose the war,for if it didn't my mother's family and my dad's family would have been killed and I wouldn't be here writeing this.

[IrishUboot]

That's a interesting point there Irish, like you say if Ireland had done a deal with Germany and allowed German UBoats and Fighters to launch from there it would have put a different spin on things, how much I don't know...

It's always struck me as odd that the German high command didn't explore the idea past making token gestures and what appeared to be half hearted plans to land troops on Ireland (Plan Green). I think the lack of an Irish front was a huge oversight on the German part. Of course it would have drawn British resistance, but Ireland had long been accustomed to a British military presence on the island and had a long history of resistance. Ireland at this time must be separated from the Ireland of today. A vast number of Irish people in 1939-40 were hardened towards the British in a way the current generation are not. At this point there was no Barbarosa, and it can only be said that abandoning Operation Sealion was a huge mistake and a turning point in the war. Modern historians have a tendency to understate the importance of the Battle of Britain and the U-Boat war. Moves towards the Ukraine and a Russian front would surely secure materials for the fighting of a war effort, but they'd also consume more than would be returned. Efforts really should have been focused on Sealion and the Irish front would have been crucial to this end. Apparently the idea was high on the mind of Hitler at the time when the British appeared poised to make moves towards the Irish Free State. Whether a bluff on the part of Britain or not, evidence suggests Hitler was aware that an Irish front could hasten the end of the war, but would only be possible if Ireland requested German assistance. Perhaps this was the reason Britain treaded carefully when it came to Ireland.

[RAM]

England was receiving a lot of aid from the world's second greatest naval power the U.S Navy .

After England, it was Japan who had the second largest, most modern Navy back in WWII, then the Yanks.



Neither of you are right. Largest fleet in 1939 was United States', closely followed by Great Britain's (on paper they were equals...actually the US navy was better quality wise, and in carriers there was no comparation possible) and third (in roughly a 5/3 relationship between US and Japan), Japan. ;)

UK had sustained war losses (2 CVs and one BB...if we count 1941 in, all the worse because mediterranean losses and Hood's debacle) and had a risible carrier force (when compared with US and Japan).

Japan was limited by the tonnages awarded by Washington and London's treaty. She was far behind both US and UK in most regards except for their carrier force, where they were somewhat ahead of the US Navy in number of hulls, yet not on numbers of carried based aircraft, where they were equals to the US Navy.

Of course the IJN was an elite force and the Kido Butai the Elite between the Elite, that's why it kicked so much butt up to May'42... but on paper they were inferiors to RN and USN in everything but carrier forces.

[RAM]

We get even deeper into speculation when we talk about Japanese expeditionary forces in Siberia. Japan had no cultural (or even strategic, IMHO) interest in a 'northern' strategy. Japan operating in the USSR in cooperation with Germany's strategic interests...it's just so unlikely as to be mere alt-history novel fodder. The Asian and European arms of the Axis had very little in common. I think theirs was an alliance of convenience.



Japan DID had a deep interest in 'northen' strategy. So much that in during some stages of the Russian civil war they actually sent troops inside siberia (which they had to retire later). IN the 30s there were many border clashes between Japan and the USSR, and one full-fledged war (where do you think Zhukov earned his stars? ;)).

Japan was very interested in siberia as a source of their very much needed natural resources. The main problem they found was the soviets. There were very few foreign soldiers the japanese respected, much less feared. After the 1939 war vs the URSS, the japanese developed a very deeply felt respect, if not downright terror, towards the soviet soldier. What did happen?- they turned their attention south.

However, their initial focus was north. North there was their traditional enemy: Russia. South there was a neutral nation's colonies (the Dutch) and Britain's possessions...and between Japan and UK there had been a long-lasting alliance and friendship until 1919.

The japanese initially wanted to take Siberia to secure their resources. The problem is that the soviets gave them a lesson or two and forced them to run with their tails between the legs. And the Japanese learned the lesson so well that when they joined the Axis they specified in the statutes of the pact that all the Axis pact's clauses about alliance, self-defence, etc, were unappliable for them in what respected to the USSR.

And then they secured a non-agression treaty with stalin. Just in case.


They simply didn't want to have anything to do with the soviets again.

[RAM]

One last thing I have to say.

It's been said that soviet production during the war totally outclassed that of Germany. That's true.

It's been said that Lend Lease ammounted for a relatively small quantity of Soviet production. Thats true with reserves. On certain areas it is not. No less than 600.000 lorries and trucks were sent via lend lease which was an AMAZING quantity and well over russian total production during the war...

Same goes with radio equipment. Virtually 75% of the soviet radios in the 1945's Red Army were of western origin.

it's unclear how a mechanized army could do without that ammount of transport, and wether they would resort to smoke signals or tam-tam to coordinate their forces without proper radio equipment...but oh well...we'll let that aside for a second.


It's been said that before the war the URSS production already was over Germany's. That's also true.



However there are here 2 vital factors which are being totally overlooked.

1- Germany NEVER -and I say again, NEVER- went into war economy. Even in 1945 there were industries producing luxury goods...go figure in 1940. Germany never declared herself to be in total war (meaning they didn't turn their economy to a war one) until 1943, but that was also merely cosmethic. As I said: Germany NEVER went into war economy, not even in May 1945.

Unsurprisingly...everyone else outproduced them (well...except italy, lol).



2- pre-Barbarossa soviet production was very high. Post-Barbarossa was minimal. The immense majority of the soviet heavy industries were based on the "european" side of the USSR, they had to be moved beyond the Urals to be reconstructed. That took mor than a full year where all production from those factories was lost. Subsequently, Soviet production during June 1941-June 1942 was critically low.

Other side of the problem was the Red Army. They had stood the worse shock an army has even suffered. Millions of dead and captured, no less than 29.000 tanks lost. Dozens of thousands of trucks and vehicles gone. Hundreds of thousands of guns lost. Millions of Rifles, submachineguns, ammunition, volatilized. THousands of aircraft shot out of the sky or blown on the ground.


Again, it's been said here that the Germans threw their last 1941 potential breath at the gates of moscow. Again, that's true.

What's not said is the the Red Army had at that moment already reached the point of exhaustion and had went well past it. They had one only ace left- the siberian troops brought in a hurry. Soviet winter counteroffensives did less harm to the germans (who retired from an overextended front to a more normal one, which was actually good for them) than to themselfs (soviet losses were horrific in those offensives).

Summing up, in december 1941 the germans could give not a single step forward anymore. But neither could the soviets, except for the Siberians...and those had burnt their card for early 1942.


Then came Case Blue. German offensive on Southern USSR. I won't enter into explicit things here. Let's say Hitler did the best choice he could strategically at that time: to totally abandon the fight for Moscow (which at that point had the most fortified approaches to any city in the world-ever...except for Kursk in 1943), keep the Centre and North fronts on the defensive, and launch a major push on the south in a bid to reach the Caspium sea, cutiin the Volga line on the way, and with that cutting what the Soviet Industry and Army needed: the supply lines of the oil coming from the caucasus.

However Hitler did the worse job he could operationally. He spilt his advance in two, because he wanted to capture the caucasus fields (something totally out of German reach) as much as cutting the vital Volga Oil connection.


Case Blue failed because of this (well, and because he repeated many 1941 mistakes ---then he halted guderian's advance towards moscow...here he halted Kleist's advance towards Stalingrad, when it was held only by little more than a regiment of infantry...--- and that was just one of MANY stupid decisions, like putting a Panzer Army Group withing an INFANTRY ARMY!!!!!...and a long etcetera), because soviet stiff resistance, and because the Uranus (and the forgotten Mars) counter-offensives.


Now I ask myself and I ask the concurrence of this board.

How could an army built mostly from scratch because of previous year's grievous losses (1942's red army), be...well, be BUILT, if 90% of their heavy and armaments industry is paralized because it's on the move towards the other side of the Urals?.

answer: there was an appreciable ammount of soviet production during 1942, but the VAST majority of the equipment of those forces came via Murmansk.

In other words: No Murmansk, no stiff resistance by the Red Army in 1942. No Mars. No Uranus. No heroics in Stalingrad. Volga oil line cut from Soviet industry.

Soviet industry left without most of it's oil-Knock Out most of the soviet production.

K.O. most of the soviet production- Union of Socialist Soviet Republics bites the dust.

HItler wins in the east.




In short: Had the germans cut murmansk in 1942, the Russians would've mostly done.

After that date (late 1942) everything was said and done in the East. The war at that theater had already been won by the Soviets before Kursk: they had all their heavy and weapons industry back on line and working 24/7 at top speed. There was no longer a threat to their energetic main reserve. The question was not "who will win the Eastern Front war" any longer, but "when will the soviets win the Eastern Front war".


But in 1942 Germany had victory well within their reach...and one of the vital spots of the battles fought at southern russia was at the northern tip of it: murmansk. Cut Murmansk, you kill the soviets.

So yeah, indeed...Stalin and the USSR DID win the war in the east because the Murmansk convoys. Without that, they would've been blown away in 1942.

[SubConscious]

I’m coming late to this party, but I’ll throw in my $0.02.

First and foremost, I believe the main reason Germany lost WWII was that Hitler was at the helm. Thank goodness they didn’t win, as the Nazis weren’t exactly the most tolerant group. I certainly wouldn’t want to live under Nazi rule, or even have them as neighbors. I’m not much on any sort of totalitarian state for that matter.

This said, I think that Germany could have won WWII with a different leader and subsequent different mindset. Some key mistakes that could have been corrected:

1. Abandonment of the “Z” plan in favor of U-boats and fast surface raiders: Not starting the war until Doenitz had his 300 operational (VII and IX) boats. The other big blunder was not significantly modifying the U-boats over time to either incorporate or attempt to defeat the available technological advances.
2. Development of a large strategic bomber. The HE 111 and DO 17 weren’t up to the task. Hitler was far too focused on dive bombers, which botched up a whole host of developments, including the ME262 jet fighter.
3. Avoidance of targeting civilians during the battle for Britain and focusing on air superiority. Whether or not the RAF was weeks away from collapse when this shift occurred is immaterial: Targeting civilians removes the pressure from aircraft factories and airfields, as well as solidifying the resolve of the civilian population.

With Britain in a U-Boat stranglehold and the Luftwaffe focusing on air superiority, I believe Britain could have been defeated with a massive invasion prior to 1943. The key here would be to take out Britain quickly enough that the US wouldn’t have time to adequately intervene. Given the US response to Operation Paukenschlag, I don’t see this as outside the realm of possibility, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

As many have pointed out, opening a second front with Russia wasn’t exactly the brightest move. The real blunder, from what I have read, was how the Nazis treated the Ukrainian people during the invasion. I read that the Germans were initially hailed as liberators. If you have read about the purges under Stalin, the logic of this is apparent. If, and this is a big if, the Germans had embraced the liberator role and brought the Ukrainians in as allies and offered sovereignty to each subsequent region, things might have turned out very different.

For those who insist that German couldn’t defeat Russia, keep in mind that the Russian Revolution of 1917 resulted in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk between Germany and Russia, essentially taking Russia out of World War I. The plight of the Russian peasants was absolutely horrible prior to the Revolution. Imagine, if you will, being told that you are going to advance against German lines with one rifle (containing only a few cartridges) for several men. The first soldier would run with the weapon until he was shot, then the next man in line would pick up the rifle and continue the charge. Now imagine doing this in freezing weather while wearing inadequate clothing and being half starved. Life under Stalin wasn’t any sort of picnic, either. If the Russian people were offered a significantly better standard of living, who is to say that a second Revolution wouldn’t have taken place?

All bets are off, at least in my mind, when it comes to conquering the US. Despite the blunders of the US administration and its very poor preparation for WWII, the logistics of traversing thousands of miles of ocean and then having to conquer and hold thousands of miles of territory were probably beyond the scope of WWII technology, at least until nuclear weapons were developed.

When all is said and done though, none of what I have written here could have come to pass. Hitler was an egocentric nut and taking on the role of liberators wasn’t compatible with the Nazi belief that the Slavic people were inherently inferior. Thank heavens we are fortunate enough to not be under Nazi rule… but the war “What ifs” are certainly fun to think about.

[Seminole]

My friend at work and I are fanatic SH3 gamers. We constantly talk about the game and have lunch time chats about WW2 in general. Playing the "What If" game of alternative universes we often discuss what we would do, in hindsight, to win the war for the Nazis

For the sea campaign its dead easy

- build no surface fleet with prestigeous battleships that take up huge resources

- build and maintain over 5,000 U-Boats and have at least 300 - 1000 UBoats operational at any one time. You basically sink anything that floats

WW2 won on the sea !


Actually it was some what simpler than that.

If only OKW had properly planned for the contingency that Fall Gelb would have been as huge a success as it turned out to be....and had the needed invasion barges onhand and ready.....the Wehrmacht could have followed the BEF from Dunkirk and neutralized England in a short campaign. In other words the German High Command envisioned France might fall but they never once considered that England would withdraw BUT not sue for peace. So no preparations for a war plan that called for an invasion of England was ever made....or if it was...it was not assigned the resources to carry it out. By the time it became apparent that only invasion would force British submission , they had recovered sufficiently to probably thwart any attempt.

The Royal Navy on the defensive in the narrow Chanel was never much of an obstacle, for obvious reasons, and the RAF having to fight away from their bases, and out over the channel, would have taken away that advantage they enjoyed. It is doubtful that given those conditions the RAF could simultaneously battle the Lufftwaffe while styming a waterborne invasion.

With not much more than a poorly equipped home guard to defeat, the British Isles would have fallen in short order.


So...given all that.... you are correct in assuming that concentrating resources from capital ship onto a large U-Boat service would probably have resulted in a different outcome. But one must also consider what would have happened in the Norway campaign without a sufficient surface fleet to carry out Weseruebung and how long Germany could have sustained it's war effort without Norwegian iron ore. Could it have defeated England before that factor became a dominant handicap?

Yes it certainly is tantalizing to contemplate all the "what ifs" isn't it?

[donlas]

Guys stop giving tactics on how to win WW2?!? What if some1 goes back in time with all these ideas and tells Hitler? Come on guys look at the bigger picture!

[Phylacista]

I am glad that Hitler, being a dictator, did overrule his generals (and admirals). Otherwise he would have won the war.

As for what if: There was a tactical game in progress where you are BDU and need to use the ressources wisely for your U-Boot Flotte. And you can play the attacks in SH3 - anybody remeber the name and URL?

[STEED]

Wow who bought this classic thread back to life what a great read, I would like to point out one fact, Germany’s greatest weakness was oil. Hitler had the upper hand in 1939 to 1942 as we all know, but Hitler also had a thorn in his side Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini, who made a number of blunders in the war. Yugoslavia and North Africa which bled off German forces in bailing Italy out of the mess they created.

Hitler can not be blamed for all the errors in the war, his Generals made a number of mistakes as well and too few of them would stand up against Hitler. The planning of Barbarossa would over stretch the German army with poor planning of logistics, just look at the number of horses they used in Russia some 625,000 horses.

Another error by Hitler was to stop all long term scientific research in 1940, but the key element which bought Germany down was the myth they created. The Nazis sold the idea to the German people they were the strong and their time had come, and up to the end of 1942 that indeed looked the case. But the bad plans and decisions were about to come home to haunt them. Stalingrad and Kursk in 1943, D-Day and Bagration 1944, finally Berlin in 1945.

[UnterSeeTub]

just jumping back to the original thort that started this thread.

In war you always get a countermeasure. - If someone built 5000 subs - the allies would countermeasure that.

someone invents fist fighting - someone will invent a club with a nail through it
someone invents a club - someone will invent the knife
some invents the knife --- someone else will invent the gun
someone invents the gun --- the other side invents the tomahawk missile


see how it goes

[RAM]

just jumping back to the original thort that started this thread.

In war you always get a countermeasure. - If someone built 5000 subs - the allies would countermeasure that.

someone invents fist fighting - someone will invent a club with a nail through it
someone invents a club - someone will invent the knife
some invents the knife --- someone else will invent the gun
someone invents the gun --- the other side invents the tomahawk missile


see how it goes


the allies took 3 full years (until mid-late 1942) to develop all the measures required for succesfull ASW tactics to work, meaning escort carriers, proper air cover over the atlantic, airborne radar, Huff-Duff, Bletchley Park Enigma break, etc...

Then they spent six further months in order to properly integrate those tactics into the atlantic (Until May 1943)


Bottom point is:

There's no difference in the number of ASW escorts the allied can build. Up to 1940 the british were on their own private paradise where ASDIC would rule out any sub attacks on convoys.

But when in 1940 most escorts were hopeless when facing a proper sub attack by a wolfpack on a convoy, they found out that suddenly surface tactics made ASDIC unusable to properly stop a well placed U-boat attack on a convoy. The only valid tool was radar, and a rediculous ammount of ASW escorts were so equipped. The other bane of the existing escorts was their limited speed. As the british thought the ASW ships would have to fight vs submerged submarines, surface speed was deemed unimportant. What happened was that surfaced uboats were able to outrun about 75% of the escorts the Empire could put in front of them.

They took a whole year in order to fit the existing surface vessels a working radar (and even then, many of them were left without one until late 1942). Even radar equipped flower class Frigates had problems vs surfaced Uboats.

Until that time when radar was present in most escorts, and those escorts were able to outpace surfaced u-boats, ASW escorts were mostly powerless against submarines that, quite frankly, did exactly whatever they wanted when attacking a convoy, like cats playing with their alive food before eating it.

Not to mention, roughly half the escorts the british could field when the war started couldn't give long-range escorting services. Most of them had to turn tails on their convoys to return home in the middle of the ocean because they couldn't reach the other side of the pond.

Not the best way to give a convoy proper cover.



I think Germany building 5.000 subs is totally out of any realistic mind. However, a 150-strong u-boat force by 1939 was perfectly attainable for them. 150 boats meant 50 at home, 50 on transit, 50 on operations.

Germany did massive damage on british shipping with one fifth of that number during 1940.

UK could build 5 times the ASW escorts they did, to counter five times as many u-boats, yes, but what they couldn't do was to:

1- understand that ASDIC was no longer an ASW panacea.

2- build enough radar sets for that massive ASW force to counter surface Uboat tactics...they knew NOTHING about (they never knew what a wolfpack was until the first one hit them hard. Until then they never understood how much was radar needed).

3- understand that air power was the main anti submarine tool. They only understood it by 1942.

4- develop proper anti-submarine weapons for coastal command aircraft (until 1941 their only ASW weapon was a totally stupid 250lbs anti-submarine bomb...which did nothing but kill some fish).

5- give Coastal COmmand proper aircraft (they never really did in real life anyway, as bomber command had priority over long range aircraft)

6- "magically" develop the CVE Concept (it was only developed after very rough lessons learnt during 1940-42 mid-atlantic convoy battles)

7- "Magically" develop liberators which could cover the whole of the atlantic, 2 years before scheduled.

8- "Magically" develop shortwave (low decimetric-centimetric radar) airborne radars, 3-4 years before schedule.

9- "magically" place a base on Iceland, 2 years before what they did (and declaring war to Denmark before, for starters).

10- "magically" find out that B-Dienst had broken their merchantile codes, and change then on spot

11- "Magically" reproduce Bletchley Park achievements, 3 years before scheduled.



etc etc etc.


if we multiply the number of uboats by 5 and we multiply the number of ASW escorts by 5, all we do is to multiply the scale of the allied disaster in the early war by 5...at the very least. Until 1940 Dönitz was unable to launch a wolfpack to battle because he was so stupidly low on submarine assets.

with 150 sea-going submarines in 1939, the debacle for the british would've been massive as wolfpacks would've been sent to battle as soon as the war started. As it was, barely 30 submarines gave them fits...go figure 5 times that number.


And that counting with 5 times as many ASW ships the british had at the moment. How do you plan to build them?. I mean, ASW building was already topping before the war, the bottleneck being that most resources were directed to the KGV and carrier projects. Unless you cut down on those projects, Britain could NOT build more ASW ships.

And you will understand that while Germany could afford passing on building the Bismarcks (or even the Scharnhorsts), the british simply could not afford not building the KGVs or the Illustrious.


Anyway pitting 5 times the number of escorts britain had when the war started vs 5 times the number of Uboats the Germans had only increments the German victory. ASW assets until 1941 were mostly uncapable of dealing with surfaced night attacks on convoys.



One last point. You don't really need to isolate Britain in order for them to ask for terms. 150 u-boats in 1939 could realistically have strangled Britain to the point of getting them to believe Germany could ACTUALLY achieve it, way before they had actually done it,and to drop down the whole convoy system.

They almost did it in april 1943; at that moment the allies had everything they needed to destroy the uboat offensive. CVEs, allied cover over almost all the atlantic, centimetric airborne radar, all escorts with radars, and in massive numbers, 100% of u-boat radio traffic being read by Bletchley Park, huffduff, etc. They had all the tools in place.

Yet they almost dropped the convoy concept because the germans were so successfull in april 1943 (highest tonnage sunk by uboats in a month in all the war), it seemed ASW attempts and convoy sailing simply would never work against some 3 wolfpacks in the atlantic with decent numbers of submarines on them.

Suddenly in May 1943 everything fell in it's place. The ASW tactics finally shown their worth and the U-boats were defeated just one month after they had achieved their biggest victories in the Atlantic.

But it was off by a hair for the allies. Had victory evaded them for 1 or 2 more months of similar losses than those of March and April, they would've dropped the whole convoy scheme and resorted to individual sailing...That would mean WWI all over again. And we all know what happened in WW1 until the convoy system was implemented.


In 1943 would've been too late for germany anyway. the war in Russia was already lost and USA had entered the war.

But make that happen in 1940 (perfectly attainable with 150 u-boats and totally innapropiate anti submarine tools and tactics by the british), and you simply give Hitler victory over Great Britain.

When France falls the way it did, and with a massive merchant monthly loss rate in the atlantic that forces UK to completely abandon convoy tactics and resort to individual sailing (with its associated high costs), how will Britain say "no" to the very favorable terms Hitler was going to offer them? (which bassically was: you let us live in the contintent, you live your life in the rest of the world).


U-boats could've given Hitler victory against Britain. In fact I think, the ONLY thing which could give Hitler victory against Britain was U-boats. IN decent numbers, of course, and before proper ASW tools and tactics were developed by the allies.

[Puster Bill]

I've been toying over the past few years with simulating what would happen in the Battle of the Atlantic if Bletchley Park were effectively taken out of the equation.

My reasoning is that while RADAR and improved equipment and tactics did indeed have an effect on the campaign, in effect bringing the u-boat offensive to a near standstill from mid 1943 onwards, Allied codebreaking had more of an effect than it generally gets credit for.

The main way that BP helped to the Allies to effectively use things like centimetric RADAR and Hunter/Killer groups centered around CVE's were to give future locations for u-boats. High Frequency direction finding (HF/DF, or Huff Duff) can tell you where a u-boat is when it transmits, but it can't tell you where it is going to be several days in the future. In addition, there is a natural, irreduceable systematic error in HF/DF. You don't get a precise location, you get an area that could be hundreds or even thousands of square miles in area, depending on a number of factors. However, if you can actually read those transmissions, or the orders transmitted telling them to go to a certain location, you can know either the precise location of the u-boat (limited to the errors made by the navigator), or where they will be at some point in the future, again with less error.

When you know the precise location of a u-boat, and where it will be three days from now, you can steer convoys away from that sub, and you can task an ASW asset (H/K group, task force, aircraft, etc.) to sink that boat. That is what happened to U-505, and indeed to all of the Milchcows. Through UK/US decryption of the Naval Enigma, we knew where they would be, and took appropriate action.

Now, things like RADAR are vital for searching a limited area for a submarine, but they are useless if you don't know the general area where the boat is to begin with. Even the best RADARs are limited by line of sight. Signals Intelligence doesn't have that limitation.

Now, the Germans had a couple of options to increase the security of their signals. They could have built a 'super Enigma', one with, say, ten rotor positions and 20 or 30 rotors to choose from. That would have completely prevented the British from breaking it on a regular basis, given the technology at the time. Even just adding a couple more rotors to the ones available without adding anymore slots in the machine itself would have expanded the keyspace beyond the point where Bletchley could have broken it, even with knowledge of the internal wiring of the rotors.

The other option is the 'nuclear option' of cryptography, the only cipher that is unbreakable both in theory and in practice: the One Time Pad. Invented simultaneously in the US and Germany back in the early 1920's, if used properly the OTP is forever unbreakable. In non-machine form, it usually consists of a pad of paper with numbers or letters used to encipher the messages, and an identical pad to decipher. Pages are numbered, used once, then destroyed. If you re-use the pads, it can be broken as shown by the VENONA project (but even then, we were still working on messages from the 1940's in the 1970's!).

Using the OTP, which was known in Germany at the time, would have afforded complete security. Even if a pad were captured, that would only help until the pad expired. It would have been possible, if somewhat inconvenient, to produce the number of pads necessary for communications with the boats actually involved in fighting.

The result would have been like the 10 month intelligence blackout of 1942, when the Kriegsmarine introduced the 4 rotor Enigma, over the entire war. That means less u-boats sunk, more available to hit convoys, and fewer chances to steer convoys away from those boats and H/K groups to them. Milchcows don't get taken out as quickly, and so are available to resupply the increased number of boats on station.

To my thinking, that means that fewer supplies reach the UK and Russia, meaning D-Day gets pushed back to the Spring of 1945 at the earliest. By that time, the new Type XXI and XXIII boats are starting to sail on operational cruises, boats which would effectively preclude using most of the ASW tactics of the time. That makes the invasion of France, an effort that could very well have failed as it was, virtually impossible. Russia doesn't have the trucks or radios that it needs to press in from the East (most of the trucks and radios used by the Soviets came from the West).

With the hypothetical failure, or even non-attempt, of a landing attempt in France, and an invigorated u-boat offensive using both the new boats and the old ones with schnorkels and the advanced RADAR detection gear available, the only real options are to let the war drag on, or to nuke Berlin. As much as it pains me to say this, I think there would have been much more reluctance to dropping The Bomb on a European city than there was to dropping it on Japan, for both pragmatic and racist reasons.

As a side note, there really was no reason not to have Type XXI boats available at the beginning of the war, other than a lack of vision. England had developed the R Class submarine back in WWI, and it had high underwater speed. As it was, the Germans went to war with boats that would have been very familiar to the Kriegsmarine of 1918.