Idea: Alternate history campaign

[irish1958]

GE
A good, thoughtful analysis.
I think the problem with WWII was that Hitler just didn't think ahead and plan for a successful war. He just blundered about and then spent the next five years plugging holes.
He knew that England and France has a pact with Poland and that an attack would bring them into the war (and it did), so he should have attacked them first and left Poland alone. As it was, he expanded into the East and started a war with Russia, so he was fighting with markedly less men and on two fronts.
War plan:
1)build up sub fleet and air power 1939-1940-1941 The allies were politically not able to respond, and Russia was too busy havling purges.
2)Blitz France and declare war on England 1941
3)Encourage Japan in the Far East, and encourage them to provoke Russia and the US and European powers.
4)isolate England with a markedly expanded sea blockade with the greatly enlarged sub fleet. (No food or oil makes it difficult to fight a war)
5)build landing ships and practice landing
6)Start air blitz but concentrate only on military targets, especially on air fields and oil supplies.
7)early 1942 launch Sealion.
8)When Britain is neutralized, attack Russia, with the Japanese help

[GlobalExplorer]

First of all, great stuff P_Funk! I like your idea about Hitler staying clear of Russia, but then lets not forget Stalin might have attacked Germany himself (though I cannot see this happen before 1944), and this way the world could have seen a completely different war.

I will however, follow more closely the possibilities concerning the war against Great Britain.

Originally Posted by P_Funk

But at the end of the day I think he would have gone through with it had the air blitz crippled the RAF (another what if more to do with Goering's need to ingratiate himself with a total 'air victory' and thus preclude the land invasion, a notion which Hitler latched onto whole heartedly thanks to his afore mentioned Brit-Envy).

To me it does not look like that the Luftwaffe was in a position to destroy the RAF. I also don't like the widespread notion that it was only due to Goerings incompetence that the BoB was lost. The problem was that the two airforces were about equal in most regards, and all the germans could hope to achieve was a draw - which they did in terms of downed planes - though they lost strategically because too many of their damaged planes did not manage the return over the channel.

I still agree that the outcome of the BoB was a key to latter events. While I think that a complete german victory was out of the question, the outcome could have still be different through different tactics:

The LW could have refused to fight over British soil at all and instead started a naval campaign (the Ju87 was already the ideal ship destroyer, the He111 could be converted to a torpedo plane, the Bf110 was in 1940 the worlds fastest fighter bomber). This way the brits would have been denied the advantage of rescuing all their downed pilots, and the losses should have been roughly 1:1, which could have tipped the balance for the Luftwaffe. That is if the RAF had come to the fight at all - but in the end they had to because the convoys were Britains lifeblood.

The germans could have used commando troops to destroy radar stations and airbases. Actually, why was that never attempted?

One can imagine all these things together with U-Boat operations (U-Boats bring commando troops to Britain, U-Boats fight in the channel in cooperation with the Luftwaffe etc), and we would already have a completely new U-Boat campaign, entirely without introducing anything unrealistic!

Another twist could be the death of Britains toughest leader, Winston Churchill. Lets say he got killed in that famous incident where he stooped over that Gladiator's gun while Mrs. Churchill sat in the cockpit .. Wouldn't Britain have made peace without him, especially if at the same time the BEF had been destroyed in Dunkirk?

[P_Funk]

Good reply GE. I however always had the impression that the RAF was nearing collapse due to exhaustion and over demand on the existing pilots and that the only thing that saved them was the sudden transfer to daytime bombing of London rather than the strategic bombing and attacking of airfields.

The other notion of Luftwaffe cooperation with the Kriegsmarine is one of those factors that has everything to do with Goering and Hitler's attitudes and medieval high court nature.

Goering adamantly opposed offering any of his own planes to help the Kriegsmarine and when he finally was forced to make a minor concession to his sea going 'brethren' he offered only obsolete planes in marginal numbers which were still under command of the Luftwaffe and not the Kriegsmarine. This led to the U-boats never receiving proper air support in eliminating targets or in searching them out. At this point Hitler's favour was a thing that went deeper than strategic importance or even competence. They vied for it like hungry savages and Goering's arrogance caused the evisceration of the Luftwaffe in seeking their primary celebration as the sole capturers of Britain's surrender. This appealed to a Hitler not wanting to face a seaborne invasion. Also to consider is that since favour fell to the Nazi elite, the Kriegsmarine received little heed when challenged by Hitler's old standbys since it was the least 'Nazi' member of the armed forces of the Third Reich. Though in later years, as the other cardinal members of Hitler's inner circle failed him, and even Doenitz became a primary figure and remarkably at the end of the war the actual commander in chief once Hitler died, for too long the Kriegsmarine was not given its fair share.

So to consider the notion of cooperation 'twixt the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine in a proper sense is to consider a different leadership of the Nazi party altogether.

And I think killing Churchill would be an interesting outcome, but not very fun for a game since immediate surrender without an invasion isn't that fun is it? They gotta at last fight for the beaches a little bit.

[GlobalExplorer]

Originally Posted by irish1958

GE
A good, thoughtful analysis.
I think the problem with WWII was that Hitler just didn't think ahead and plan for a successful war. He just blundered about and then spent the next five years plugging holes.
He knew that England and France has a pact with Poland and that an attack would bring them into the war (and it did), so he should have attacked them first and left Poland alone. As it was, he expanded into the East and started a war with Russia, so he was fighting with markedly less men and on two fronts.
War plan:
1)build up sub fleet and air power 1939-1940-1941 The allies were politically not able to respond, and Russia was too busy havling purges.
2)Blitz France and declare war on England 1941
3)Encourage Japan in the Far East, and encourage them to provoke Russia and the US and European powers.
4)isolate England with a markedly expanded sea blockade with the greatly enlarged sub fleet. (No food or oil makes it difficult to fight a war)
5)build landing ships and practice landing
6)Start air blitz but concentrate only on military targets, especially on air fields and oil supplies.
7)early 1942 launch Sealion.
8)When Britain is neutralized, attack Russia, with the Japanese help

You raise the question why Hitler started the war in 1939, when his preparations (Z-Plan etc) were going to be finished no earlier than 1943. And this is a good question. I guess he felt that the Western Allies were slowly starting to re-arm, and his advantages would never be greater.

I therefore see some problems with this strategy. The biggest one is time. Hitler managed to blitz France in 1940 but could he have done so in '41 or '42? Any french person would protest now, and if you look at the strength the french army had on paper (and which it actually displayed during WWI), you might come to the conclusion that the miracle in France was a unique stroke of luck.

In fact one could imagine that if the french generalship had been up to the job, and made a dashing attack (instead of dispersing their forces all over the front), the miracle victory for the germans might have turned into a disaster.

As far as Japan is concerned, it seems they really had no interest in an attack on Russia, no matter how much it would have helped Germanies strategy. Sure Germany and Japan were Allies, but were they really friends? It was rather an alliance of convenience, because they did not disturb each other. An almost hilarious detail is how the japanese ambassador was officially titled "Ehren-Arier" (Aryan by honour), because the japanese were untermenschen concerning to the nazi theory.

Another problem is that the Japanese land forces were up to fight the Red Army, because they did not have the right equipment for it. But for sure, with enough battle tanks and artillery, they could have.

[P_Funk]

[QUOTE=Mikhayl][quote=GlobalExplorer]

Originally Posted by irish1958

G
Now my point is, can you imagine what would be the Atlantic U-Boot war if Germany had no bases in France ? :hmm:

Bullsh*t, thats what it is. I only put with sailing the Kiel Canal because I know that sooner or later I'll get transferred to France.

[GlobalExplorer]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

Good reply GE. I however always had the impression that the RAF was nearing collapse due to exhaustion and over demand on the existing pilots and that the only thing that saved them was the sudden transfer to daytime bombing of London rather than the strategic bombing and attacking of airfields.

I do believe this has been debunked recently. Fighter command was shaken, but no more than the Germans. In order to achieve air supremacy the LW would have had to achieve a kill/loss ratio of 5:1, in order to destroy the RAF and still retain enough power for its role in the channel invasion. But BoB did not achieve anything of that sort for the germans. When it was over both sides were about as strong as at the beginning - though historicians on both sides have tried to interpret the numbers in all different kinds of ways - the total losses on both sides were about equal.

Originally Posted by P_Funk

So to consider the notion of cooperation 'twixt the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine in a proper sense is to consider a different leadership of the Nazi party altogether.

This is convincing. I also cannot envision any form of air support for the navy with Goering in office. Probably he must be replaced by someone else (Milch, Kesselring). Though I would still not discount Goering as incompetent, as the standard opinions seems to be these days. He was actually one of the more interesting characters inside the Nazi party (former fighter ace and war hero, cocaine addict, refused to pass Hitlers orders about shooting prisoners, .. ).

Originally Posted by P_Funk

And I think killing Churchill would be an interesting outcome, but not very fun for a game since immediate surrender without an invasion isn't that fun is it? They gotta at last fight for the beaches a little bit.

I guess that rules out another idea of mine, the destruction of the spitfire prototype before mass production

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by GlobalExplorer

I guess that rules out another idea of mine, the destruction of the spitfire prototype before mass production

Not necessarily. Maybe that could make the RAF significantly less effective and possibly make the invasion even more possible.