War with the USA

[Alex_brunius]

Yeah if there was anything the war proved it was that air power > sea power. If they had air superiority they wouldnt need a matching fleet. There are plenty of air bases in range and Stukas have shown themselves capable of taking out capital ships.

After Dunkirk, Churchill was genuinely worried about a german landing with tanks because they had lost most of their anti tank equipment and he put a lot of priority on developing things like sticky bombs that could work as a low-tech anti-tank weapon usable by anyone

I wouldn't say that it was simply that clear cut. Sure air-power can cause a lot of damage and eventually attrition down even a big fleet like the RN Home fleet. But as shown in Dunkirk it would take more time then the Germans can afford to spare.

You can also make the argument that Germany's biggest logistical problem to sustain Seelöwe was lack of landing and transport ships. That situation is not going to improve if the entire RN Home fleets come dashing south and sinks a majority of everything afloat in the channel before retreating back north within half a day after taking losses to air-power. No matter how dangerous airpower is to seapower it can't stop something cold in their track just the way that a Battleship can, especially not the historical 1940 Luftwaffe Stukas if we measure their performance based on Dunkirk.

Just the historical force of destroyers that were used in the evacuation at Dunkirk (around two dozens of whom 9 were lost over the cause of a week), could have caused great havoc to any German landing, and they would not even have to remain stationary like at the battle of Dunkirk where their primary job was picking up survivors.

It is also plausible that Seelöwe might drag USA into the war. In that case you have not only the RN Homefleet to worry about but a dozen more capital ships arriving to reinforce them within say two weeks.



Sure the Germans did not have complete air superiority at Dunkirk, but I still doubt that even with complete air superiority it would be able to make a major dent in the RN Home fleet within the few hours they need to dash south and interdict.

 

[Beagá]

Yeah if there was anything the war proved it was that air power > sea power. If they had air superiority they wouldnt need a matching fleet. There are plenty of air bases in range and Stukas have shown themselves capable of taking out capital ships.

After Dunkirk, Churchill was genuinely worried about a german landing with tanks because they had lost most of their anti tank equipment and he put a lot of priority on developing things like sticky bombs that could work as a low-tech anti-tank weapon usable by anyone

Indeed. what sunk the carriers in Midway were dive bombers, something the Germans had plenty of. They didn´t have was a CARRIER based aircard as good as the japanese - but they didn´t need one.

Also Dunkirk was filled with SMALL ships. Not capital ships. Sinking a destroyer is vastly more difficult.

One thing people are forgetting is that the submarine branch of the RN was quite big... and quite capable of also screwing logistics. Also, when you build no surface ships of your own even a destroyer armed with torpedoes is formidable. You don´t need a battleship to destroy a transport with no escorts.

So no - as good as air power was, it alone wouldn´t be enough.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Also Dunkirk was filled with SMALL ships. Not capital ships. Sinking a destroyer is vastly more difficult.

In the case where they can maneuver yes, but that was not the case with Dunkirk, the destroyers were sitting ducks being stationary most of the time loading/unloading or picking up survivors.

Hitting a stationary Destroyer should not be much harder then hitting a moving Battleship, but sinking a Battleship should require many more hits then a destroyer.


So I don't really agree, most Battleships were designed to be well protected against plunging fire from above, there is not many situations in the war where dive bombers alone were able to sink a battleship. I can only think of a single one where the Soviet WW1 battleship Marat was sunk.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

After Dunkirk, Churchill was genuinely worried about a german landing with tanks

I'm sorry but that's not true. While publicly Churchill expressed these 'worries', in private he did not. Even as early as July 1940 he was (secretly) telling the War Cabinet he did not think a German invasion was likely. He knew the Royal Navy was the primary line of defence - he had been First Lord of the Admiralty since the outbreak of war, and had been so in the First World War.

But of course, what's better to raise morale for war then invasion fears? How better to unite against an enemy that you think plans to invade you and take away everything you hold dear? So would it be better to say to the people they're threatened by invasion if they lose the air war (which also appealed to American prejudices at the same time), or to say they're relatively safe from invasion as their navy is the largest in the world and has been successfully defending them for centuries?

EDIT: Churchill on 10 July 1940 to the War Cabinet

I FIND it very difficult to visualise the kind of invasion all along the coast by troops carried in small craft, and even in boats. I have not seen any serious evidence of large masses of this class of craft being assembled, and, except in very narrow waters, it would be a most hazardous and even suicidal operation to commit a large army to the accidents of the sea in the teeth of our very numerous armed patrolling forces.... A surprise crossing should be impossible, and in the broader parts of the North Sea the invaders should be an easy prey, as part of their voyage would be made by daylight....Air-borne attack is not dealt with in this note. It does not alter its conclusions [that invasion is unlikely].

 

[Beagá]

In the case where they can maneuver yes, but that was not the case with Dunkirk, the destroyers were sitting ducks being stationary most of the time loading/unloading or picking up survivors.

Hitting a stationary Destroyer should not be much harder then hitting a moving Battleship, but sinking a Battleship should require many more hits then a destroyer.


So I don't really agree, most Battleships were designed to be well protected against plunging fire from above, there is not many situations in the war where dive bombers alone were able to sink a battleship. I can only think of a single one where the Soviet WW1 battleship Marat was sunk.

1- and yet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_evacuation

And that´s because they were stationed. No comments. Through I don´t know how many aircraft and of which type the germans commited daily. If it was like 200 Stukas a day, damage was NEGLIGIBLE per number of sorties.

2- That´s because most sides weren´t stupid enough to send battleships out of air cover, genius. Or why do you think the Yamato did nothing the whole war? Oce Japan lost it main carrier force it was risky to send it anywhere. Besides, war isn´t all or nothing. You don´t NEED to sink a ship to make it useless. Tirpitz for reference.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

2- That´s because most sides weren´t stupid enough to send battleships out of air cover, genius. Or why do you think the Yamato did nothing the whole war? Oce Japan lost it main carrier force it was risky to send it anywhere. Besides, war isn´t all or nothing. You don´t NEED to sink a ship to make it useless. Tirpitz for reference.

Again, it's not as simple as that (I fear this quote will be regularly repeated - history is a complicated business!) I don't know about the Yamato but the Tirpitz was not 'useless'. It, as well as the Bismarck previously, tied down at lot of the Royal Navy's surface fleet. A 'Fleet in Being' doctrine of sorts as others have talked about. A ship does not need to be in combat or sink enemy ships in order to be 'useful'. But certainly the building of battleships by Germany was very cost-ineffective - the German shipbuilding industry would've been used much better had it focused totally on U-boats and surface raiders. But that's hindsight, all countries still had a fetish for battleships - who doesn't like having big guns?

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

Again, it's not as simple as that (I fear this quote will be regularly repeated - history is a complicated business!) I don't know about the Yamato but the Tirpitz was not 'useless'. It, as well as the Bismarck previously, tied down at lot of the Royal Navy's surface fleet. A 'Fleet in Being' doctrine of sorts as others have talked about. A ship does not need to be in combat or sink enemy ships in order to be 'useful'. But certainly the building of battleships by Germany was very cost-ineffective - the German shipbuilding industry would've been used much better had it focused totally on U-boats and surface raiders. But that's hindsight, all countries still had a fetish for battleships - who doesn't like having big guns?

Battleships still played a major role, but not in naval battles. HEavy cruisers and Battleships were the main pre amphibious landing bombardment force, primarily because they could take any damage from coastal guns, and 2 their 8"+ shells would destroy any encampment or equipment it hit.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

Battleships still played a major role, but not in naval battles. HEavy cruisers and Battleships were the main pre amphibious landing bombardment force, primarily because they could take any damage from coastal guns, and 2 their 8"+ shells would destroy any encampment or equipment it hit.

Good point - but how effective (i.e. accurate) was coastal bombardment? I honestly have no idea.

 

[Beagá]

Again, it's not as simple as that (I fear this quote will be regularly repeated - history is a complicated business!) I don't know about the Yamato but the Tirpitz was not 'useless'. It, as well as the Bismarck previously, tied down at lot of the Royal Navy's surface fleet. A 'Fleet in Being' doctrine of sorts as others have talked about. A ship does not need to be in combat or sink enemy ships in order to be 'useful'. But certainly the building of battleships by Germany was very cost-ineffective - the German shipbuilding industry would've been used much better had it focused totally on U-boats and surface raiders. But that's hindsight, all countries still had a fetish for battleships - who doesn't like having big guns?

Sure but the point is, air power would never be enough to allow crossings if you have no navy of your own. Simply because it would never destroy ALL the vessels the UK had. If it was, say, Brazil then maybe, but not UK, which had large ships AND small ships AND submarines. Not to mention ships at night wouldn´t have to fear planes and planes are also subject to weather.

 

[physics1915]

Not that long ago the British Army tried to model Operation Sea Lion and even after twisting the rules to help Germany they still couldn't get a German Victory. The problem was basically that once the invasion started the Royal Navy would be able to stop the re-supply of troops for long enough for the initial invasion force to be crushed. Sure the Navy would take significant losses but the German air force couldn't sink them quickly enough. Whilst it is true that WW2 showed that air power was superior to Naval power its not so ones sided that a navy can be destroyed overnight (well not unless its caught in port anyway).

It was the Sandhurst War Game in 1974, which included British and German officers playing their respective sides, a summary of the results can be found here:

http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/seelowe.txt

The book by Richard Cox referenced is a novel based on the war game, but still worth reading as it is a faithful blow-by-blow retelling of the wargame itself. It didn't assume German air supremacy, because Germany never achieved it. But it did include dive bombing attacks on the Royal Navy, which scored some successes, but not enough to take control of the Channel in time. The end result was that of 90,000 solders Germany managed to land in England, most of whom lacked heavy equipment, only 15,000 would return to France. Even more devastating was that the vast majority of barges that had been committed to the invasion were lost, which not only is what ultimately ended the invasion, but would have crippled German industry going forward.

 

[Alex_brunius]

1- and yet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_evacuation

And that´s because they were stationed. No comments. Through I don´t know how many aircraft and of which type the germans commited daily. If it was like 200 Stukas a day, damage was NEGLIGIBLE per number of sorties.

So we can conclude that the Germans managed to sink around 15% of the vessels engaged and damage a further 50% roughly over the cause of an entire week. When you take into acount that 3 of the 9 destroyers were sunk by E-boats/U-boats, and not sunk by airpower at all your down to 10% sunk by air.

Exact numbers of destroyers vary depending on source ( some count DDE/French ones, some don't ) and so on.

The point I'm trying to make is, do you think sinking 10% and damaging 50% of mostly stationary military ships over the cause of a week would stop the entire Royal Navy Homefleet cold in their tracks when they come steaming flank speed south and need less then a single day to complete a sortie and sink everything the Germans can put into the channel?

Because I don't.

2- That´s because most sides weren´t stupid enough to send battleships out of air cover, genius. Or why do you think the Yamato did nothing the whole war? Oce Japan lost it main carrier force it was risky to send it anywhere. Besides, war isn´t all or nothing. You don´t NEED to sink a ship to make it useless. Tirpitz for reference.

Last time I checked Bismarck or Tirpitz was not sunk by dive bombers. Neither was Yamato or Musashi. But all of them were sunk/disabled by airpower, one by Strategic bombers, one crippled by torpedo and the other two rolled over from critical flooding after taking multiple torpedo hits.

None of the battleships at Pearl harbour were sunk by dive bombers either... As far as I know Nagumo didn't even direct the Pearl Harbour attack dive bombers against the Battleships because they carried to small bombs to do much damage, so they were directed towards lighter ships, airfields and land installations instead.

 

[Calders]

@physics1915 - thanks for the extra detail, that was indeed the war game I was talking about.

I think all of this shows one of the biggest flaws in HOI. In real life the invasion of Britain was almost certain to fail, whereas in HOI its ridiculously easy.

However, there was a real risk that Britain would withdraw from the war (this would require kicking Churchill out of office but prior to El Alamein he wasn't that popular). To force British withdrawal from the war Germany would have to stave their suppliers, which of course they nearly succeeded in doing. So greater success in the Atlantic and / or the loss of Suez, prior to American intervention should force Britain to agree terms.

 

[podcat]

I'm sorry but that's not true. While publicly Churchill expressed these 'worries', in private he did not.

From Their Finest Hour after discussing how to rebuild the army long term after the Dunkirk fuckup:

"In these days my principal fear was of German tanks coming ashore. Since my mind was attracted to landing tanks on their coasts, I naturally thought they might have the same idea. We had hardly any anti-tank guns or ammunition, or even ordinary field artillery. The plight to which we were reduced in dealing with this danger may be measured from the following incident. I visited our beaches in St. Margaret’s Bay, near Dover. The Brigadier informed me that he had only three anti-tank guns in his brigade, covering four or five miles of this highly-menaced coastline. He declared that he had only six rounds of ammunition for each gun, and he asked me with a slight air of challenge whether he was justified in letting his men fire one single round for practice in order that they might at least know how the weapon worked. I replied that we could not afford practice rounds, and that fire should be held for the last moment at the closest range.

A section down, he goes into temporary solutions:

This was therefore no time to proceed by ordinary channels in devising expedients. In order to secure quick action, free from departmental processes, upon any bright idea or gadget, I decided to keep under my own hand as Minister of Defence the experimental establishment formed by Major Jefferis at Whitchurch. While engaged upon the fluvial mines in 1939 I had had useful contacts with this brilliant officer, whose ingenious, inventive mind proved, as will be seen, fruitful during the whole war. Lindemann was in close touch with him and me. I used their brains and my power. Major Jefferis and others connected with him were at work upon a bomb which could be thrown at a tank, perhaps from a window, and would stick upon it. The impact of a very high explosive in actual contact with a steel plate is particularly effective. We had the picture in mind that devoted soldiers or civilians would run close up to the tank and even thrust the bomb upon it, though its explosion cost them their lives. There were undoubtedly many who would have done it.

After that follows quotes from several letters to General Ismay harassing them to hurry up sticky bomb production.

 

[mbabbs]

It was the Sandhurst War Game in 1974, which included British and German officers playing their respective sides

It assumes the RAF has survived the Battle of Britain so is a bit pointless really as the Germans would not have attacked without air superiority.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

Sure but the point is, air power would never be enough to allow crossings if you have no navy of your own.

I completely agree and have been saying this all along as well.

It was the Sandhurst War Game in 1974, ... The end result was that of 90,000 solders Germany managed to land in England, most of whom lacked heavy equipment, only 15,000 would return to France

AFAIK Germany was only able to land these troops as it was arbitrarily given a day head start anyway.

From Their Finest Hour after discussing how to rebuild the army long term after the Dunkirk fuckup...

You citing from a book for public consumption does not contradict my point (especially considering the title itself is geared towards fueling the idea [myth] that the RAF saved Britain from invasion). But I'm not saying he didn't prioritise anti-tank defences - by September 1940 (the month Germany would most likely have performed an invasion) most/all of the heavy weapons lost at Dunkirk had been replaced by an extensive building effort throughout May-Sep 1940 due to the priority given. But this does not mean Churchill thought invasion was likely, it just means he wanted to absolutely prepared if it did happen ('victory at all costs' in a way). Most of these 2 pounder anti-tank guns were later used in North Africa anyway.

 

[Calders]

It assumes the RAF has survived the Battle of Britain so is a bit pointless really as the Germans would not have attacked without air superiority.

Yes but the point is that German air superiority was not likely to happen. In July, August and September the British replaced all their losses in both pilots and planes.

For propaganda reasons the 'Battle of Britain' has always been portrayed as much more desperate than it actually was. In fact why would Britain ever commit all its fighters to be destroyed, if it got too bad it is likely that a strategic reserve would have been kept out of range of German attack.

 

[Porkman]

From Their Finest Hour after discussing how to rebuild the army long term after the Dunkirk fuckup:

A section down, he goes into temporary solutions:

After that follows quotes from several letters to General Ismay harassing them to hurry up sticky bomb production.

Podcat, hearing you, as the developer, subscribe to the "and Germany almost won!" delusion is depressing. Yes, the HOI series has always been about leading Germany to victory, but don't let that get in the way of the actual history.

Churchill was a dramatist and he was also planning for the worst at the time. If I buy homeowner's insurance, it doesn't mean I think my house is likely to burn down. Also, is the story about not allowing a single shot substantiated? It's very dramatic but it's unlikely.

Churchill wrote his post war histories to have a narrative arc. The triumph of the hero in the third act is proportional to the depths of despair in the second.

The Art of War has a good line about how a truly good general generally gets no regard because a good general makes it look easy.

What the ancients called a clever fighter is one who not only wins, but excels in winning with ease.
Hence his victories bring him neither reputation for wisdom nor credit for courage.

If there is one thing Churchill wanted, it was a reputation for wisdom and credit for courage. That means making Britain's situation look as desperate as possible.

 

[Beagá]

Sure, but that leads to the point if a SeeLowe should even be possible in the game and how, specially in a 1936 start.

I think we all know WW2 history, the problem is making a coherent game that is fun to play and doesn´t follow the script. IMO all that argumentation is really just another reason to do a 1933 start as it allows ahistorical moves without forcing your hand too much to allow something. If there is only 1936 start, then hOW difficult it should be to pull off a Sea Lion? What exactly should Germany build? How UK would react to the naval build up? Etc etc.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Sure, but that leads to the point if a SeeLowe should even be possible in the game and how, specially in a 1936 start.

I think we all know WW2 history, the problem is making a coherent game that is fun to play and doesn´t follow the script. IMO all that argumentation is really just another reason to do a 1933 start as it allows ahistorical moves without forcing your hand too much to allow something. If there is only 1936 start, then hOW difficult it should be to pull off a Sea Lion? What exactly should Germany build? How UK would react to the naval build up? Etc etc.

There are some plausible scenarios where UK does take additional attrition to their European fleet from engagements with the French fleet at Mes-Al-Kebir, from submarines, from Italian/German action in the Med and from operations against Bismark/Tirpitz as well as in Norway...

To the point where a Germany that finishes some H-class Battleships + their Carrier and decide to go for a bigger airforce with more anti-naval focus does stand a chance of conquering the channel in at least a prolonged battle in 1941.

Probably heavilly supported by coastal artillery, Mines and large amounts of E-boats and submarines.

 

[podcat]

Podcat, hearing you, as the developer, subscribe to the "and Germany almost won!" delusion is depressing. Yes, the HOI series has always been about leading Germany to victory, but don't let that get in the way of the actual history.

If I dont there wont be a game. A realistic WW2 game would suck. Germany needs to have a chance or it wont be any fun.