What if - the battle of britain.

[Atomcreator]

Thanks for all the replies and sorry if it's perhaps a little OT have to saydidnt realize there was a history forum.
I guess originally though iwas interested in peoples views of the what if , in let's say, a more global view. Perhaps what the fall of the uk would have meant.
One of the things I wanted to stress was just how much we owe those men , of all nationalities, who helped to save democracy

it's very unlikely we'd be sitting here playing hoi for one thing

 

[unmerged(138740)]

You say about that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-British_personnel_in_the_RAF_during_the_Battle_of_Britain ?
And the best in BoB - Polish squadron 303
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._303_Polish_Fighter_Squadron

And I hate ppl who say that those GiE arent and werent important
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_contribution_to_World_War_II

 

[Alex_brunius]

By 1940 Germany can choose 3 different routes to knock out Great Britain.

Route 1.
Starve them with U-boats and FW200 bombing Ports and convoys.

This cannot possibly be successful earlier then 1942 since Germany simply had to few longrange airplanes (and no escort fighters with range for them) and far to few U-boats. Doctrine and training also missing. The only accurate bomber available that can really damage shipping & escorts is the Stuka that have far far to short range. Heavy investment needed.

Route 2.
A Massive Amphibious assault.

In all the British Ports and their mainbase Scapa flow the UK had hundreds of ships combined at size Destroyer or larger size. To stop them from sinking the riverbarges that Germany can mostly land 1-3 divisions in the first week with Germany needs to build more Heavy surface ships and much much more Transports to expand that number. Many more Stukas are also needed to get rid of RN quick enough.

This crossing can't be done before 1942 either with anything looking like a reasonable chance of success.

Route 3.
A Massive Airborne assault.

This entire plan must rely on the Me323 since it have over 7 times the capacity of the old Ju-52 transports. And since its the only way for Germany to bring medium support such as trucks and some Artillery and AT weapons.

The Me323 wasn't available in 1940 and would need huge investments to be ready in large enough numbers by 1942.

Note: In all 3 routes I have assumed Germany defeats the RAF and force them to retreat from all bases in range of Luftwaffe fighters.

Summary of what I think would have happened: If Germany would tried an amphibious & airborne assault right away in 1940 they couldn't have crossed with more then 3 divisions totally the first week. After this their river barges & surface ships would flee or be sunk while the RN engaged in an attrition battle in the channel with Luftwaffe. In the long term this would be won by the Germans but meanwhile the rest of the RAF based in northern UK have a free shot on the few German divisions ashore and try to oppose transport aircraft and Luftwaffe bombers. How long that battle would be depends like people have said a lot on weather.

After a month the Germans could have Conquered a small Bridgehead with 3-6 divisions at most but while doing this trading all their barges and transport aircraft for large parts of the Royal Navy. With no way to supply or reinforce the beachhead it would be a matter of time before their are slowly moved back to the sea and overhead a new inconclusive air battle would be fought.

This is since UK aircraft production exceeded the German one and they meet half way.

So the only way Germany can be sure to win is to prepare for 2-3 years no matter what way they choose. And when we arrive at 1942-43 Both USA and Soviet will be eager and ready to throw them self into the struggle at first excuse If they aren't part of it already.

I can say that I look forward to trying out all 3 routes myself in HoI3. But I suspect we can still use the HoI2 exploit of taking a port with Paras and then use 20 cheap transports to bring across 10 ARM + 10 INF divisions. Reality however doesn't work this way, Transport shipping is very expensive & time consuming to build and unloading any kind of heavy support at a port takes a long long time.

 

[Atomcreator]

I can say that I look forward to trying out all 3 routes myself in HoI3. But I suspect we can still use the HoI2 exploit of taking a port with Paras and then use 20 cheap transports to bring across 10 ARM + 10 INF divisions. Reality however doesn't work this way, Transport shipping is very expensive & time consuming to build and unloading any kind of heavy support at a port takes a long long time.

I must say I never used such gamey exploits

So the solution is to increase transport build costs and also troop offload times ?
Does anyone know if this will be done in HOI3 ?

Good points by the way.

 

[vota dc]

1)No planes for UK
2)Churchill fired
3)Peace and alliance between Uk and Germany
4)War on the east
5)Japan defeated and USA very strong in the chinese area-cold war between Germany and USA

 

[Atomcreator]

1)No planes for UK
2)Churchill fired
3)Peace and alliance between Uk and Germany
4)War on the east
5)Japan defeated and USA very strong in the chinese area-cold war between Germany and USA

what about Russia ?

 

[unmerged(138740)]

Nope - if UK moves their airforce north then the BoB above the skyes will change to 1:1 ratio. total losses where according to wicki:
Casualties and losses:
UK 544 killed 1,547 aircraft destroyed
Gerany 2,500 killed 1,887 aircraft destroyed
The pilots were bigger problem to Germans then planes. They were not on total production till 43 but such situation would require to have more effort into Luftwaffe. Why it wasnt like that during BoB historically? Cause Hitler never siriously considered Sealion.
I say combine all 3 points. Para + Amphibious + different goals for Luftwaffen than historically and its doable. Maybe a lot of losses but doable. Wehrmacht can fight with 1940 UK units (those on home islands) with 4:1 (even bigger) negative ratio. Not much troops need to be shipped at once. Me instead of Tante Ju? Not neccessarily. More sorties and less transported supplies/troops at once but was that neccessary? UK was 100% focused on aviation then and had 'no army' (read wisely).

 

[Alex_brunius]

So the solution is to increase transport build costs and also troop offload times ?
Does anyone know if this will be done in HOI3 ?

Good points by the way.

The only part of change in the right direction here that Ive spotted is that Tanks need twice the amount of Transports to be shipped, so 30x transports instead of 20 and our exploit is still good to go.

Transports still seem to be very cheap and quick to build however so that doesn't matter much.

Our only hope really is that the Transport ship practical malus is huge for the guys that don't usually build them by the hundreds.

 

[unmerged(138740)]

what about Russia ?

Said many times before in this thread...
Read again.

 

[unmerged(138740)]

The only part of change in the right direction here that Ive spotted is that Tanks need twice the amount of Transports to be shipped, so 30x transports instead.

Transports still seem to be very cheap and quick to build however so that doesn't matter much.

Oh - the 100s of Brittish tanks to face - I forgot again

EDIT:
Sory - not my goal to offend anyone today...
Im just not 'fresh' enough if you understand what I mean
oh my poor head...

 

[Atomcreator]

Said many times before in this thread...
Read again.

I was refering to vota dc's theory.
He didnt mention what would happen to russia.. just a cold war between germany and the US.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Oh - the 100s of Brittish tanks to face - I forgot again

Its more the fact that Tanks are really helpful if you want to have any sort of Blitzkrieg or manoeuvre advantage.

If Germans can't bring any tanks (and they won't in 1940) then we are back to WW1 tactics, and British would have the advantage of being in the defending trench this time around too. I think we know how that story ends already.

The problem is only made worse by that each German soldier shipped across the channel is payed with the blood of many Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine personel. But UK have access to millions of replacements on their own doorstep.

 

[unmerged(138740)]

1)No planes for UK
2)Churchill fired
3)Peace and alliance between Uk and Germany
4)War on the east
5)Japan defeated and USA very strong in the chinese area-cold war between Germany and USA

All depends if this is with or without Sealion.
1. Heh? UK build their own planes at that time and relied on their aviation industry. and?
2. 100% sure. If not executed (only if Germans get him first)
3. Alliance? Rather not. Peace yes + neutrality.
4. ??? what does that mean?
5. With UK defeated will there be still embargo on Japan? How will US behave? War with US? I would think twice. Many IFs - to many. Would US be at any war with Axis then? Will GErmany support Japs IF they will make PH? Or maybe normally no war and normal relations between them. (UK at peace and France given back its territory)

 

[unmerged(87984)]

Its more the fact that Tanks are really helpful if you want to have any sort of Blitzkrieg or manoeuvre advantage.

If Germans can't bring any tanks (and they won't in 1940) then we are back to WW1 tactics, and British would have the advantage of being in the defending trench this time around too. I think we know how that story ends already.

If the invasions succeeds we can assume that germany has air superiority, that couls shake up the british defence somewhat. But I agree that tanks are crucial for a quick, decisive strike.

 

[unmerged(138740)]

Its more the fact that Tanks are really helpful if you want to have any sort of Blitzkrieg or manoeuvre advantage.

If Germans can't bring any tanks (and they won't in 1940) then we are back to WW1 tactics, and British would have the advantage of being in the defending trench this time around too. I think we know how that story ends already.

Tanks arent all in the modern warfare - tactics and manouvers like tanks but they can go without. Off course its not blitzkrieg anymore but trench?
Trench warfare was only on the west - remember WW1? East was very mobile. Italy-AH? Terrain. Balkans? Often more mobile than static.

EDIT
Heres the Central Powers gains in Russia

quite far aint it? Not as much less than in WW2

 

[ADragonsFang]

this thread is getting way too hectic!! people arnt having open minds about this "what if", they have already chosen a side and are just countering every peace of information with yet another peace of information, and all are just speculative without proof. I think this thread should be CLOSED, its in the wrong place and its not useful information as most is bol lux(mine included) and completly biased without evidence or proper knowledge of situations during any of the months of 1940 and beyond. We should call this argument a day cause thats what it has turned into, an argument!!!

 

[Socratatus]

Did I said about beach landing? Land Paras and seize port/s. It would be quite a surprise - even bigger than Crete.
Its enough to have 2 para and 2 land in a week to stop any brittish counter in 1940. The rest can come with time. Its not such a problem to do it in stages - what wuld UK send there to throw them to the sea? Flint/musket snipers? ohh the armored divisions - I forgot about UKs Moto/Mech/Armored that were ready to repeal any invasion...

You keep going on about Crete, but crete if I remember correctly was one of the German`s costliest victories. It was so costly in men lost that they never tried to occupy that way again.

Imagine the same thing attempted on British home ground where even the local farmer will shoot anyone descending out of the skies.

 

[unmerged(138740)]

You keep going on about Crete, but crete if I remember correctly was one of the German`s costliest victories. It was so costly in men lost that they never tried to occupy that way again.

Imagine the same thing attempted on British home ground where even the local farmer will shoot anyone descending out of the skies.

It would be nice if you fairly added the negative side rather than just pointing out the side that suits you.

I said many times that:
1. there are 'prequesites' to launch such operation
2. It would not be easy and really costly

And I said its doable and plausible and not 100% successfull always. Its just a question what if.

EIDT:
not the most costliest victory at all - costly yes but not the most (and it prevented Malta assault - great mistake)

 

[Alex_brunius]

EDIT
Heres the Central Powers gains in Russia

...

quite far aint it? Not as much less than in WW2

You know what armistice means? It means that the Russians are not planning or capable to fire back.
They were busy with their revolution and couldn't fight at all in 1917-1918.

If United Kingdom had a Revolution and civil war in 1940 I can agree with you that Germany could defeat them without tanks. Besides Russians were not really famous for their machine-gun production and state of the art tactics in WW1.

 

[unmerged(87984)]

quite far aint it? Not as much less than in WW2

Not that difficult given that they had hardly any resistance to face after the first failure of negotiations.