Germany follows the Goering stratgy in 1940 and 1941

[Zheng He]

Trying to pull this away from anti-ship tactics and back to the issue of how does Hitler get Franco to go along. It seems fairly clear from the source material I was able to dig up that Franco wanted parts of French African colonies as part of the dowry but those colonies were controlled by Vichy so unless Hitler is willing to risk Vichy colonies deciding that DeGaulle is not such a bad guy after all and Vichy France proper deciding their relationship with Berlin needs to be rethought, then this isn't happening.

I go back to my earlier post - the best scenario for this happening is in a France fights on scenario and I'm not sure this situation is a win for the Germans. The British get the French colonies and the forces they command (including most of the fleet) on their side. The Germans have to occupy Metropolitan France and are now saddled with an ally that is desperately poor, still recovering from a devastating civil war, and dependent on all manner of imports from overseas to include food. All this for Gibraltar?

 

[McPherson]

When did the Nazi's sink by airpower a capital ship?

Roma, Italian battleship, radio guided bomb. Under what could be described as target practice conditions for weapon proof.

 

[Jericho7son]

Er, no, Just no.

At this point in time German antiship capability was minimal.
And those batteries that can't be brought to bear. They float. And have engines. They move...

I was referring to the 9 inch coastal batteries, which is what I thought the previous poster was referring too, not trying to sink the HMS Rodney or other capital ship at it's moorings. JU-87's where effective anti ship weapons in conditions of total air control, most attempts, in 1939-1940 by Germany to sink British ships (and the British trying to sink German ships) where medium bombers at high altitude, not dive bombers at mast top height attacking within 100 miles of their operating bases under fighter escort

The previous poster suggested sailing British capital ships to within 15 miles! of Gibraltar so they could bombard the siege train at night which allowing for a 2 hour dusk approach to firing range and a 60 minute firing program means they would be only approx 75 miles from the spanish coast at dawn, which leaves them will within JU-87 range with fighter escort. Its hard to fathom that type of risk being run by the British admiralty

 

[Jericho7son]

At what stage of the Second World War did the Nazi's have Helldivers, Avengers or Swordfish equivalents, the trained aircrews and the ordinance?
When did the Nazi's sink by airpower a capital ship?

The Battleship Marat

 

[Zheng He]

We are drifting off topic. Can we agree that given the nature of the regime and its chief architect war criminal's ambitions that nobody else was going to invoke the Spanish option because:

a; the looted logistics does not support it.
b; proper planning mechanisms and planning did not exist.
c; the forces in place were totally unprepared.
d; the head war criminal had his mind made up to go for "living space" and to carry out his criminal bigoted aspirations to murder those he defined as "under-men"? I mean this is what happened to the detriment of strategic, tactical or even immediate operational requirements. Nobody overruled or convinced the Berlin Maniac otherwise. Example: Railroad stock and war materials were diverted from the U-boat war to supply material and transfer innocent people to be murdered at concentration camps. That actually happened.

All good stuff but first and foremost this doesn't happen unless somebody develops a POD that gets Franco to decide this is all a good idea.

 

[McPherson]

The Battleship Marat

Pearl Harbored, that is she was anchored as an aim point that even tyros could not miss, not a maneuver target.

 

[m0585]

I'm not saying Germany could have brought Britain to terms using a Mediterranean strategy; but using the benefit of hindsight to say it was impossible isn't the best way to go. All of the disadvantages that Germany had in 1940-41 are known to us in 2020, but wouldn't have necessarily have be known to Britain in that time period. If Hitler had decided to focus on defeating Britain and postponing Barbarossa, due to the mindset that the Soviet Union could have been dealt with later, then the war would have been much harder for Britain. How many defeats could Britain have endured before a no confidence motion is held in Parliament to remove Churchill? Yes, the victory in the Battle of Britain had galvanized the British populace that they couldn't be conquered; but would it have made them believe that they could defeat a Germany that had dominated the continent?

 

[McPherson]

All good stuff but first and foremost this doesn't happen unless somebody develops a POD that gets Franco to decide this is all a good idea.

Yeah, with his economy hanging on by a thread, half of his population looking for any excuse to rub his supporters and him out, and with what his own secret services were reporting about the Berlin Maniac's regime and its follies, plus the fact that Francisco Franco was a veteran of the RiF Wars and a Master LOGISTICIAN as well as a more than adequate op-artist, how was he supposed to be convinced? He only fiddled with the Axis enough to keep those bozos, Hitler and Mussolini, out of his country.

Not meaning he would not play footsie with the Axis, but Franco was a cold calculating son of a biscuit who measured and weighed everything. What guarantee was there that the Berlin Maniac would be able to protect Spain and him, if Italy was getting her clock cleaned with 100 grit British sandpaper?

 

[Zheng He]

I'm not saying Germany could have brought Britain to terms using a Mediterranean strategy; but using the benefit of hindsight to say it was impossible isn't the best way to go. All of the disadvantages that Germany had in 1940-41 are known to us in 2020, but wouldn't have necessarily have be known to Britain in that time period. If Hitler had decided to focus on defeating Britain and postponing Barbarossa, due to the mindset that the Soviet Union could have been dealt with later, then the war would have been much harder for Britain. How many defeats could Britain have endured before a no confidence motion is held in Parliament to remove Churchill? Yes, the victory in the Battle of Britain had galvanized the British populace that they couldn't be conquered; but would it have made them believe that they could defeat a Germany that had dominated the continent?

I think this would be a great TL and I would love to see someone write one but it is very complicated with a lot of moving parts. For this to happen, Corporal Hitler has to figure out the following:

• How to get Franco onboard in the first place.
• How to get Petain onboard.
• How to deal with the competing interests of the Italians, Spanish, and the French.
• How to deal with Mussolini in a theater he views as his own.

And that is just the basic strategic and political nonsense. If by some miracle he can make all of that work, then there are the logistical and operational challenges which are not insignificant.

Again, I would love to see a good TL but you have to figure out the basics of the theater. IMWO the simplest (not necessarily easiest) scenario is a France Fights On scenario that causes Hitler to decide he has to take care of business in the Mediterranean before he can move on to other tasks. This has the benefit of removing the complicating factor of having to deal with the competing interests of the Italians, Spanish, and the French. In this situation Hitler can simply promise Mussolini everything from the Tunisia/Algeria border to the east and Franco everything from the Tunisia/Algeria border to the west. Is that enough to get Franco to go along with his good idea? I have no idea but it's the best I can come up with on short notice.

 

[Garrison]

Trying to pull this away from anti-ship tactics and back to the issue of how does Hitler get Franco to go along. It seems fairly clear from the source material I was able to dig up that Franco wanted parts of French African colonies as part of the dowry but those colonies were controlled by Vichy so unless Hitler is willing to risk Vichy colonies deciding that DeGaulle is not such a bad guy after all and Vichy France proper deciding their relationship with Berlin needs to be rethought, then this isn't happening.

I do wonder if Franco made those demands knowing Germany couldn't meet them? Essentially providing Franco with a solid excuse to sit on the sidelines and wait to see how events unfold. I mean by the latter part of 1940 he is going to be witnessing the dismantling of Italy's African colonies because of their hasty declaration of war against Britain.

I go back to my earlier post - the best scenario for this happening is in a France fights on scenario and I'm not sure this situation is a win for the Germans. The British get the French colonies and the forces they command (including most of the fleet) on their side. The Germans have to occupy Metropolitan France and are now saddled with an ally that is desperately poor, still recovering from a devastating civil war, and dependent on all manner of imports from overseas to include food. All this for Gibraltar?

This is the thing I'm not really sure there's anything the Germans can offer the Spanish that is going to be worth the consequences of being cut off from international trade.

 

[Zheng He]

I do wonder if Franco made those demands knowing Germany couldn't meet them? Essentially providing Franco with a solid excuse to sit on the sidelines and wait to see how events unfold. I mean by the latter part of 1940 he is going to be witnessing the dismantling of Italy's African colonies because of their hasty declaration of war against Britain.



This is the thing I'm not really sure there's anything the Germans can offer the Spanish that is going to be worth the consequences of being cut off from international trade.

I think that is absolutely correct, Franco made ridiculous demands knowing Hitler could not/would not meet them allowing him to stay out of it. Overall I agree that it is possible there is nothing that can cause Franco to drink enough lead paint that he is willing to take the plunge but at least in a France Fights On scenario Hitler will not have any qualms of offering Franco whatever French and British territory he wants - https://ww2db.com/doc.php?q=317. Maybe in that case Franco catches a case of the stupids and his get big and he agrees to join the cause.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

...JU-87's where effective anti ship weapons in conditions of total air control...

Where does this total air control come from? Also, seeing as though it’s a fairly popular subject, do you have any sources for the Stuka being an “effective anti-ship weapon”?

...only approx 75 miles from the spanish coast at dawn, which leaves them will within JU-87 range with fighter escort...

As long as the British have aircraft carriers, they will have fighters as well.

...Its hard to fathom that type of risk being run by the British admiralty...

I’m surprised no-one else has trotted this gem out, but:
“It takes the Navy three years to build a ship. It will take three hundred years to build a new tradition.”
Admiral Andrew Browne Cunningham

 

[BlackDragon98]

At what stage of the Second World War did the Nazi's have Helldivers, Avengers or Swordfish equivalents, the trained aircrews and the ordinance?
When did the Nazi's sink by airpower a capital ship?

Against the Commies of course.
Han Ulrich Rudel sank the Soviet battleship Marat with his Ju 87 on Sep. 23rd 1941.

 

[BlackDragon98]

Where does this total air control come from? Also, seeing as though it’s a fairly popular subject, do you have any sources for the Stuka being an “effective anti-ship weapon”?



As long as the British have aircraft carriers, they will have fighters as well.



I’m surprised no-one else has trotted this gem out, but:
“It takes the Navy three years to build a ship. It will take three hundred years to build a new tradition.”
Admiral Andrew Browne Cunningham

I must argue your first point.
UK carrier HMS Illustrious was heavily damaged by Stukas. Crete was another time when multiple UK cruisers were sunk by Stukas.

I agree with your second point. Sea Hurricanes and Fulmars are capable fighters.

I also agree with your third point. The Kriegsmarine was at a big disadvantage because all the Kaisermarine ships were at the bottom of Scapa Flow.

 

[BlackDragon98]

I think that is absolutely correct, Franco made ridiculous demands knowing Hitler could not/would not meet them allowing him to stay out of it. Overall I agree that it is possible there is nothing that can cause Franco to drink enough lead paint that he is willing to take the plunge but at least in a France Fights On scenario Hitler will not have any qualms of offering Franco whatever French and British territory he wants - https://ww2db.com/doc.php?q=317. Maybe in that case Franco catches a case of the stupids and his get big and he agrees to join the cause.

Franco was encouraged by Adm. Canaris, who was against Hitler and part of the later July 20 plot.

 

[BlackDragon98]

IMAO just let Mussolini go wild but prepare troops and forces when he screws up. Then laugh at him and send the preplanned troops to save his sorry ass from complete doom.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

UK carrier HMS Illustrious was heavily damaged by Stukas. Crete was another time when multiple UK cruisers were sunk by Stukas.

Illustrious was damaged by Stukas - over 80 of them in two separate attacks over two days according to wiki - and I believe the serious damage was done on the second day. This was also in 1941 when many of the Stuka pilots will have had more experience then they do ITTL.

 

[McPherson]

Illustrious was damaged by Stukas - over 80 of them in two separate attacks over two days according to wiki - and I believe the serious damage was done on the second day. This was also in 1941 when many of the Stuka pilots will have had more experience then they do ITTL.

That is a kind of shocking when one does the PH/PK analysis. (0.5%) By contrast USN aviators could achieve roughly 7% and the IJN aviators, provided they lived to reach their drop points, about the same. The LW was really lousy at anti-ship.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

That is a kind of shocking when one does the PH/PK analysis. (0.5%) By contrast USN aviators could achieve roughly 7% and the IJN aviators, provided they lived to reach their drop points, about the same. The LW was really lousy at anti-ship.

This is the problem with these kinds of scenarios. The LW are expected to perform better than OTL with less experience. Remember, this is a LW that (for some suggestions) doesn’t even have the anti-ship experience of the Kanalkampf behind it. That would suggest that they could perform even worse than OTL rather than better.

 

[Astrodragon]

Also they are trying to sink battleships, not a carrier. Big difference in armour and protection. remember the LW trained up an antishipping force to use in 1941, it wasn't there in 1940.
Its been said that if they sneak the BB's in at night, or in bad weather, they only get a short time to fire. True. But 30 minutes firing by the Nelrods lands around 400 16" bricks on the target. Which wont be there any longer.