IS Seelöwe The Only Way To German Victory?

Historically, there were other fish to fry. Put those other fish on hold and the required number could appear. Also, making proper use of Benghazi allows shorter trips, which effectively increases the capacity of the trucks already there by making the round trip journey (port to front and back) some 2000 km shorter.

So, you are gambling on Stalin doing nothing in your backyard while you are occupied in closing the Western entrance to the Med and moving sufficient motor transport to North Africa?


Quoting your link again

Particularly crippling for the Afrika Korps was the severe shortage of trucks needed to move supplies over the vast distances of the area of operations. In his work, Panzer Battles, German Major General F. W. von Mellenthin pointed to this problem—



Even when our supplies did reach Africa, it was no easy matter to move them to the front, because of the great distances involved. It was 700 miles from Tripoli to Benghazi, 300 from Benghazi to Tobruk, yet another 350 from Tobruk to Alamein.

That is 650 miles when 200 miles was considered to be the maximum for effective motor transport.
 
So, you are gambling on Stalin doing nothing in your backyard while you are occupied in closing the Western entrance to the Med and moving sufficient motor transport to North Africa?

Stalin doesn't have the transport he needs. The supplies of the Red Army were pulled by American locomotives and drove to the front in trucks of which 20% came from America.

A significant portion of the Red Army was fed, clothed and shod by America. A significant number of the aircraft used by the Soviets came from America and all of the aluminum used for indigenous aircraft production in the USSR came from overseas.

Stalin isn't going anywhere for a relatively long time.
 
Even when our supplies did reach Africa, it was no easy matter to move them to the front, because of the great distances involved. It was 700 miles from Tripoli to Benghazi, 300 from Benghazi to Tobruk, yet another 350 from Tobruk to Alamein.

That is 650 miles when 200 miles was considered to be the maximum for effective motor transport.

I am now convinced that you cannot read the English language.

I keep telling you that, for this to work, Tobruk must also be an active port. Yet, you keep ignoring that. At least you finally acknowledge Benghazi.

It is amusing to me that Rommel and the British Generals he faced managed to operate beyond the 200 mile limit you describe.
 
Stalin doesn't have the transport he needs. The supplies of the Red Army were pulled by American locomotives and drove to the front in trucks of which 20% came from America.

A significant portion of the Red Army was fed, clothed and shod by America. A significant number of the aircraft used by the Soviets came from America and all of the aluminum used for indigenous aircraft production in the USSR came from overseas.

Stalin isn't going anywhere for a relatively long time.

He doesn't need to go that far, he's in Poland at this time and you are stripping away a massive chunk of the logistical support Germany has - all the German units that attacked the SU in 1941 had 14,000 trucks between them, and the 4 mechanised divisions that German planners had determined was the minimum needed to get the the Nile valley would use just under 5,000 to cover 300 miles of desert assuming no interference from the British.
 
He doesn't need to go that far, he's in Poland at this time and you are stripping away a massive chunk of the logistical support Germany has - all the German units that attacked the SU in 1941 had 14,000 trucks between them, and the 4 mechanised divisions that German planners had determined was the minimum needed to get the the Nile valley would use just under 5,000 to cover 300 miles of desert assuming no interference from the British.

We already know that Stalin was not prepared to invade in 1941.
 
I am now convinced that you cannot read the English language.

I keep telling you that, for this to work, Tobruk must also be an active port. Yet, you keep ignoring that. At least you finally acknowledge Benghazi.

Having the ports doesn't help if you do not have the trucks or railway lines for moving the cargo

It is amusing to me that Rommel and the British Generals he faced managed to operate beyond the 200 mile limit you describe.

The UK was able to make use of the rail line from Alexandria to Mersa Matruh (294.4km) which was decided upon in late 1935. The first 74km were opened to traffic on January 1936 with the remaining following suit a few months later.

During the war, it was extended to Sidi Barani, which it reached in December 1941.

It was further extended for the battles around Alamain and followed the British forces west.
 
PMN1, Stalin doesn't need to attack, which I have little expectation he will, but what happens to Hitler's plans if Stalin has another year or more to recover from his purges of the officer corps, build more armaments and so forth?

A few more divisions of T-34 tanks is going to mean German losses on a scale that the war in North Africa simply never saw OTL and the Germans somehow had no idea OTL just how dangerous those were.
 
Having the ports doesn't help if you do not have the trucks or railway lines for moving the cargo

Now I know that you are unable to read English.

I agree that Barbarossa needs to be delayed and the trucks transferred and you STILL say that there aren't enough trucks.

There is no talking to you.

If you want to start making sense, get back to me.
 
Now, what I'm about to ask you may sound shockingly ignorant. Nevertheless:

-Could the RAF and Royal Navy do something about these trucks crossing over?

-Could the British Army, with its defensive terrain at Qattar, with General Montgomery's competence, and with increasing amounts of American assitance, hold the Germans off even if they get supplies?
 
Now, what I'm about to ask you may sound shockingly ignorant. Nevertheless:

-Could the RAF and Royal Navy do something about these trucks crossing over?

-Could the British Army, with its defensive terrain at Qattar, with General Montgomery's competence, and with increasing amounts of American assitance, hold the Germans off even if they get supplies?

they could increase the attrition rate definitely

and it depends on what year .. some of the reasons for British victory have to do with developing better doctrine .. which took time
 
No Miracle at Dunkirk, the Germans capture over 300,000 British and French soldiers and thereby leaving England utterly defenseless. Hitler offers peace in exchange for being given a free hand on the Continent, England has no choice but to accept...
 
No Miracle at Dunkirk, the Germans capture over 300,000 British and French soldiers and thereby leaving England utterly defenseless. Hitler offers peace in exchange for being given a free hand on the Continent, England has no choice but to accept...

that would be a very heavy blow, but not necessarily a decisive one unless Halifax is PM instead of Churchill. The loss of the best part of the Army (a lot of the regulars and territorials) would cripple the British Army severely, but the Indian Army (which has a lot of regulars) is the still intact, as are most of the garrisons, including the Western Desert Force. The Canadians are already en route (a brigade or two are already in England) and there is still a considerable force in England as well (partially trained and equipped). Certainly the remainder of the BEF would be recalled (1st Armored and 51st Highlanders) as it would now be too risky to leave them in France.

Its a bad situation for Britain, but not necessarily militarily fatal. Politically however it is a far worse blow. Which could the the decisive element here.

Assuming the war goes on, certainly Churchill would not have the troops to spare for the Greek adventure and troops to spare in general would be pretty tough to come by for 1941.
 
No Miracle at Dunkirk, the Germans capture over 300,000 British and French soldiers and thereby leaving England utterly defenseless. Hitler offers peace in exchange for being given a free hand on the Continent, England has no choice but to accept...

Defenseless except for....

SpitfiresMaltaBound_large.jpg
 
Now, what I'm about to ask you may sound shockingly ignorant. Nevertheless:

-Could the RAF and Royal Navy do something about these trucks crossing over?

You betcha they will at least try. That is why it is crucial to get more trucks and shorter supply lines.

-Could the British Army, with its defensive terrain at Qattar, with General Montgomery's competence, and with increasing amounts of American assitance, hold the Germans off even if they get supplies?

Everyone has pretty much concluded or agreed that this has to take place before Barbarossa, so you're looking at people like Wavell, The Auk, Alan Cunningham and Ritchie - depending on exactly when it starts.
 
Hastings? You mean where the Normans conquered England? And then colonised it? Leading eventually to Great Britain? The very country we are debating about?
Considering we owe much more to the Normans than the Saxons, I'd consider Hastings a victory for my forefathers.

beware: British wank on the loose!
 
Top