Only blue sky - a no BoB PoD

[Redbeard]

Inspired by a recent film I couldn't resist thinking about this PoD:

France has fallen, exactly as in OTL and across the Channel the British in a mix of panic and strategic stubbornness prepare for the coming onslaught.

But nothing happens - only blue sky!

In Berlin sketches for a cross Channel operation had been presented, but simultaneously (and here is the PoD) with reliable intelligence reports on the actual strength of the Red Army and Air Force and the ongoing plan to expand the Red Army to 500 Divisions by mid 1942.

In Berlin the general conclusion is:

The door might be tougher to kick in and the building will not collapse as easily as we thought, but for each day we wait it will be more difficult - all resources must be focused on invading SU by mid 1941 and bringing the campaign to a conclusion before the end of 1941. It is discussed if a campaign should be planned into 1942, but it is agreed it is better to ignore the British in 1940-41 and focus all resources on SU, and then be ready to face the British and their possible allies by 1942.

The first challenge come from a German ally, as the Italians are in serious trouble vs. the British in North and East Africa in late 1940 (as in OTL). It is discussed to deploy an armoured Corps in N. Africa but it isn't considdered worth the effort, as the British controlling N. Africa is of insignificant importance to Germany in all foreseeable future. It would of course be important to the Italians and Vichy French, and not at least the Japanese, as the British now can count on a much shorter supply route to the Far East - and idle resources to keep a presence there.

The Vichy French and Italians are told to shut up and the Japanese are sent a box of chocolate and a "Good luck" card.

In NW Europe RAF seriously try to be a pain in the butt, fighter sweeps and occasional bomber attacks, but in general they take more losses than they give (as OTL).

The first serious challenge come from Mussolini again. His "it will be a walk in the park" invasion of Greece in spring of 1941 run ito serious trouble, and next British tropps are in Greece and the Yugoslavs are disobidient. In Berlin it is agreed that challenges on the European continent can't be ignored and Barbarossa is postponed until June and German troops sent to Yugoslavia and Greece. After a short but ferocious campaign both are under control (as OTL).

So by June 1941 the Wehrmacht is ready to start Barbarossa, but with extra resources compared to OTL. In my best judgement (but please challenge me) a "ignore Britain stratgey" should bring along something equivalent to an extra army, an extra Panzer Corps and about 1000 aircraft incl. the backup to operate them. I base that on the often quoted German claim that operating a Corps in N. Africa cost as much as operating an army in Russia and on the main part of the losses taken in OTL BoB and N.Africa until mid 1941 instead being available for Barbarossa.

IMHO intelligence like the above should have lead to Germany going on full war economy ASAP, but let us not have the trees grow into hell that easy and instead try a more moderate PoD.


Will the PoD make a significant difference and what?

Not just on the general outcome of Barbarossa, but am I right in concluding that the British safely could be ignored until 1942? In this ATL I have the Uboats go as OTL, but it remains open if a safely supplied Britain would be dangerous to Germany before 1942? If Berlin I would start building the Uboats ASAP, they will be needed in 1942, but seriously considder keeping them home for now.

 

[naraic]

Interesting idea. The points I wish to raise concern railbourne logistics into Russia. It was my understanding these were fully stretched historically. I am unsure if the scope exists to expand this sufficiently to support another army.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

IIRC the BoB cost the Luftwaffe about 1,700 aircraft and the Blitz another 600 along with their crews. If the Luftwaffe can find the ground crew and the fuel that roughly doubles the number of aircraft in Luftflotten 1 and 4 in June 1941.

Does double the number of German aircraft in 1941 double the Soviet losses in 1941? Does this have a knock-on effect on the Soviet and German air forces in the loner term?

• Do greater Soviet losses in 1941 = a smaller force from 1942? Or do the Soviets make up for the increased losses by cutting the length of the training courses? The latter would maintain numbers, but there would be a reduction in the quality of Soviet aircrew resulting in even higher Soviet losses in 1942.
• Does a doubled Luftwaffe suffer doubled casualties in 1941? If they don't increase in proportion to the size of the force deployed in 1941 they can deploy a larger force in 1942.

But if the OTL losses suffered by Fighter Command are avoided then the RAF can intensify it's build up in the Middle East and Mediterranean. Malta gets the 4 fighter squadrons required in the 1939 study and it can make a more effective contribution to the battles of Greece and Crete.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The Vichy French and Italians are told to shut up and the Japanese are sent a box of chocolate and a "Good luck" card.

You have written that the Balkan campaign of 1941 still happens so the Royal Navy still gets a bloody nose in the evacuations of Greece and Crete. If X. Fliegerkorps is still sent to Sicily in early 1941 Illustrious is still knocked out and the cruiser Southampton sunk. You also haven't written anything about U-boat production being cut back so the Germans might still send some to the Mediterranean in 1941.

Thus British naval losses in 1941 aren't much different than OTL.

That means they probably don't have the ships to escort convoys through the Mediterranean even though there are more fighters on Malta and the Italians have been driven out of Libya so they have fighter cover from airfields in Cyrenaica.

It probably means no more warships can be sent to Singapore either.

Driving the Italians out of Libya in 1941 doesn't automatically mean more aircraft and army divisions can be sent to reinforce Burma and the Malay Peninsular either. The aircraft and arms probably go to Murmansk to help the Soviets. Or the aircraft are used to strengthen Fighter and Bomber Commands for more direct attacks on France and Germany in an attempt to draw the Luftwaffe away from the east.

 

[pjmidd]

Lots of knock on's that could impact what happens.
No BoB and Britain is going to lose a lot less production than OTL from bombing. The lessening of combat losses also increases this impact. So various programs will happen normally instead of being rushed and better equipment gets into service quicker ( rather than stop gap production which was less efficient and delayed the proper kit).
If the Afrika Corp is not sent, then Libya falls a lot quicker, this saves an awful lot of resources that were OTL having to be sent via the cape. There is also a good chance that French North Africa goes Free French. This would effectively open the Med as soon as the Luftwaffe goes to Russia.
Even if Greece and Yugoslavia fall as quick as OTL, the increased British resources must make an impact in terms of increased losses. The Italians will also be more worried about attack and want to send less troops to Russia.
As to the Far East, troops that were OTL in Africa can be sent, indeed with no ground war going on, Australia and New Zealand would expect their troops back. Whilst most of the extra production might be sent to Russia, some of it will go East. Not having to ship to Africa frees up a fair bit of shipping.
Another knock on is that various commanders, not having the BoB and its aftermath to deal with, will be less distracted and the Far East gets more attention ( still not a main theater , but more than OTL ). So the troops will end up with more equipment and training, a good chance as well of different leadership.
Given how close the fight was in terms of logistics, it does not take a very big butterfly to stop Japan taking Singapore on the bounce. With the T class subs not needed in the Med ( they were actually built for the Pacific ), things can go south for Japan early. Remember OTL they were rolling 7's and getting lucky every time. A harder fight and the wheels start coming off and once they do , Japan does not have a lot left to improvise with.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

So by June 1941 the Wehrmacht is ready to start Barbarossa, but with extra resources compared to OTL. In my best judgement (but please challenge me) a "ignore Britain stratgey" should bring along something equivalent to an extra army, an extra Panzer Corps and about 1000 aircraft incl. the backup to operate them. I base that on the often quoted German claim that operating a Corps in N. Africa cost as much as operating an army in Russia and on the main part of the losses taken in OTL BoB and N.Africa until mid 1941 instead being available for Barbarossa.

From a book called the History of the German Army by Keith Simpson.

Wehrmacht personnel May 1941

3,800,000 Feldheer - 3,300,000 in the East
1,200,000 Erstazheer
1,700,000 Luftwaffe
400,000 Kriegsmarine
150,000 Waffen SS

7,250,000 Total​

May 1940 Feldheer had 153 divisions plus 3 Waffen SS divisions deployed as follows:

136 attack on the West
9 in the East
3 Reich
8 Scandinavia​

Deployment of the 205 divisions om 21st June 1941

145 East
38 France
12 Norway
2 Libya
1 Denmark
7 Balkans​

According to the author the army of June 1941 was no more powerful than the army of May 1940 in spite of having one-third more divisions.

The number of panzer divisions had been increased from 10 to 21 but there were an average of 320 tanks per division in 1940 and 180 in 1941 although they were better tanks. The number of motorised infantry divisions had also been increased to 14 IIRC, but there were 2 infantry regiments per division instead of 3 although that is in part because a 3-regiment division was found to be too unwieldy.

17 out of 21 panzer divisions and 11 out of 14 motorised infantry divisions were deployed in the East in June 1941.

From the recent thread we've had about whether Germany would have been better off having a smaller army than OTL but with more mechanised transport than the OTL army I think the Germans would be better off stripping the divisions that made up the OTL Afrika Korps of their MT and forming them into extra l-o-c transport regiments, which the Germans only had 3 of in June 1941 IIRC from another book about the Eastern Front.

The tanks and the rest of the men sent to Libya in 1941 IOTL should be used to replace losses 17 panzer and 11 motorised infantry divisions actually deployed in the east IOTL.

Simpson also wrote that the Heer suffered 155,000 casualties in the West (including Norway) in 1940. The casualties in the east to the Spring of 1942 were 900,000 plus 2,300 AFVs and half the horses were dead. In spite of that the Ostheer had 29 more divisions than May 1941 but 360,000 fewer men. In July 1943 the Feldheer had 243 divisions in spite of the "Tunisgrad" disaster but was 616,000 men below establishment. There were also 11 Waffen SS divisions and 22 Luftwaffe divisions (2 parachute, 19 fiend and one panzer) plus the Flak arm.

 

[naraic]

I feel that the free hand that a lack bob gives Britain will have a major effect. I wonder if you can combine a German eastern focus with a more acrimonious Anglo Vichy relationship.

Perhaps somehow the Vichy air force aid the defense of German occupied French airspace when Britain starts starts strategic bombing (initially focused on German targets in occupied France). I know the Vichy air force wasn't amazing but if it could blunt the British efforts it could really help the Luftwaffe.

I'm not sure it's viable but it's what I feel would be necessary for the free hand given to Britain by a lack of BoB and a lack of german interfereance in the med not to bite Germany in the ass.

 

[King Augeas]

You have written that the Balkan campaign of 1941 still happens so the Royal Navy still gets a bloody nose in the evacuations of Greece and Crete. If X. Fliegerkorps is still sent to Sicily in early 1941 Illustrious is still knocked out and the cruiser Southampton sunk. You also haven't written anything about U-boat production being cut back so the Germans might still send some to the Mediterranean in 1941.

Crete might not happen here. If Germany is looking to deploy the bare minimum of resources against Britain, then kicking the British out of mainland Europe (Greece) might be deemed sufficient.

The U-boats would still go, I think - they're of limited use against the Soviets and are therefore a sensible way of propping up the Med.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

After Tirpitz was worked up IOTL Hitler kept her back in the Baltic as part of a fleet to counter the Soviet Baltic Fleet should it try to break out. ITTL is there a realistic possibility of Hitler vetoing Operations Berlin and Rheinübung?

Instead he only allows Bismarck, The Twins and Prinz Eugen to proceed as far as Norway where:

• They can act as a fleet in being and force the British to maintain a strong fleet at Scapa Flow in case they try to break out into the Atlantic.
• Protect Germany northern flank.
• Be available to reinforce the ships in the Baltic should the Soviet Baltic Fleet attempt to break out.
• Prevent the British from sending aid to the USSR via Murmansk.

As it was relatively safe for the Germans to transfer ships from Germany to Norway and back at this time they might be joined by Tirpitz after she completes working up and Hipper after she completes the refit after her Atlantic sortie (unless that was cancelled too) instead of them remaining in the Baltic during 1941.

That would give them a fleet in being consisting of 4 capital ships and 2 heavy cruisers. That is only one capital ship more than OTL and the British haven't lost Hood. But all 6 ships are concentrated in one place instead of 3 at Brest and 2 in the Baltic.

Therefore all the British aid to the USSR would have to go via Iran and take longer to get there. Are there any statistics on how much aid was sent in 1941 and by which route?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Crete might not happen here. If Germany is looking to deploy the bare minimum of resources against Britain, then kicking the British out of mainland Europe (Greece) might be deemed sufficient.

The U-boats would still go, I think - they're of limited use against the Soviets and are therefore a sensible way of propping up the Med.

In that case the Mediterranean Fleet still looses 2 destroyers in the evacuation of Greece.

It prevents the sinking of 3 cruisers, one AA cruiser and 6 destroyers, plus other ships being damaged including the Formidable and Warspite in the Battle of Crete. The British also lost a few destroyers escorting convoys to Tobruk. There will be no siege of Tobruk ITTL so that won't happen, but it might loose other ships escorting convoys to Behghazi and Tripoli.

It might also prevent the sinking of Barham due to a thicker destroyer screen. It might also prevent the Italians from knocking out Queen Elizabeth and Valiant with human torpedoes. ITOL they should have been escorting a convoy to Malta, but had to be left behind for want of destroyers to screen them.

However, the Italians still have 6 battleships in 1941 with 2 building and Cavour under repair. They are also not suffering the attrition of OTL escorting the north African convoys so I think that apart from the occasional very heavily escorted convoy like the OTL Operation Tiger shipping would still have to go around the Cape of Good Hope.

 

[HexWargamer]

Inspired by a recent film I couldn't resist thinking about this PoD:

France has fallen, exactly as in OTL and across the Channel the British in a mix of panic and strategic stubbornness prepare for the coming onslaught.

But nothing happens - only blue sky!...

BETTER == as Hitlers forces corner the BEF at Dunkirk he issues a 'unilaterial ceasefire' v's the BEF and offers to make peace with the Brits. (but not yet the French) ... the BEF will be allowed to leave 'un-molested' ...

Churchill rejects the offer out of hand, but as talks go on, France surrenders ... and now there is no reason for the BEF to stay in Eirope .. so when Hitler demands that Churchill evacuate the BEF and stay out of Europe .. and in exchange he will agree to allow anyone who wants to leave the 'Greater German Rich' free passage to UK it becomes hard to resist ..

Then Hitler makes his 'fina; offer' - he will evacuate his forces from Belgium, Holland, Denmark and even Norway.

Churchill comes under intense pressure from the British public who are already fed up with war, blame the French for the disaster and see the opportunity of 'peace in our time' ..

 

[hipper]

BETTER == as Hitlers forces corner the BEF at Dunkirk he issues a 'unilaterial ceasefire' v's the BEF and offers to make peace with the Brits. (but not yet the French) ... the BEF will be allowed to leave 'un-molested' ...

Churchill rejects the offer out of hand, but as talks go on, France surrenders ... and now there is no reason for the BEF to stay in Eirope .. so when Hitler demands that Churchill evacuate the BEF and stay out of Europe .. and in exchange he will agree to allow anyone who wants to leave the 'Greater German Rich' free passage to UK it becomes hard to resist ..

Then Hitler makes his 'fina; offer' - he will evacuate his forces from Belgium, Holland, Denmark and even Norway.

Churchill comes under intense pressure from the British public who are already fed up with war, blame the French for the disaster and see the opportunity of 'peace in our time' ..

Germany did not have to power in OTL to stop the evacuation of the BE.
The British were already establishing a second BEF in France in June 1940
No-one in the British government trusted Hitler

Hitler wanted the British Government to ask for a cease fire to Bury the memory of Versailles.

 

[thaddeus]

always wondered about Germans bringing the (ridiculously) large guns to Calais in earlier version of V-3? (2 K-12 & 2 Schwerer Gustav) shelling SE Britain and battling RAF over France? in addition to their Channel warfare.

creating a flak trap for British as opposed to OTL bombing campaign?

they might use some type of sub-caliber or sabot munitions able to hit London or outskirts? a "drip drip" at little cost to themselves but sure to provoke a response.

end result less damage to GB but ratio of aircraft losses better for LW?

 

[HexWargamer]

...
Hitler wanted the British Government to ask for a cease fire to Bury the memory of Versailles.

Yep, which is why my 'alternative' proposal requires very little change == historically Hitler stopped his forces short of Dunkirk anyway, so why not have him get 'claim credit' ??
== a unilateral cease-fire is 'playing to the (British) public' == if Churchill tells the BEF to keep fighting he becomes the 'bad guy' ...

Let's consider where we are end of 1940 .. France has surrendered, Hitler controls all of Europe and Stalin and Hitler have just divided up Poland ..so a Nazi 'cease-fire' seems a very sensible move ...

If Hitler offers peace and 'concessions' == hey - he can even offer to divide France into 2 parts and allow an 'independent French Government' (based at, say. Vichy) to rule one part !
... exactly why/how would/could the British refuse ? ..
.. and if they did, Goebbels can spin Churchill as the 'warmonger' and what's the bet the American public would demand the US cut off all support ?

In 1940, all the British can do is blockade Germany and try to 'starve them out' (how long will it take Goebbels to make sure the US press to 'discover' children starving in the streets ???) .. or RAF mass bombing attacks on German cities == and you can just see how that's going to play out with the US public, especially if the Luftwaffe is 'stood down' and refuses to resist !...

 

[hipper]

Yep, which is why my 'alternative' proposal requires very little change == historically Hitler stopped his forces short of Dunkirk anyway, so why not have him get 'claim credit' ??
== a unilateral cease-fire is 'playing to the (British) public' == if Churchill tells the BEF to keep fighting he becomes the 'bad guy' ...

Let's consider where we are end of 1940 .. France has surrendered, Hitler controls all of Europe and Stalin and Hitler have just divided up Poland ..so a Nazi 'cease-fire' seems a very sensible move ...

If Hitler offers peace and 'concessions' == hey - he can even offer to divide France into 2 parts and allow an 'independent French Government' (based at, say. Vichy) to rule one part !
... exactly why/how would/could the British refuse ? ..
.. and if they did, Goebbels can spin Churchill as the 'warmonger' and what's the bet the American public would demand the US cut off all support ?

In 1940, all the British can do is blockade Germany and try to 'starve them out' (how long will it take Goebbels to make sure the US press to 'discover' children starving in the streets ???) .. or RAF mass bombing attacks on German cities == and you can just see how that's going to play out with the US public, especially if the Luftwaffe is 'stood down' and refuses to resist !...

British policy was to continue the war. This decision was made In cabinet on the 29-30th May while the BEF was being evacuated, when the decision was made only 30,000 men of the BEF were expected to be saved. Any concession of along the lines of a cease fire would make Hitler look weak and undercut his Italian ally.

 

[calvinhobbesliker]

Yep, which is why my 'alternative' proposal requires very little change == historically Hitler stopped his forces short of Dunkirk anyway, so why not have him get 'claim credit' ??
== a unilateral cease-fire is 'playing to the (British) public' == if Churchill tells the BEF to keep fighting he becomes the 'bad guy' ...

Let's consider where we are end of 1940 .. France has surrendered, Hitler controls all of Europe and Stalin and Hitler have just divided up Poland ..so a Nazi 'cease-fire' seems a very sensible move ...

If Hitler offers peace and 'concessions' == hey - he can even offer to divide France into 2 parts and allow an 'independent French Government' (based at, say. Vichy) to rule one part !
... exactly why/how would/could the British refuse ? ..
.. and if they did, Goebbels can spin Churchill as the 'warmonger' and what's the bet the American public would demand the US cut off all support ?

In 1940, all the British can do is blockade Germany and try to 'starve them out' (how long will it take Goebbels to make sure the US press to 'discover' children starving in the streets ???) .. or RAF mass bombing attacks on German cities == and you can just see how that's going to play out with the US public, especially if the Luftwaffe is 'stood down' and refuses to resist !...

You're underestimating the British and American public if you think they would fall for obvious propaganda from lying scum like Goebbels and Hitler. You forget that the Nazi scum tried all these tactics OTL and fortunately, the peoples of the democracies did not bow to the genocidal maniac but instead resolved to fight until he was eliminated from the earth.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

If there is no Battle of Britain, no Blitz, no Afrika Korps and the Germans put their economy on a total war footing the Soviets should be very suspicious about what the Germans are up to.

 

[Redbeard]

If there is no Battle of Britain, no Blitz, no Afrika Korps and the Germans put their economy on a total war footing the Soviets should be very suspicious about what the Germans are up to.

The total war economy certainly should put everyone on alert, but I actually kept the OTL economy in the PoD. The decision to ignore GB was not at least based on gathering more resources for Barbarossa without going to total war economy.

I'm not sure however if anything but a full fledged invasion will change Stalin's mind. He already had plenty of indications and reports he didn't believe in, and why should reports on "Germany getting ready for Sea Lion" change anything?

If a peace agreement is made with the British Empire things might be different, but the question is how much he can change before 22nd of June? Certainly the state of alert at the border but the Red Army still will be void of experienced general officers, and in the midst of the chaos of a huge expansion programme. And anyway, after Barbarossa had opened even the Soviet units on full strength rarely lasted long in combat. There was a reason behind Stalin not wanting a war in 1941 - he knew that would catch the Red Army in a very bad position.

The big question of course is how many resources could be directed towards Barbarossa in a "ignore GB" ATL.

In logistics I'm quite confident that the "one Armycorps in Africa = one army on the Eastern Front" is not far off. In materiel I'm also quite sure that the spared loss from no BoB and N.African and Med. campaigns will be more than enough to equip and supply an extra army, and extra Panzercorps and 1000 extra combat planes. You could easily reason for a higher number of tanks, planes and guns etc,, but I think you would soon hit a ceiling on how many tanks, planes etc. you could actually operate without very substantial changes in the basic set-up the Wehrmacht and the German war effort (ie no total war economy). Anyway, even if we only moderately change the number of tanks, planes on strength of operational units on 22nd of June 1941, then a much larger pool of reserve materiel will have dramatic influence on the German war effort a few months into Barbarossa.

Then there is the question of manpower. At a time when Germany still isn't on total war economy and before the foreign and slave labour had been introduced for serious this will certainly be critical. The absense of a Africa Corps will only provide manpower for few (motorised/armoured) Divisions and perhaps most of the extra 1000 planes (counting in the extra manpower needed to keep a given number of planes operational in Africa compared to East Front), but we still need personel for an army of 10-20 Infantry Divisions - 200-400.000 men if including corps and army level troops but excluding higher echelon (logistic) troops. The last I take already were in place in OTL to keep the North African and Med. effort going.

In short I don't think that will be a problem if they have already decided for a Barbarossa and they have the hardware. They could soon end up with more hardware than they can man with Germans though - in that case I would strongly recommend that say the Romanian, Hungarian and Finnish armies are given some very substantial discounts on materiel. IMHO they were all, not just the Finns, capable soldiers, but usually terribly short on modern equipment. I'm not talking about turning them into Panzer Divisions, but a 1000 extra AT guns, even if horsedrawn, would make wonders if divided between the three allies.

O yeah, one last issue - where should the extra army and Panzer Corps be deployed? I would keep them in strategic reserve by 22nd of June, and when your spearhead appear blunted and needing a brake to reequip (from the created pool) you have the strategic reserve "leapfrog" ahead...

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

...
Perhaps somehow the Vichy air force aid the defense of German occupied French airspace when Britain starts starts strategic bombing (initially focused on German targets in occupied France). I know the Vichy air force wasn't amazing but if it could blunt the British efforts it could really help the Luftwaffe. ...

Less than amazing, it did not exist in France. The Armistice terms prevented the French from maintaining a air force in metropolitan France. Like the tanks and medium/heavy artillery, the aircraft were turned over to the Axis & many soon destroyed. The Armistice did require France to defend its colonies & allowed the maintenance of a air force overseas.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

If there is no Battle of Britain, no Blitz, no Afrika Korps and the Germans put their economy on a total war footing the Soviets should be very suspicious about what the Germans are up to.

The lack of alert of the field forces & frontier defense in June 1941 is near ASB. Stalin had plenty of evidence the Germans would attack at the end of June, or earlier. The one often offered explanation is he thought this was a British trick to bring the USSR into the war. If it looks like the Brits are not losing in 1941 then perhaps the evidence will be taken seriously.