Operation Barbarossa succeeds. How soon can the WAllies plausibly attempt a landing?

[Magnum]

An accommodation between Britain, Vichy France and the Nazi regime is not impossible following a successful Barbarossa in 1941. Indeed a third of AH members as (at this time) believe that is the most likely option.

Yes, because the British are going to happily let Adolf muster the resources of continental Europe to build up a fleet with which to invade...

IMO, Britain accepts Hitlerite domination of central Europe under one of the conditions:

1. Panzers in London, Edinburgh and Ottawa
2. America joining the Nazis
3. Germany withdrawing (not "withdrawing") from western Europe

#1 & #2 would require a WW2 far different from our own, and #3 would require non-Nazi Nazis.

Would Britain be happy being the retaliatory target of choice for whatever weapons the Germans can dream up?

Given that the alternative is certain defeat in the long haul, I'd say yes.

Are British cities invulnerable

Against conventional attacks by the LW, I'd say pretty much yes, certainly from 1941 onwards.

If Göring attempts a second BoB in '42 or '43, his boys are getting their teeth kicked in.

A couple of AH members disagreed and have suggested the B36 would be a useful tool if the US was fighting Germany alone, which was the suggestion being debated. In the first instance I think the US continuing a European war alone is unlikely and in the second instance, using the B36 and carrier aircraft in a battle of attrition is bringing a knife to a gun fight.

If ASBs made Britain make peace with Germany after the fall of Stalin, I don't think the Americans would want to try and prosecute an offensive war against Hitler, so the point is kinda moot. (even though they could in theory - starting from Morocco and making their way from there)

Would the Germans need the same sized army to deal with green US and British troops?

They'd need both a bigger and better one, because OTL those "green US and British troops" kinda beat the Germans wherever they found them from August '42 onward, with the only German strategic victory being in a sideshow of a sideshow against 5000 British soldiers in the Dodecanese campaign.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

They'd need both a bigger and better one, because OTL those "green US and British troops" kinda beat the Germans wherever they found them from August '42 onward, with the only German strategic victory being in a sideshow of a sideshow against 5000 British soldiers in the Dodecanese campaign.

The Brits in North Africa generally were not 'green' by August 1942 and the US didn't fight the Germans on land until November 1942 and only in extremely favorable circumstances by 1943. As it was the US only then fought with major numerical superiority, air superiority, and with the Germans in poor logistic situations.

 

[BooNZ]

Yes, because the British are going to happily let Adolf muster the resources of continental Europe to build up a fleet with which to invade...

IMO, Britain accepts Hitlerite domination of central Europe under one of the conditions:

1. Panzers in London, Edinburgh and Ottawa
2. America joining the Nazis
3. Germany withdrawing (not "withdrawing") from western Europe

#1 & #2 would require a WW2 far different from our own, and #3 would require non-Nazi Nazis.

Or alternatively, following the fall of the Soviets and absent a German declaration of war, the US decides propping up the British war effort is uneconomic and discretely suggest the British reach terms. OTL Britain and the US were apparently content with the Soviets dominating central Europe...

Given that the alternative is certain defeat in the long haul, I'd say yes.

Certain defeat or instead, compromise and peace.

Against conventional attacks by the LW, I'd say pretty much yes, certainly from 1941 onwards. If Göring attempts a second BoB in '42 or '43, his boys are getting their teeth kicked in.

I suspect retaliatory strikes for use of atomic weapons would be unlikely to be conventional, so are unlikely to resemble BoB...

They'd need both a bigger and better one, because OTL those "green US and British troops" kinda beat the Germans wherever they found them from August '42 onward, with the only German strategic victory being in a sideshow of a sideshow against 5000 British soldiers in the Dodecanese campaign.

The majority of the German ground forces were deployed and 80% of the German military deaths were inflicted on the Eastern front. Millions of otherwise dead Germans would put to productive use in Germany or its periphery. With its prewar manpower more-or-less intact, its frontline troops are likely to be more formidable than the OTL Heer faced by Western forces late in the war.

 

[Athelstane]

In the first instance I think the US continuing a European war alone is unlikely

Very.

 

[Telakasi]

They'd need both a bigger and better one, because OTL those "green US and British troops" kinda beat the Germans wherever they found them from August '42 onward, with the only German strategic victory being in a sideshow of a sideshow against 5000 British soldiers in the Dodecanese campaign.

Two quick questions: How large was allied superiority? And how much larger were Allied losses? For example during the battle of Monte Cassino in Italy 240 000 WAllied soldiers faced 140 000 German ones, the losses were 55 000 men lost by the Allies and 20 000 lost by the Germans. This means the Germans had a combat effectiveness 4.7x greater than the Allies (superiority of 1.7 x loss ratio of 2.75).

Now imagine that with the Soviets out of the picture, the Germans would not have sent 80% of their ground forces East - but rather West and South......

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Two quick questions: How large was allied superiority? And how much larger were Allied losses? For example during the battle of Monte Cassino in Italy 240 000 WAllied soldiers faced 140 000 German ones, the losses were 55 000 men lost by the Allies and 20 000 lost by the Germans. This means the Germans had a combat effectiveness 4.7x greater than the Allies (superiority of 1.7 x loss ratio of 2.75).

Now imagine that with the Soviets out of the picture, the Germans would not have sent 80% of their ground forces East - but rather West and South......

Monte Casino wasn't exactly the standard engagement either, the Germans were in prime defensive terrain that even heavy bombers couldn't touch (unlike during Operation Cobra in France). Also with the Soviets defeated the East would still require at least 40% of the German military to occupy.

 

[Telakasi]

Monte Casino wasn't exactly the standard engagement either, the Germans were in prime defensive terrain that even heavy bombers couldn't touch (unlike during Operation Cobra in France). Also with the Soviets defeated the East would still require at least 40% of the German military to occupy.

Take Overlord then: The Allies lost 4100 aircraft and 4000 tanks compared to 2100 aircraft and 2200 tanks lost by the Germans. A 2:1 loss ratio while they had a 10:1 superiority and the Soviets were in the middle of Bagration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Overlord

As for the requirements of the Eastern Front. Of the 3 million soldiers stationed at this front in early 1942 the Germans would have to leave 1.5 million there (the original plan was 1 million) so they get an extra 1.5 million men right away and then another 4 million in the years 42-45 that will not be killed/captured in the East. Even if they split these 5.5 million men - half goes into industry the other half is sent against the WAllies - that leaves the Germans with an additional 2.7 million soldiers they can throw against the Allies compared to OTL.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Take Overlord then: The Allies lost 4100 aircraft and 4000 tanks compared to 2100 aircraft and 2200 tanks lost by the Germans. A 2:1 loss ratio while they had a 10:1 superiority and the Soviets were in the middle of Bagration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Overlord

Certainly van Creveld and Gen. Dupuy agree with you. Several posters here will not however.

As for the requirements of the Eastern Front. Of the 3 million soldiers stationed at this front in early 1942 the Germans would have to leave 1.5 million there (the original plan was 1 million) so they get an extra 1.5 million men right away and then another 4 million in the years 42-45 that will not be killed/captured in the East. Even if they split these 5.5 million men - half goes into industry the other half is sent against the WAllies - that leaves the Germans with an additional 2.7 million soldiers they can throw against the Allies compared to OTL.

Hitler planned to demobilize 50 divisions to free up manpower for the Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, and industry. Assuming the typical 1941 establishment strength of about 17,500 men that would mean about 875,000 men out of the army. Less casualties too that is another say 860k men lost in 1941 (about 250k killed, the rest wounded and probably half recoverable). So already between demobbed and casualties that would mean the rest of the army has to stay in the East. OTL casualties probably won't happen in 1941 due to Germany being victorious, but let's say for the sake of argument residual combat operations give us roughly OTL 1941 casualties by Spring 1942. Probably 1/3rd of the total Luftwaffe will have to stay in the East due to residual combat operations (against Soviet troops and partisans), so given that IOTL 2/3rds of the LW was present in the East in 1941 that means half of forces there will be transferred out. That means 2/3rds of the Luftwaffe is now available in the West after the losses of 1941. Despite this there isn't a whole lot of German army units that are being redeployed, they are being transferred out of the army into other use (mainly industry and Luftwaffe), though even in victory there will still be bleeding in the East due to the occupation that will tie down units and require replacements. Even with pulling the best units out of the East to rehabilitate and leaving less useful divisions there and swap out occupation divisions with combat divisions, unless the German army is able to reduce the occupation force some how they will either need to keep existing divisions mobilized and not shift men to industry and the Luftwaffe or just not have extra combat divisions to send west.

The 'extra' manpower not lost in the East will just stay in the work force rather than go to the military as per OTL, as by 1942 they were already scrapping the bottom of the manpower barrel and having to go to mass slave labor to keep industry running, which a corresponding drop in production quality which caused a lot of problems. Same with the loss of things like experienced FLAK gunners and Luftwaffe personnel to the army, ITTL they will stay with their service and help keep up quality, but that means there are less men for ground combat duty. It is actually kind of unlikely that they will have masses of extra manpower to use, they will just have to form marginal occupation duties to free up their quality combat divisions for use in the West and keep up quality in industry and non-army services that declined IOTL. They probably won't have to make as much use of non-German manpower for all sorts of things then.

 

[Catspoke]

Ok, so we have some time line like:

Rommel picks the right point to attack and Tobruk falls April 1941 and makes a feint across the Eqypt border.
British fear for the Delta and evacuate Crete
All the transport aircraft saved by the German at Crete, allow them to keep an extra battle group or two in supply at various times in 1941
The net result of this is the Typhoon succeeds and Moscow falls in 1941
Leningrad falls over the Winter
The Finns cut the Murmansk railway in 1942
In 1942 Germans take Stalingrad, Tupase and Grozny and Manchankala on the Caspian Sea
Then things settle out, the Soviets are too weak to counterattack, the German too over extended to continue
Germans control significant Soviet economic areas and in position to interdict lend lease
Sort of settles into a China like stalemate.
1942 in the med plays out as OTL due to need of followup operations in east in 1942.

However in 1943 1/3 of the Luftwaffe can come back.
A couple of Panzer divisions and a couple more good infantry divisions can stay in the west.
The rest stay in the east, perhaps some are demobilized.
However attrition has been reduced.

Hitler can mess up by getting into an unfavorable attrition situation by over committing to Tunisia in this TL.
However lets assuem losses in Tunisia are just OTL.
Mussolini's political situation will be better without loss of Italian forces in the east.
The handful of extra divisions and significant extra air and better Italian effort means Southern Europe can resist invasion in 1943.
Submarines will be defeated just the same though in 1943.

However it seems likely the Allies will attempt to invade somewhere in 1944. Allies have significant Air and Naval power still.
(Norway, Sardinia, Crete, Italy later on etc...)

1945 seems likely across the channel. The Japanese Navy is non existent and Japan can be contained with submarines and B29s.
Many fleet units can be brought to Europe.
The Allies could invade Normandy and the South of France at the same time, maybe put a division on Brittany too.

 

[John Dusk]

Even if they split these 5.5 million men - half goes into industry the other half is sent against the WAllies - that leaves the Germans with an additional 2.7 million soldiers they can throw against the Allies compared to OTL.

It's going to be a bloodbath if the Allies attempt to land in France while having to fight that large a combat force of blooded/well equipped Germans.