Sea Lion ….. No Really

done in by grandiosity, the huge Type XXI preferred over a coastal sub Type XXIII, the V-2 rocket preferred over(something the size of) the Wasserfall AA rocket (just adapt it for battlefield use)
The Type XXI U-Boat could've reopened the Battle of the Atlantic. With its high endurance underwater speed Allied ASW ships would have a hard time coping with them. Most ASW ships were small corvettes like the British Flower Class that were slower than their top submerged speed. Compared to earlier Boats they had better sonar; ran quieter, 6 knot silent running, stay submerged for 75 hrs., reload tubes twice in 20 minutes, dive quicker, greater range, dive deeper, 6 torpedo tubes, and carried more torpedoes.

They had major short cummings but were far more survivable and deadly than any of their predecessors. They pointed the way to the future of submarines. Just imagine a U.S. Tang Class Sub running wild through the Japanese Fleet. In the Pacific if the Japanese had been able to operate their I-201 Class they might have been formidable opponents with their very high underwater speed, even faster than the Type XXI. However, they had more limited capabilities in other areas.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The issue with defeating the USSR is, simply put, there is just so damned much of it Straight line it is sort of impressive, being 1,000 miles from Berlin to Moscow (although Americans, especially those of us from West of the Mississippi are much more used to that sort of distance when talking travel or real world distance), but what is REALLY striking is that the A-A line is 1,600+ miles the amount of forced needed to successfully occupy that much land area, especially when you manage to turn every occupied village into a member of the "I hate the Reich Club" is simply more than Germany can manage. It is similar to my oft-repeated statement about the Japanese inj the 2nd Sino-Japanese War, way too much China and too few Japanese ( or USSR and way too few Germans).

Since you mentioned AANW, I feel comfortable in talking about the PODs, As noted already, the PODs needed to get the Germans to win are rather extreme (to the point I rather doubted if the T/L wouldn't be shredded). They required that Hitler get past his adulation of Mussolini as the First Fascist and tell him to cool his jets until the Soviets are dealt with (and equally importantly that Mussolini actually LISTENED to him), for Stalin to kill ALL of his competent Front commanders and then die of a "heart attack" enabling exactly the least qualified person, Molotov, was the one left standing when the Musical Chairs with 7.62mm Tokarev accompaniment ended,

It was extremely weak then, and hasn't really improved with age, although I didn't realize that it would wind up being th foundation for a 325 page long book.

Once you really start to look at the likely outcomes of the Great Patriotic War they range from "Stalin lives long enough to drink from Hitler's skull" to both countries bleed themselves white and both regimes wind up being toppled by revolts running from the Channel to the Caspian Sea since there are not enough secret police left to handle a bunch of farmers with agricultural tools". While there is none zero chance of the Reich winning it is vanishingly small.

Almost as unlikely as the Reich defeating the Soviets is the U.S. never engaging. Simply was not going to happen, The Japanese were bound and determined to conquer China (see above for the brilliance of that idea), and they went about it in such a ham-handed manner that they actually managed to make Americans CARE about what they were doing. Imperial Japan, for a range of strategic factors, well beyond the specific elements that, IOTL, led to Pearl Harbor was never going to really going to avoid engaging the U.S. (and most probably Britain, with both the Netherlands and France not far off the felt). U.S. goes to War with Japan, it is simply a matter of time before the Reich HAS to go to war with the U.S.

Hitler was, beyond doubt, stupid to engage the U.S. while he was hip deep in the snow outside of metro Moscow, of course the exact same thing can, and should, be said for going after his "Jewish Bolshevik" dream enemy before putting the UK on the trailer. First rule of trying to fight a two front war is to have enough personnel and enough industrial output to at least match the other side., the Reich had neither. Still, the Reich was going to HAVE to fight the U.S. at some point, simply because of the exact same sort of strategic imperatives that compelled the Japanese (and, although he didn't think of them in this way, the Reich to engage the Soviets). Minute the U.S. in a way, with anybody, the KM is in a unrecoverable death spiral. Why? Because any ship, any aircraft, any submarine not readily identifiable as American (or an ally) aka US is automatically "THEM" U-boat is stalking a convoy with U.S. merchant shipping? Could be one of THEM! "Blow that #&^@# straight to Hell". Shoot first and don't bother look at things later.

Lastly, the ability to take a large size Island, and Britain, all 81,000 square miles of it, is LARGE, almost as large as Honshu, larger than Kyushu, more than double the size of Luzon, is sometimes underestimated. The U.S. was going to assemble a fleet that would have made Overlord/Neptune seem average, even with that the Americans assumed they would take tens of thousands of casualties (some estimates topped 100K, which, given what we know today, was probably optimistic), and have to inflict perhaps a million KIA across Japan. Crossing the Channel against a Britain that had several years to recover from the material losses of 1940, had received reinforcements from across the Dominions, and likely at least a Corps sized element out of India, weapons from Canada, Australia and, yes, the United States.*




*"If you have coin, I have goods" The Raj and South Africa, not to mention Canada, could provide a lot of materials that American businesses with pay for with good U.S. dollars, with those dollars flowing straight to Ford, GM, Lockheed, Winchester, Kaiser, Fore River, etc. Capitalism is a wonderful thing, as long as you have coin or some way to get it.
 
I
What's the objectiv? Sicilly was possible because it was cut off from the main Axis force and the Med was pretty much an Allies lake by them; even them there were severe issues that didn't ruins the op ONLY thanks to massive Allies superiority. And even them, the axis managed a massive evac operation. You try a "sicily" in France in 43, in the teeth of a still verte much in great strengh Germany, and it would be a disaster.
It would not be as successful as the 1944 landings but it will NOT be a disaster. And overall probably would be better, since critical troops from the Eastern Front would be diverted and Bagration-level destruction of German armies would be pushed forward by months.
 
I

It would not be as successful as the 1944 landings but it will NOT be a disaster. And overall probably would be better, since critical troops from the Eastern Front would be diverted and Bagration-level destruction of German armies would be pushed forward by months.
Again, what's the objective? Liberate France? Keep on going to Berlin? Because that still means needing huge quanties of troops, armour, vehicles and aircraft, regardless of "making the invasion smaller". Numbers that the allies And the western allies can't do in 42-43 the massed air ofensive carried out pre D-day to wipe out roads, train yards, bridges, airfields, etc, because they simply don't have the numbers & quality of aircraft required. As for the russians they would certainly be thankfull for the relief, but there's no way they can mount a large ofensive at this time. Bagration was possible because they spent time & resources preparing it, resources they did not have in 42/43
 
Again, what's the objective? Liberate France? Keep on going to Berlin? Because that still means needing huge quanties of troops, armour, vehicles and aircraft, regardless of "making the invasion smaller". Numbers that the allies And the western allies can't do in 42-43 the massed air ofensive carried out pre D-day to wipe out roads, train yards, bridges, airfields, etc, because they simply don't have the numbers & quality of aircraft required. As for the russians they would certainly be thankfull for the relief, but there's no way they can mount a large ofensive at this time. Bagration was possible because they spent time & resources preparing it, resources they did not have in 42/43
The objective is to open a second front to relieve the Soviets, of course. Immediate operational objective would be establishing a large enough foothold in France to force German forces there, and as time goes on and the invasion force is reinforced, they can begin to push more aggressively instead of fighting a staggered defence-offence.
 
The objective is to open a second front to relieve the Soviets, of course. Immediate operational objective would be establishing a large enough foothold in France to force German forces there, and as time goes on and the invasion force is reinforced, they can begin to push more aggressively instead of fighting a staggered defence-offence.
Yeah... can't do that in 42/43. Not enough of everything needed, not not air power, certainly not enough logistics. Even if a foothold was managed, which I doubt, it would turn into an atrition war with the full advantage for the germans, because of logoistics and air power.
 

thaddeus

Donor
done in by grandiosity, the huge Type XXI preferred over a coastal sub Type XXIII, the V-2 rocket preferred over(something the size of) the Wasserfall AA rocket (just adapt it for battlefield use)

The Type XXI U-Boat could've reopened the Battle of the Atlantic. With its high endurance underwater speed Allied ASW ships would have a hard time coping with them. Most ASW ships were small corvettes like the British Flower Class that were slower than their top submerged speed. Compared to earlier Boats they had better sonar; ran quieter, 6 knot silent running, stay submerged for 75 hrs., reload tubes twice in 20 minutes, dive quicker, greater range, dive deeper, 6 torpedo tubes, and carried more torpedoes.

They had major short cummings but were far more survivable and deadly than any of their predecessors. They pointed the way to the future of submarines.

do not disagree with what you are saying, but given the German situation they need a coastal defense boat (a smaller boat), it just seems to me more appropriate in a development timeline and for their resources.

there are several timelines out there for a "bastard" Elektroboot derived from the Type VII that could have been introduced (relatively) quickly. couple that with mini-submarines (which they totally neglected as opposed to Italy and Japan) and an earlier Type XXIII.
 
I realised I don't really know the UK attitude to China before the Japanese attacked UK territories. Were they pro-China like the USA or more or less neutral?
Very pro-China, it was against the idea of Japan winning in China
The British government subscribed to what one might call a 1930s version of the "domino theory". If Japan took control of China, it was believed that inevitably, Japan would attack Britain's Asian colonies and the Dominions of Australia and New Zealand.[17] As such, Neville Chamberlain's British government, despite being unwilling to go to war with Japan, was not prepared to accept a Japanese victory over China.[18]
supported the Chinese financially avoiding their economic collapse
In late 1938, Britain started to make a series of loans to China to allow Chiang to continue the war.[18] By 1939, the Chinese government had received loans worth £500,000 from Britain, which provided Chiang with badly-needed money to continue the war.[14] Furthermore, in March 1939, the British government, began to an effort to stabilise the yuan by offering government guarantees to British banks that made loans to Kuomintang China and took in Chinese silver as collateral.[19] The guarantees allowed British banks to lend China some £5 million, a step that the Japanese government publicly denounced as a "frontal attack" on the "New Order" in Asia that Japan wanted to build.[20]
and almost went to war with Japan in 1939. It wasn't exactly fully neutral.
 
The objective is to open a second front to relieve the Soviets, of course. Immediate operational objective would be establishing a large enough foothold in France to force German forces there, and as time goes on and the invasion force is reinforced, they can begin to push more aggressively instead of fighting a staggered defence-offence.
That basically sounds like a war of attrition, and no one want's a war of attrition.
 
Germany beating the soviets in 1943 is verging on impossible. Having the resources available to do that, pacify the occupied territories, rebuild their badly damaged armed forces AND transport them to Southern Italy or Mediterranean France in 1943 and in sufficient numbers to make a difference is even less credible.
A great deal depends on just how events shape up in the Pacific. If we assume that Japan attacks North, and United States stays out of the war, it is quite possible the Russians will not be given the same volume of lend lease they received in OTL. Even if they do, getting it to the Russians will be a great deal harder - in the West, American and British ships would have to sail through a war zone (reducing the amount of material that can be transported); in the East, the Japanese would presumably blockade Russian ports and prevent any material from being transhipped to the front. That would have significant effects on Russia’s ability to take the offensive; historically, their army was largely dependent on American trucks and a few hundred other things they would have to supply out of their own resources in this timeline.

It isn’t impossible that the Germans will be able to defeat the Russians in 1942, either by inflicting such huge losses that even Stalin quails or simply securing their grip on the territory they hold, forcing the Russians to bow out of the fighting long enough to rejuvenate their strength and plot revenge. That would not, of course, put a stop to the insurgency - barring a complete change in Nazi attitudes, which isn’t particularly likely, they will keep being horrible to the locals - but it is unlikely the insurgency will be able to force the Nazis to withdraw.

In that case, it is reasonably possible that the Germans will be able to plot a renewed offensive against Britain in 1950.
 
A great deal depends on just how events shape up in the Pacific. If we assume that Japan attacks North,

See my earlier post the Japanese aren't attacking north unless Germany has already functionally won.

and United States stays out of the war, it is quite possible the Russians will not be given the same volume of lend lease they received in OTL. Even if they do, getting it to the Russians will be a great deal harder - in the West, American and British ships would have to sail through a war zone (reducing the amount of material that can be transported); in the East, the Japanese would presumably blockade Russian ports and prevent any material from being transhipped to the front. That would have significant effects on Russia’s ability to take the offensive; historically, their army was largely dependent on American trucks and a few hundred other things they would have to supply out of their own resources in this timeline.

That might stop them steamrolling the Germans and ending up in Berlin in 1945, it doesn't stop them fighting

It isn’t impossible that the Germans will be able to defeat the Russians in 1942, either by inflicting such huge losses that even Stalin quails

How do they do that so much better than they already did in OTL?

The red army already lost 2.5m in 1942, compared to the German loses of about 800k, but despite that the red army front line mobilised numbers increased June 1942 to June 1943 from 5.3m to 6.7m

The Germans just can't out kill the Soviets, there are too many Soviets*, and the Soviets are too good at mobilising more. On top of that the Germans are pretty soon struggling to maintain offensives**, and they have lost the strategic and institutional surprise that that they benefited from in 1941 which was pretty fundamental in the large Soviet loses and German advances.

Also Stalin knows that if he 'quails' his likely reward is a bullet in the head in the inevitable shuffling that would occur, also he doesn't give a shit about red army casualties he cares about results




*and to boil this done to just weight of numbers is also a disservice to the Red army that was very much improving and adapting to the situation by this point

**this actually starts towards the back of 1941.

or simply securing their grip on the territory they hold,

That might save some German lives in the short term but it doesn't win them the war


forcing the Russians to bow out of the fighting long enough to rejuvenate their strength and plot revenge.

Why would the Soviets bow out, and leave them to consolidate like that. Especially as the Germans are now killing Soviet civilians in the millions in that seized territory, as well as having seized that territory that the Soviet would like back

 
Last edited:
Lets talk logistics, yeah I know blah blah blah there he goes again. We will talk about fuel as an example for all the German troops whether they are Heer, SS, Luftwaffe, ordung, Polizei, or other parts. Every drop of fuel will come from west of the Pre-Barbarossa borders. What that means is every bit transported by rail has to be either transloaded from a standard gauge line to the Russian Gauge rolling stock and trains. What about regauging the lines you say? Germany didn't even regauge the lines IOTL in areas that were secure because of the lack of material and manpower to do it.
Next you can put it on truck and other motorized vehicles but you are going to be using a percentage of that fuel to get them to where you need and where you can use the fuel, that also means you have to have the fuel available for them to get back to where you need them to be loaded at.
Go back to horse transport of fuel, there are places in the documentation from WW2 of the Germans loading Jerry cans in to horse carts to transport them to where they were needed and that was not just on the Eastern Front.

Next lets get this out of the way taking the Caucasus oilfield is not going to help. Stalin is going to be going scorched earth there, and that is literally scorched earth. They will go out of the way to destroy every well, every pipeline, every storage place, every refinery and if it is something that might even help fix anything it going to be destroyed. Stalin and the Soviets have no reason to preserve any of it because they have the people and knowhow to replace those fields after they take them back that the Germans do not have. The UK will also have bomber bases in Persia that will be able to reach the POL areas in the Caucasus region. Even if one oil well and or refinery survives all that you still have no way to get fuel to the German military unless it is the immediate vicinity of where it is at. There is no pipeline leading back to Germany to miraculously make the oil or refined POL appear where needed.
 
The objective is to open a second front to relieve the Soviets, of course.
There's an argument that the bomber campaign by the RAF and the USAAF was a "second front."
Not only did it disrupt supply lines and attrit German airmen, but every gun pointed at the skies in the West was one less gun pointing at the Russians in the East.
 
do not disagree with what you are saying, but given the German situation they need a coastal defense boat (a smaller boat), it just seems to me more appropriate in a development timeline and for their resources.

there are several timelines out there for a "bastard" Elektroboot derived from the Type VII that could have been introduced (relatively) quickly. couple that with mini-submarines (which they totally neglected as opposed to Italy and Japan) and an earlier Type XXIII.
Well respectfully what was a coastal defense U-Boat going to do for them? They'd act primarily in the shallow waters of the North Sea or the Western Approaches. These would be the areas with the strongest Allied defenses. The Type XXIII would have to operate submerged from the time they left port and run with snorkel making detectable noise. Their underwater speed was much less impressive and almost all Allied escorts would be faster than them. With only 2 torpedoes every shot has to count, meaning they have to maneuver into almost point-blank range of their target. Hit or miss they have to return to port after firing 2 torpedoes so the turn around rate would be very high. It doesn't seem like a very efficient way to run a submarine campaign.
 
Lets talk logistics, yeah I know blah blah blah there he goes again. We will talk about fuel as an example for all the German troops whether they are Heer, SS, Luftwaffe, ordung, Polizei, or other parts. Every drop of fuel will come from west of the Pre-Barbarossa borders. What that means is every bit transported by rail has to be either transloaded from a standard gauge line to the Russian Gauge rolling stock and trains. What about regauging the lines you say? Germany didn't even regauge the lines IOTL in areas that were secure because of the lack of material and manpower to do it.
Next you can put it on truck and other motorized vehicles but you are going to be using a percentage of that fuel to get them to where you need and where you can use the fuel, that also means you have to have the fuel available for them to get back to where you need them to be loaded at.
Go back to horse transport of fuel, there are places in the documentation from WW2 of the Germans loading Jerry cans in to horse carts to transport them to where they were needed and that was not just on the Eastern Front.

Next lets get this out of the way taking the Caucasus oilfield is not going to help. Stalin is going to be going scorched earth there, and that is literally scorched earth. They will go out of the way to destroy every well, every pipeline, every storage place, every refinery and if it is something that might even help fix anything it going to be destroyed. Stalin and the Soviets have no reason to preserve any of it because they have the people and knowhow to replace those fields after they take them back that the Germans do not have. The UK will also have bomber bases in Persia that will be able to reach the POL areas in the Caucasus region. Even if one oil well and or refinery survives all that you still have no way to get fuel to the German military unless it is the immediate vicinity of where it is at. There is no pipeline leading back to Germany to miraculously make the oil or refined POL appear where needed.
That's why I've always said the whole 1942 Campaign plan was strategic folly from the start. The objectives were too far away to ever be reached, and the further the advance the longer the front was extended. That is to say nothing about Hitler's obsession with capturing Stalingrad. The city could've been isolated and made useless to the Soviets without having to occupy it. Destroying the tank plant in the city was a good objective for the Luftwaffe not 300,000 ground troops.

The deeper the advance the greater the chances that a Soviet counteroffensive would hit the exposed flanks leading to a major encirclement. 6th Army's objective should've been securing the Don Bend to protect the left flank of Army Group A. Instead, they stuck their necks out with only weak Romanian, Hungarian, and Italian units protecting their flanks and rear. The whole operation was a disaster waiting to happen. And besides, as you say they were never going to get any oil anyway.
 
There's an argument that the bomber campaign by the RAF and the USAAF was a "second front."
Not only did it disrupt supply lines and attrit German airmen, but every gun pointed at the skies in the West was one less gun pointing at the Russians in the East.
So very much this. There's so much talk about "the bombers didn't destroy enough to justify the campaign" by people who aparently ignore that, by early/mid 1944 the "Defence of the Reich" took up over 1 million german troops using over 40000 guns of all calibers, not to mention the bulk of the fighter arm, and the main reason for forcing of the decision to pretty much abandon production of bombers and focus on fighters. And the industry and logisticas required to feed these were stagering. Imagine all of this turned vs the russians.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The objective is to open a second front to relieve the Soviets, of course. Immediate operational objective would be establishing a large enough foothold in France to force German forces there, and as time goes on and the invasion force is reinforced, they can begin to push more aggressively instead of fighting a staggered defence-offence.
The real "Second Front" was the CBO. Just take a look at the number of medium/large caliber DP guns (from 3.7cm all the up to 12.8cm) diverted to anti aircraft artillery, the number of personnel needed to operate the weapons, the munitions used, and the factory time lost due to the CBO. Then look at the number of single engine fighters and twin engine "destroyers" held within Germany and in Eastern France to oppose the "round the clock" (well, sorta) air attacks.

The UK/Commonwealth took a TOTAL, in all theaters, of 383,000 KIA. Bomber Command accounted for 55,000 deaths. 14.36% of the total British losses in the war, including Africa, the Pacific, the CBI, all of it, happened during the CBO. The USAAF took 40,000 casualties between the 8th, 9th, and 15th Air Forces. That's almost 100,000 KIA combined.

That IS a second front.
 
Also, if you're on an island and aren't yet in a position to invade the mainland then the only combat options are coastal raids, SOE type activities and strategic bombing.
Once someone else joins the fight, you can also support them, but until then, strategic bombing was one of the most effective options available at the time and while it had its limitations it did tie up enemy resources and disrupt production (as described clearly above).
 
The real "Second Front" was the CBO. Just take a look at the number of medium/large caliber DP guns (from 3.7cm all the up to 12.8cm) diverted to anti aircraft artillery, the number of personnel needed to operate the weapons, the munitions used, and the factory time lost due to the CBO. Then look at the number of single engine fighters and twin engine "destroyers" held within Germany and in Eastern France to oppose the "round the clock" (well, sorta) air attacks.

The UK/Commonwealth took a TOTAL, in all theaters, of 383,000 KIA. Bomber Command accounted for 55,000 deaths. 14.36% of the total British losses in the war, including Africa, the Pacific, the CBI, all of it, happened during the CBO. The USAAF took 40,000 casualties between the 8th, 9th, and 15th Air Forces. That's almost 100,000 KIA combined.

That IS a second front.
Meaningless for the Soviets who are losing that many men within single battles. They're fighting the German land army, and it's German manpower they need diverted, not some resource to an AA war.
 
Meaningless for the Soviets who are losing that many men within single battles. They're fighting the German land army, and it's German manpower they need diverted, not some resource to an AA war.
Not facing tens of thousands more anti-tank guns and other artillery pieces is pretty meaningful.
 
Top