Can you point me in the way of the post that says that as i seem to have missed it. Thanks
Sir John Valentine Carden survives.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
- Status
Can you point me in the way of the post that says that as i seem to have missed it. Thanks
Well Heinz - The British are north european and Germanic we would expect them to do better than the greeks italians or French - A germanic shop keeper is still germanic
Heres the thing. In OTL Germany lost roughly 35% of the tanks they started the Battle of France with. That is all causes. If we assume TTL is the same as OTL except for the British involvement we can judge how big an impact Britain made and how likely Germany is to be taking notice of Britain.
As an aside Germany started with just over 2500 tanks so 1% is 25 tanks ish.
OTL Arras cost Germany around 35 tanks,ITTL it was 65. That means that already Germany is at 36% total losses. Add in the rest of the fighting and given the description I could easilly see 75 to 100 tanks extra being lost to the British in total including the fighting after Dunkirk.
Now IIRC Britain was responsible for around 125 to 150 tanks lost or 6% at most. If we add another 100 to that suddenly Britain has accounted for knocking out 10ish percent of all German tanks out of 39-40% of total tanks lost. That is the BEF causing the loss of 1 in 4 tanks which is enough to get noticed.
I would say that most of the numbers here are from my head so any errors I apologise.
As an aside Germany started with just over 2500 tanks so 1% is 25 tanks ish.
OTL Arras cost Germany around 35 tanks,ITTL it was 65. That means that already Germany is at 36% total losses. Add in the rest of the fighting and given the description I could easilly see 75 to 100 tanks extra being lost to the British in total including the fighting after Dunkirk.
Now IIRC Britain was responsible for around 125 to 150 tanks lost or 6% at most. If we add another 100 to that suddenly Britain has accounted for knocking out 10ish percent of all German tanks out of 39-40% of total tanks lost. That is the BEF causing the loss of 1 in 4 tanks which is enough to get noticed.
I would say that most of the numbers here are from my head so any errors I apologise.
Derek Pullem
Donor
Sir John Valentine Carden survives.
Churchill describes the original timeline German victory on Crete as 'Pyrrhic': ...In all, the enemy must have suffered casualties in killed and wounded of well over fifteen thousand. About 170 troop-carrying aircraft were lost or heavily damaged. But the price they paid for their victory...
www.alternatehistory.com
The uparmoured and upgunned Pz III is arriving 2-3 months earlier than OTL
Regarding the current battle, I think it went as good as the Axis could hope for. The 5th Leichte Division did not have an infantry regiment and hand only a single artillery battalion. I guess they could have attached a motorized italian battalion as in OTL Brevity, but it would still be much less powerful than a proper Panzer division. The Ariete Armoured Division has 2 infantry battalions attached and a single artillery regiment.
The British enjoy a 3:1 superiority in infantry (if the Leichte has attached an italian battalion, then 2:1) and significant superiority in artillery. Even when it comes to tanks the Axis superioty is only significant in numbers and not quality. In general, I think the Axis can throw back the British but not bag the formations or effectively destroy them.
Another operation worth exploring is the arrival of the 15th Panzer. According to the "The Royal Navy and the Mediterranean: Vol.II: November 1940-December 1941" , it took 97 ships in 22 convoys to transport 33,000 men, 11,000 vehicles and 36,000 tons of supplies from April 16th to the end of the month. However, the great difference is that Benghazi is not available to Rommel. In OTL the 11k vehicles were sent directly to Benghazi. The same book states that the Afrika Korps needed 50k tons of stores each month and the Italians another 80k. If this source is to be taken at face value, the maximum Tripoli could handle was 66k tons in a single month. Suffice to say that this number was reached after improving the infrastructure (floating cranes etc).
As I see it, the Axis build-up in Tripolitania is bound to be slower than in OTL. I think it is very plausible we won't even see an Afrika/90th Division if the supply becomes more challenging and the Germans may focus instead in bringing the 5th Leichte to strength and form the 21st Panzer. At the same time the British will have an easier time building-up their forces in Cyrenaica since they hold Benghazi and Tobruk. Tobruk especially will be quite far away from enemy airfields, so any raids will be a nuisance instead of a major threat.
I understand that Cunningham may have focused on the evacuation in Greece, but soon things will change. When his fleet is not needed to protect Crete, he can focus on Tripoli. However, making preparations in OTL to evacuate Greece didn't stop ABC from steaming of Tripoli with 3 BB, 1 CL and 9 DD and bombard the harbour. In OTL the raid managed to sink just 2 freighters. @allanpcameron what were the results in TTL?
The British enjoy a 3:1 superiority in infantry (if the Leichte has attached an italian battalion, then 2:1) and significant superiority in artillery. Even when it comes to tanks the Axis superioty is only significant in numbers and not quality. In general, I think the Axis can throw back the British but not bag the formations or effectively destroy them.
Another operation worth exploring is the arrival of the 15th Panzer. According to the "The Royal Navy and the Mediterranean: Vol.II: November 1940-December 1941" , it took 97 ships in 22 convoys to transport 33,000 men, 11,000 vehicles and 36,000 tons of supplies from April 16th to the end of the month. However, the great difference is that Benghazi is not available to Rommel. In OTL the 11k vehicles were sent directly to Benghazi. The same book states that the Afrika Korps needed 50k tons of stores each month and the Italians another 80k. If this source is to be taken at face value, the maximum Tripoli could handle was 66k tons in a single month. Suffice to say that this number was reached after improving the infrastructure (floating cranes etc).
As I see it, the Axis build-up in Tripolitania is bound to be slower than in OTL. I think it is very plausible we won't even see an Afrika/90th Division if the supply becomes more challenging and the Germans may focus instead in bringing the 5th Leichte to strength and form the 21st Panzer. At the same time the British will have an easier time building-up their forces in Cyrenaica since they hold Benghazi and Tobruk. Tobruk especially will be quite far away from enemy airfields, so any raids will be a nuisance instead of a major threat.
I understand that Cunningham may have focused on the evacuation in Greece, but soon things will change. When his fleet is not needed to protect Crete, he can focus on Tripoli. However, making preparations in OTL to evacuate Greece didn't stop ABC from steaming of Tripoli with 3 BB, 1 CL and 9 DD and bombard the harbour. In OTL the raid managed to sink just 2 freighters. @allanpcameron what were the results in TTL?
Last edited:
Not possible , differences in how tanks were made in factories , all the equipment would have to be changed ( engine , transmission , gun, radio etc ) and the things the soviets were ok with , the Heer would just refuse ( T-34's were not designed to last, fire about a 100 shells and the turret ring could start to fail ). All before even thinking about the politics/morale ( admitting Soviets had better kit just too unpalatable ) A tank inspired by the the T-34 but simpler than the Panther is possible but as near a copy as could be managed would actually take longer to get into service.
marathag
Banned
Results of testing of of the T-34 and KV-1 at Aberdeen Proving Grounds
Now with the Valiant, the British are on a closer path to doing a tank that compares well with anyother in 1941, and its follow-on, will be even better.
So this gets the UK making something like the Comet in 1942
Well protected, reliable, with good mobility and a decent gun
All these were missing until late 1944, with the exception of the Meteor engine and Merrit-Brown transaxle, that wer far, far better than the V-2 Diesel and clutch/ brake diff and tranny that required a hammer to shift
Yeah, it will be interesting to see how well Germany reacts. Biggest concern is that the Pak 40 gets a fire light under its development. Since it is in development around this time, if that thing hits the field sooner, we probably won't see them in North Africa, since they'll all probably be heading to the Eastern Front and if the tank version enters service sooner. Then the Soviets are in for a really bad time, since the Germans probably won't bother sending tanks and units equipped with those guns to North Africa, they'll be focusing more on the USSR.
Hm, I wonder if the British will use North Africa to start developing the theories behind the Mulberry harbours...
You may explode with paroxysms of joy if they use them to invade Rhodes while fitted with US 75mm guns.........
Depends entirely who at the OKW/staff level is doing the after battle reviews.
Of course it doesn't matter much at a theatre level but if someone in the staff goes "ok we're going to be fighting the British again at some point let's do an after action on our primary engagements with them in France, let's start at division and work down to company level" etc. It would ping up a lot of granular info at the level of reporting.
6th Army who enjoyed the majority of the fighting with the BEF in France compiled a report following the battle on how the British fought to be shared with the forces slated for Sealowe
While the report was basically a shape intake of breath and a 'Rather you than us comrade' I suspect that it would also include data on the tanks used and how they were used.
Well: wiki claims Churchill originally had the idea in WW1 as part of a scheme to invade the Frisian islands, but that as with many other Churchill schemes it was locked safely away and forgotten about until the original timeline 1942 Operation Jubilee showed that actually Hitler was quite protective when it came to Northwest European ports being defended against amphibious attacks, and the question of 'Oh crap: what if we land somewhere and can't get a port for our logistics?' became somewhat more pressing.
I guess it depends if the British get a Dieppe raid equivalent in the Mediterranean any sooner than an Original Timeline equivalent in Northwest Europe, and even then I'm not sure that they have the heavy industry (cement works, steelworks, building yards with big enough slipways, etc) to do anything in the Mediterranean, unless there's something in Egypt?
Well I was thinking someone would think of it because of the absolutely atrocious logistics in North Africa, it might be better to try to unload some stuff (f.e. jerry cans full of fuel or water, smaller rounds of ammunition, etc) closer to the front, rather than having to drag it along the coast road. And of course, mooring a few barges end-to-end would allow slightly deeper-draft ships to unload than mere lighters.
I think in this timeline it was indicated that at least one of the Italian ports they took in North Africa was in better condition after changing ownership than the original timeline and I think there was even reference to a crane not being wrecked (so far) in this timeline. (edit: at best this only half-addresses your point though, I think.)
But since they're already ashore, if the front stalls, they can do what they did in the original timeline in North Africa and build railways.
The way you said that, you said that as if it was the stupidest idea ever. To be frank, Churchill did have a lot of bad eggs for operations, but some of them on paper, with slightly different commanders likely would have worked or at least really shaken up WWI.
- Status