WI Germans dont drive the british from the continent in WWII?

[Tibi088]

I'm not an expert of WWII but I have a question that might be interesting - or simply idiocy. I'm sorry for taking up your time in the latter case.

The germans are at their strongest on land so that's where they should be fighting the british at. If the british retreat to their Island the germans have no way to fight them - sealion is not feasable and the Battle of Britain is very hard to win. Fighting the british in North Africa is again problematic - supply lines and distances etc.

So the optimal situation for the Germans is to fight the brits on land and specifically on the continent. So might it be that they have won too big in 1940 OTL? What if they have decisively defeated the french but they don't drive the allies from the continent. Paris and a big chunk of France is occupied but they allow the allies to retreat to western and southern France. After that they fight a war of attrition against the british: the aim is to inflict losses especially in lives instead of driving them from the continent - or only when they are sure they can trap most of their forces on the continent. Evacuation from southern France would also be much harder to do than just across the Channel. German pilots shot down would also have a chance to be recovered here. Barbarossa is postponed till the british and french give up.

Could a strategy like this work?

 

[Post]

No. War of attrition is in favor of the UK. Especially if France is not fully occupied. The UK outproduced Germany in planes, tanks and trucks.

 

[mial42]

No. War of attrition is in favor of the UK. Especially if France is not fully occupied. The UK outproduced Germany in planes, tanks and trucks.

But Germany outproduced the UK in men.

 

[TDM]

Not only is Post right about the French and British being able to out produce Germany, but this Germany has specific resource and logistics issues as well.
The German army (and German economy) in 1940 is really not designed for a war of attrition, the whole blitzkrieg thing is designed to avoid it (although at the cost of high resources and logistics demands).

A war of attrition on a bit of land the size of North eastern France is just a repeat of the western front in WW1, no one wants that. The actual invasion of France in May40 is a pretty all in affair partly to avoid it, for instance compared to the battles of the Frontiers in Aug14 its roughly double the number of divisions

Frankly if the Germans attack in May1940 is blunted and held even if territory is taken it won't really be due to the British ground forces who in May40 were only 13 out of 135 divs. of course what happen is once attrition starts the British will mobilise and pile more troops in.


Ultimately the Germans in 1940 don't want to fight Britain at all, (or rather not at the same time as anyone else, but rather at time and place of their choosing)

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

But Germany outproduced the UK in men.

The UK can draw on the Commonwealth and Empire for men and if they're not driven out of France then the bulk of the forces facing the Germans will be French and French colonial.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Any “long War” strategy for Germany is a losing strategy. They had to win quick or they wouldn’t win at all.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

But Germany outproduced the UK in men.

But the UK only stays on the continent if France is still in the fight and therefore it would not matter because combined this would no longer be the case

Also the British Empire had 581 million people in 1938 - granted only a small portion of those are capable of being put into uniform (if I was being blunt - mostly from the white demographic) but still

The French Empire had 130 million - again with only a portion of that able to be placed in uniform

 

[mial42]

The UK can draw on the Commonwealth and Empire for men and if they're not driven out of France then the bulk of the forces facing the Germans will be French and French colonial.

But the UK only stays on the continent if France is still in the fight and therefore it would not matter because combined this would no longer be the case

Also the British Empire had 581 million people in 1938 - granted only a small portion of those are capable of being put into uniform (if I was being blunt - mostly from the white demographic) but still

The French Empire had 130 million - again with only a portion of that able to be placed in uniform

The UK's capacity to draw on the Commonwealth and Empire for men is extremely limited, essentially restricted to the White Dominions, and Japan's entry in to the war will limit it further in Australia/NZ. I believe the premise of Tibi's question was that most of France is occupied and essentially out of the war, but a fraction of the French army and the British are fighting a war of attrition in Southern France or the Pyrenees (Republican victory or stalemate in SCW might be a decent POD for this). A land war of attrition against Britain/France is a losing proposition for Germany, but a land war of attrition against Britain and a much smaller chunk of France gives better odds, especially with the qualitative superiority of the Wehrmacht in 1940.

I don't find the scenario particularly plausible, since I think if most of France is occupied then the rest will collapse and we're probably back to OTL of neither Britain nor Germany being able to effectively defeat the other after the Fall of France, but in the unlikely event that it does happen, I don't think superior British industry will necessarily beat larger German manpower.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

The UK's capacity to draw on the Commonwealth and Empire for men is extremely limited, essentially restricted to the White Dominions, and Japan's entry in to the war will limit it further in Australia/NZ. I believe the premise of Tibi's question was that most of France is occupied and essentially out of the war, but a fraction of the French army and the British are fighting a war of attrition in Southern France or the Pyrenees (Republican victory or stalemate in SCW might be a decent POD for this). A land war of attrition against Britain/France is a losing proposition for Germany, but a land war of attrition against Britain and a much smaller chunk of France gives better odds, especially with the qualitative superiority of the Wehrmacht in 1940.

I don't find the scenario particularly plausible, since I think if most of France is occupied then the rest will collapse and we're probably back to OTL of neither Britain nor Germany being able to effectively defeat the other after the Fall of France, but in the unlikely event that it does happen, I don't think superior British industry will necessarily beat larger German manpower.

As I said - Britain can only stay if France is in the fight and if France is heavily occupied is very likely 'not in the fight'

Basically the Fall Gelb plan was chosen because the German commanders knew they needed a quick victory and while incredibly risky it offered the best chance of such a quick victory and so it proved.

If it fails then very likely France stays in the fight and by extension Britain stays in the fight and Italy likely does not jump in with Japan winding its neck in

 

[TDM]

But Germany outproduced the UK in men.

Not by as great a number as you might think when you include the empire and dominions (of course the UK and Co. were fighting in places other than where there were Germans)

Country	Branch of service	Number served	Killed/missing	Wounded	Prisoners of war Captured	Percent killed
Soviet Union (1941–45)	All branches of service[292]	34,476,700	8,668,400	14,685,593	4,050,000	25.1
Soviet Union	Total Soviet Forces	34,476,700	10,725,345	14,915,517	5,750,000	31.1
Germany	Total (incl. conscripted foreigners)	18,200,000	5,318,000	6,035,000	11,100,000	29.2
British Empire and Commonwealth[62][296][297]	All branches of service	17,843,000	580,497	475,000	318,000	3.3
United States	Total U.S. Armed Forces	16,353,639	407,316	671,846	130,201[308][309]	2.5

Not forgetting part of the reason why the UK could out produce Germany was because the UK wasn't robbing it's industry to man it's divisions as much as Germany was (partly also because "man" is the operative word when it came to German industrial mobilisation).

And it was Germany who ended up sending the Hitler youth, Volksturm and the stomach brigade out to fight, not the UK& Co.

also look at those figures closely yes 18.2m is more than 17.8m, however when 5.3m out of that 18.2m are dead vs. 580k out of the 17.8m, lets just say you don't really feel the benefit.

The UK's capacity to draw on the Commonwealth and Empire for men is extremely limited, essentially restricted to the White Dominions, and Japan's entry in to the war will limit it further in Australia/NZ. I believe the premise of Tibi's question was that most of France is occupied and essentially out of the war, but a fraction of the French army and the British are fighting a war of attrition in Southern France or the Pyrenees (Republican victory or stalemate in SCW might be a decent POD for this). A land war of attrition against Britain/France is a losing proposition for Germany, but a land war of attrition against Britain and a much smaller chunk of France gives better odds, especially with the qualitative superiority of the Wehrmacht in 1940.

I don't find the scenario particularly plausible, since I think if most of France is occupied then the rest will collapse and we're probably back to OTL of neither Britain nor Germany being able to effectively defeat the other after the Fall of France, but in the unlikely event that it does happen, I don't think superior British industry will necessarily beat larger German manpower.

The many British and French colonial troops who wouldn't pass the paper bag test would be very surprised to hear that

just one example

the Indian army mobilised 2.5m personal during WW2, that is 73% of the total Italian mobilised numbers

 

[Deleted member 94680]

It doesn’t matter that the Nazis had more men if they’re starving, under equipped, bombed to pieces and stuck with immobile vehicles for a lack of fuel. In fact, too many men mean more problems for the Nazi kleptocratic economy if it isn’t able to steal the resources of France and Scandinavia as it did OTL.

 

[Post]

Not by as great a number as you might think when you include the empire and dominions (of course the UK and Co. were fighting in places other than where there were Germans)

Country	Branch of service	Number served	Killed/missing	Wounded	Prisoners of war Captured	Percent killed
Soviet Union (1941–45)	All branches of service[292]	34,476,700	8,668,400	14,685,593	4,050,000	25.1
Soviet Union	Total Soviet Forces	34,476,700	10,725,345	14,915,517	5,750,000	31.1
Germany	Total (incl. conscripted foreigners)	18,200,000	5,318,000	6,035,000	11,100,000	29.2
British Empire and Commonwealth[62][296][297]	All branches of service	17,843,000	580,497	475,000	318,000	3.3
United States	Total U.S. Armed Forces	16,353,639	407,316	671,846	130,201[308][309]	2.5

Interesting in that table is that the percentage killed of the German forces is very close to the percentage killed of the Russian forces.

 

[mial42]

Not by as great a number as you might think when you include the empire and dominions (of course the UK and Co. were fighting in places other than where there were Germans)

Country	Branch of service	Number served	Killed/missing	Wounded	Prisoners of war Captured	Percent killed
Soviet Union (1941–45)	All branches of service[292]	34,476,700	8,668,400	14,685,593	4,050,000	25.1
Soviet Union	Total Soviet Forces	34,476,700	10,725,345	14,915,517	5,750,000	31.1
Germany	Total (incl. conscripted foreigners)	18,200,000	5,318,000	6,035,000	11,100,000	29.2
British Empire and Commonwealth[62][296][297]	All branches of service	17,843,000	580,497	475,000	318,000	3.3
United States	Total U.S. Armed Forces	16,353,639	407,316	671,846	130,201[308][309]	2.5

Not forgetting part of the reason why the UK could out produce Germany was because teh UK wasn't robbing its industry to man in divisions as much as Germany was (partly also because "man" is the operative word when it came to German industrial mobilisation.

And it was Germany who ended up sending the Hitler youth, Volksturm and the stomach brigade out to fight, not the UK& Co.

also look at those figures closely yes 18.2m is more than 17.8m, however when 5.3m out of that 18.2m are dead vs. 580k out of the 17.8m, lets just say you dont really feel the benefit.


The many British and French colonial troops who wouldn't pass the paper bag test would be very surprised to hear that

just one example

the Indian army mobilised 2.5m personal during WW2, that is 73% of the total Italian mobilised numbers

The Indian Army was primarily fighting in India or garrisoning the rest of the Empire, not in Europe. The high Commonwealth force numbers are somewhat misleading, since many of them were fighting Japan in the East or serving in the Navy. The relatively low British casualties are the result of much less large-scale land fighting then Germany/the USSR, since the main front in the European part of WW2 was the Eastern Front. In a scenario in which the main front is in Southern France, British casualties will be much higher.

I want to emphasize that I'm making a very narrow point: that Germany can win an attritional land war with Britain (mostly) alone, not that this scenario is remotely plausible.

 

[Post]

I want to emphasize that I'm making a very narrow point: that Germany can win an attritional land war with Britain (mostly) alone, not that this scenario is remotely plausible.

Yeah, but Britain can't find alone on the continent. Someone else has got to hold out. Which is France. And you need a good portion of France to do that (maybe 1/3 or so). If it's a lot smaller, they will be pushed out. They can't keep a Dunkirk-like enclave forever. That's just not possible.

And if there's a good portion of France, France will add manpower. And some production as well.

If there's no war against Japan, Britain won't have to field as many man there as OTL. If there is war with Japan, it's very unlikely that the US isn't in the war also. If the US is in the war, then the balance gets even more in favor of the allies.

 

[Garrison]

But Germany outproduced the UK in men.

And yet it was Germany that faced chronic shortages of manpower. The callup of men for the Wehrmacht had a serious impact on agriculture and industry. During late 1940 early 1941 the Wehrmacht actually had to release large numbers of men to return to the armaments industry to make the weapons and munitions the same men would be using when Barbarossa was launched.

 

[TDM]

Interesting in that table is that the percentage killed of the German forces is very close to the percentage killed of the Russian forces.

Yes I once posted it in response to some one here claiming that compared to Germany the wallies were cavalier in their attitude to their soldier's lives!

 

[pjmidd]

Trouble with a lot of the analysis about number of men is that it does not matter. Germany's issue is resources, no rubber and other materials apart form the stockpiles, not enough oil and no cash. Germany loses an attrition fight as it just runs out of stuff to make tanks/planes etc a lot quicker. Infantry charging tanks whilst being pounded from the air tends to end up only one way.

 

[TDM]

The Indian Army was primarily fighting in India or garrisoning the rest of the Empire, not in Europe.

The high Commonwealth force numbers are somewhat misleading, since many of them were fighting Japan in the East or serving in the Navy.

why does that matter, they were needed there and they fought there. Also they actually fought in a broader selection of theatres than that (read the link), also it's not just the Indians

Hell not every mobilised German is going to be available to fight in France either.

The relatively low British casualties are the result of much less large-scale land fighting then Germany/the USSR, since the main front in the European part of WW2 was the Eastern Front. In a scenario in which the main front is in Southern France, British casualties will be much higher.

I agree in some war of attrition ala WW1, British casualties would likely increase, but that still doesn't really support you point about overwhelming German numbers, especially as we haven't even talked about the French yet


Plus you ignored the point the German mobilised number was everyone they had "Hitler youth, Volkstrum and the stomach brigade", the Brits and Co. don't come close to being that desperate for men


You also ignored the point about Germany stripping is workforce to put these numbers out, which had it's own knock on effects and will most certainly have knock on effects in some war of attrition were is rather famously about who can support it's war making for longest!

I want to emphasize that I'm making a very narrow point: that Germany can win an attritional land war with Britain (mostly) alone, not that this scenario is remotely plausible.

No they can't because their resources and logistics are shit, and your claim of huge manpower advantage isn't shown

Also why would Britain be alone? If the French aren't there in big numbers why would the British be there? (honestly if the scenario is Britain and Germany fight to a stand still over the ashes of France, it's never going to happen).

 

[Deleted member 94680]

I want to emphasize that I'm making a very narrow point: that Germany can win an attritional land war with Britain (mostly) alone, not that this scenario is remotely plausible.

Germany can’t win any attritional War.

Land, Air or Sea, Germany has to win quickly or doesn’t win at all. If the Wehrmacht has more men, it doesn’t mean anything if they’ve got no rounds for their small arms, or shells for their artillery, or fuel for their vehicles.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

How long does this extended Second Western Front have to run before Hitler gets nervous about what Stalin is doing behind his back?