[Thunderhawk]

The joke was in October but Moscow lay wide open before that. If the forces had not have been shifted south the city was there for the taking. Not all captures of cities resembled Stalingrad. In fact only Stalingrad resembled that. Karkov, Minsk, Kiev, Smolensk etc all fell with minimal fuss. But the point remains that the city was undefended for a period of time before the attack was switched.

Time.
Of that list, only Smolensk and karkov were far enough from the front lines to have been prepared, and Im not too sure about that.
I agree that taking cities is rarely as bloody as Stalingrad. Consider why it was so - Stalin and Hitler both attached symbolic values to the city, and made it a priority. Thats not to say any city could have turned into a Stalingrad, but if any other city could have gone that route, it would have been Moscow.

But I ask you - if Moscow in September was such a bad thing why did Gudarian and other generals plead with Hitler to keep the eye on the prize and not move south?

As long as that goal doesnt get FUBAR, better to stick with it then to go back and forth with other ideas, as that just bleeds time and resources.

[Doomhammer]

What if there wasn't the crisis in Yugoslavia and the Wehrmacht had not invaded an occupied said country? As you know, the occupation of Yugoslavia cost the Germans about two weeks - i.e. Barbarossa was delayed by that much time. Suppose if Barbarossa began at the originally planned date? Perhaps the Wehrmacht would have found an even less prepared enemy; fought in more acceptable weather; and may have occupied Moscow before December (although what would happen after Moscow was taken is a fair point to discuss).

[Thunderhawk]

The logistics problem would still remain. Two weeks more to move does not equate to two weeks of movement at ideal summer speeds, as the slowdown from supply lines thinning out would still be a problem. Except even more of the military would be forward, bogged down in horrible weather, necessitating stretched supply lines.

[Tailz]

I'll toss my hat into the ring for the Battle of Kursk. The Germans lost a lot of manpower in Stalingrad, but not much in the way of material loses - the Germans could still comb out the population to fill manpower lost at Stalingrad. But with the Battle of Kursk, the Germans lost war materials that would take months to replace and manufacture.

[Godstud]

The invention of RADAR was what really won the Battle of Britain. The British would have had another fighter plane but would still have won because they could always intercept German formations in good numbers. Fuel restrictions only allowed the German fighters to stay a very short time to dogfight, as well.

Hitler's decision to stop bombing of the British airfields and to start bombing London, etc. was what saved England. British planes were getting trashed and the airfields demolished until the pressure was taken off to concentrate on British cities. The RAF then had the chance to recover.

The Spitfire was slightly better than the ME109, but not as much as people make them out to be.

[guzzipat]

The Germans never had a hope in hell of taking Britain with their resorces. As I pointed out there was no way to destroy the ability of the RAF to replace aircraft

This is pretty typical of the whole argument. Assumptions that don't stand up, made to fit into a preconcieved notion.

It was not the aircraft replacements that mattered, it was trained pilots. It doesn't matter how many aircraft you have if there are not enough pilots top fly them. The Germans came close to victory in the BOB, not through downing aircraft but killing pilots. This not only effects the numbers of operational aircraft, but also the quality of pilots, as training times are cut and experienced flyers are lost. That is by far the most crucial factor in air warfare. If you have a 1000 planes but only 100 pilots how many can you use?
Your idea that any surface fleet can move or fight effectively with total ememy control of the air space is disproved many times during WW2, in many theatres. The example you gave of the Dunkirk evacuations was a poor one, most of the fleet was not involved. The losses of RN Ships that did take part were ruinous and could not be sustained for any period. Without the "small ships" the evacuation could never have succeeded.
On the question of submarines, as later experience in the atlantic showed, they are far less effective under blanket aircover and fairly easy to sink. The Germans also had a large and very effective Eboat flotilla, that was capable of screening.

The RN was over rated, just look at the enormous trouble and effort it took to sink the Bismark and corner the Graf Spee. The loss of capital ships in the far East to air attack. shows just how vulnerable big ships are without air cover. The inabilty of the RN to supply Malta, untill they had some air cover, shows the same. It was WW2 that finally convinced planners that big capital ships were a waste of money and that Aircraft carriers were more effective.
If it is so easy for surface ships to operate under hostile aircraft, why has the building of battle ships practically ceased?

Didn't mean to look like I was selectivly quoting. I'll put etc so that you know I mean the whole lot. I just don't think requoting everything makes for good reading. But on Gudarian - I agree. The man was a legend and knew his stuff, and the invasion of the USSR was always a tough ask but it was achievable. But I ask you - if Moscow in September was such a bad thing why did Gudarian and other generals plead with Hitler to keep the eye on the prize and not move south?

What a silly question.
I would have thought it obvious that that despite his reservations Gudarian was a professioinal, once he was given a task he would do his best to complete it.

I would have thought that it had nothing to do with his central opinion that the task was "utterly impossible"
As you say he knew his stuff and was a consumate professional soldier, what do you expect him to do when he was aked to impliment an impossible task? Refuse or make the best of it?
To use his attempts to achieve the impossible as evidence that he agreed with your asseement is myopic in the extreme.

This is a serious misreading of the political situation etc


No. The plan was always the Archangel/Astrakhan line. This would have meant some sort of political solution at some point. Maybe it would have been a temporary truce but the Germans would have benefited as much, if not more, from the lull as they repaired and resupplied their army ie rail, depots etc as well as stockpiling spares and fuel.

You appear to be confusing military plans with politics. Your claim that Hitler would have made peace with any remmant of the Soviet Regime is untenable in political terms. There is also no historical justification for any assumption that the Soviets or the Red Army would ever make peace as long as any part of Russia was occupied. You seem to be under the illusion that only the German miliatary aims are valid. That all political questions and the reaction of the Red Army can be discounted. Your assumptions are too narrow in their base to be accurate.

The mention of rail as a solution to supply is particularly silly, it would have meant relaying thousands of miles of tracks to German guage or building factories to make Soviet style trains. Neither of which is tennable in the short term. The supply lines were simply too long, the roads too bad. Everything the Germans could use locally was destroyed, their supply lines stretched back at least to Poland and in some cases to Germany. The supply chain was mainly horse drawn, you suggestions show an ignorance of logistical factors in the Russian campaign, which were of absloutely critical importance.

I agree with others that the most decisive battle in WW2 was Kursk, after that the Germnan Army moved onto the defensive. The biggest blow however, that led to the collpapse, was the destruction of Army Group Centre in 1944. A battle that has often been ingnored because of it's proximity to D Day and the inflated importance that was given. It was that Battle that ended for good, any chance of Germany avoiding catastrophic total defeat. Stalingrad ended the victories, Kursk decisively turned the tide, the destruction of Army group centre made defeat inevitable. It was Hitlers greatest defeat.

[Thunderhawk]

It was not the aircraft replacements that mattered, it was trained pilots. It doesn't matter how many aircraft you have if there are not enough pilots top fly them. The Germans came close to victory in the BOB, not through downing aircraft but killing pilots. This not only effects the numbers of operational aircraft, but also the quality of pilots, as training times are cut and experienced flyers are lost. That is by far the most crucial factor in air warfare. If you have a 1000 planes but only 100 pilots how many can you use?

An allied pilot who got shot down in the BoB but doesnt die or get crippled (jumps, crash landing, etc..) can return to active service after he has recuperated. Its a small return, but its there. A German pilot who bails over the UK becomes a POW, that manpower that doesnt return. The Germans had (from what I can tell) much higher initial levels of quality pilots, coming from civilian pools they established earlier, but that doesnt mean the British couldnt and didnt catch up as They had their colonial empire to draw pilots from aswell as friendly nations (US) and occupied allied nations (European allies).

The Germans were also using their Junker dive bombers as actual fighters during the BoB, and they were getting massacred.

On the question of submarines, as later experience in the atlantic showed, they are far less effective under blanket aircover and fairly easy to sink. The Germans also had a large and very effective Eboat flotilla, that was capable of screening.

Subs in the atlantic were far from base. British subs patrolling/operating in the English channel would be a several hours from harbour, not days. If they were on a short mission they could run most if not all of that mission on battery and thus not need to go up for recharging - which was how most of the German subs were spotted.

The RN was over rated, just look at the enormous trouble and effort it took to sink the Bismark and corner the Graf Spee.

The RN was defending an empire, the German navy simply had to go out and challange them.
Of course, one should also note that the Graf Spee and the Bismarck were sunk. The only occation I can think of where both the German and British navies were facing each other without being constrained to home defence, was the German invasion of Norway, and that resulted in the Germans loosing half their naval force to an impromptu allied force.

it would have meant relaying thousands of miles of tracks to German guage or building factories to make Soviet style trains.

Relaying the track for standard guage (1485mm) would not be worth it. Making new rail beds in that time span would be more difficult then invading the USSR :P
Retooling one train factory to make trains with Russian/Soviet guage (1520mm) would not have been difficult. Or they could just have secretly imported a couple trains from Finland who use 1520 and 1524 anyways. Though that doesnt matter too much either, as several captured trains were pressed into service anyways. Regardless, the rail system in place was not set up to support a Western force invading the USSR, nor was it left in good condition.

[guzzipat]

An allied pilot who got shot down in the BoB but doesnt die or crippled (jumps, ok landing, etc..) can return to active service after he has recuperated. Its a small return, but its there. A German pilot who bails over the UK becomes a POW, that manpower that doesnt return. The Germans had (from what I can tell) much higher initial levels of quality pilots, coming from civilian pools they established earlier, but that doesnt mean the British couldnt and didnt catch up as They had their colonial empire to draw pilots from aswell as friendly nations (US) and occupied allied nations (European allies).

The Germans were also using their Junker dive bombers as actual fighters during the BoB, and they were getting massacred.

I am aware of these factors, but it was still trained pilots that was the main issue for the RAF during BOB.
That was always Dowding's main concern, he initially opposed the use of Polish Pilots for communications reasons but was forced to use them. He admited he had been wrong later. The Polish and Czech pilots were very effective. There were many foreign pilots in the RAF, in all some 527, throughout the battle, with Poland and New Zealand the biggest sections. Despite what Hollywood would have us believe the number of American pilots was insignificant with 13, 7 of whom were officially recognised. No doubt those individuals were valuable, but for the most Part America in those days was convinced that Britain would lose. We have Joseph Kenedy the ambasador to thank for that.
The RAF could barely keep pace with the loss of pilots, despite shortening the triaining period considerably and using all the foreign pilots who volunteered. They were killing more German pilots but they had to. In fighter pilots alone the Germans had about 1500 to RAF's 1000 and in the ME 109 a very competative aircraft.
The replacement pilots had only 9 hours flight training, no gunnery or combat training. Most were ineffective and they suffered much higher casuality rates. The RAF was losing good pilots and the replacements were poor, they were lossing effectiveness as a force. The BOB was a close run thing.

I am not claiming that the BOB was decisive in any way, or even that it prevented invasion. Only that without local air superiority, what had always been a very risky invasion, became impossible. Of course the fact that I was brought up in London and saw for myself the damage inflicted and that I now live in Kent close to several of the old airfields and museums etc, probably effects my opinions.

Subs in the atlantic were far from base. British subs patrolling/operating in the English channel would be a several hours from harbour, not days. If they were on a short mission they could run most if not all of that mission on battery and thus not need to go up for recharging - which was how most of the German subs were spotted.

I accept that I was too dismisive of British submarines, although the English channel is hardly ideal waters for them and there were a small force.

The RN was defending an empire, the German navy simply had to go out and challange them.
Of course, one should also note that the Graf Spee and the Bismarck were sunk. The only occation I can think of where both the German and British navies were facing each other without being constrained to home defence, was the German invasion of Norway, and that resulted in the Germans loosing half their naval force to an impromptu allied force.

I suggest you also look at British navy loses to airpower in the same campaign, they were condiderable.

The Graf Spee was scuttled not sunk by enemy action. The Bismark sunk the Hood and was disabled by a lucky aircraft hit, sort of confirms that air power is decisive.
Both ships took massive RN rescources to defeat.
My main contention would be that throughout WW2 it was proved that capital ships without aircover were exceptionally vulnerable and the contention that the RN could have prevented an invasion in the face of total German air superiority is at best questionable.

[Thunderhawk]

Since we are playing the what-if game, why not take the General's chair (or monarch's throne, if you perfer) ?

If the Germans didnt switch to targeting cities, or some other factor caused the Brits to continue loosing the air battle, what would you do?

From my POV, the logical action would be to group the remaining airforce further north and pick my battles, effectively leaving the south open to air raids, but still opposed by ground based AA, untill I choose otherwise.

Use that time to well train new pilots and buid appropriate defences and radar networkds in the region. Germans could (and did) launch attacks further north, along the whole of GB, but only a couple of their craft had the range to strike northern England/Scotland and have enough time to dally around to keep formation and fight if engaged in combat. Regrouping the remains of fighter command further north would pretty much keep central and northern GB safe, as it was historically. Then it comes down to chasing down German stragglers until the pilots have the experiance and confidence to go after enemy formations again.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

This is pretty typical of the whole argument. Assumptions that don't stand up, made to fit into a preconcieved notion.

Yours or mine? The whole thread is a hypothetical therefore assumptions must be made and you have made more than your fair share of yours.

Your idea that any surface fleet can move or fight effectively with total ememy control of the air space is disproved many times during WW2, in many theatres. The example you gave of the Dunkirk evacuations was a poor one, most of the fleet was not involved. The losses of RN Ships that did take part were ruinous and could not be sustained for any period. Without the "small ships" the evacuation could never have succeeded.

No mention of Crete and you are forgetting Guadalcanal where the Japanese could control the night at sea. The RN destroyer force needed only to get amongst the flat bottom barges and they would have been sunk by the wake and at some point the invasion would have had to travel by night. As for ruinous: 4 out of 40 destroyers is not exactly a calamity.

I would have thought it obvious that that despite his reservations Gudarian was a professioinal

You quote him when it suits you but ignore him when it doesn't. Can you find a quote where he thought Sea Lion would work? Or any of the Army generals? The Navy? Or anybody apart from Hitler and Goering?

You also have to remember that the Soviets had yet to develope the idea of deep penatration offensives and were using their tanks as infantry support rather than grouped break through units.


evidence of that.

You will have to give me a couple of days on that one as 1) I'm a very lazy person and 2) my books are still boxed after a house move. It is reasonably documented though. Stalin insisted that the tanks be spread out along the front for the winter offensive rather that grouped as the Germans used them.

[guzzipat]

You quote him when it suits you but ignore him when it doesn't. Can you find a quote where he thought Sea Lion would work? Or any of the Army generals? The Navy? Or anybody apart from Hitler and Goering?

I don't see the point you are making, Why would Gudarians opposition to Sea Lion have any more effect on Hitler than his opposition to Barbarossa?

I have never claimed that Sea Lion would work, just that the Luffwaffe attack was designed to achieve air superiorty. That in that event it is at least possible that total air superiority, could prevent the RN from attacking the crossing. I have said before that it was a very risky adventure.
The defeat of the Luftwaffe totally eliminated that possiblity. It was not as you claim "small beer", the Allies retaining a base just 26 miles from France and the use of the RN is not an insignificant matter. Certainly there is too much of this "standing alone" talk, when the Brits had the support of the Empire and Commonwealth, but callng the decision to fight on and inflicting the first defeat on Germany was not "small beer"

That statement about Gudarian was to counter your silly claim that the fact that Gudarian opposed moving troops South, meant he thought the defeat of the Soviet Union was possible. It is clear from his writing that he did not believe that and never changed his mind.

[Igor Antunov]

The strategic failure of operation barbarossa made the outcome of ww2 inevitable. 3 defining moments really, failure of axis forces to take moscow, their defeat in stalingrad, and their defeat in kursk, the rest was just a giant mopping up operation in which the western allies participated in western europe.

[LAz]

The RAF was smashed at first... its fighter planes were reduced to only 300 if I am not mistaken.

I think that Nazi Germany could have gone on to defeat them. The invasion of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union messed things up, but I really don't get why Hitler did not just continue the attack on britain... he would have won, I think. He probably got tired or something.

They had them. The shtuka divebombers ruined the UK shipping. It was in dire dire straights. He should have just bombed and bombed more than he did, and send invasion troops while bombing. Even if a few are lost during transport... so what, there could have been several invasion fronts of England, not just one. England couldn't hold on. But, the way to do it, I think, was to bomb the hell out of them, a few times more than they did. Not just a little, but a lot, to destroy far more civilian structures, to cripple the population, the economy, and daily life in almost all aspects. With a demoralized crowd, and with the RAF having less than 100 planes, then would be the time to invade on a few beaches, plus Ireland.

[Brio]

But, the way to do it, I think, was to bomb the hell out of them, a few times more than they did. Not just a little, but a lot, to destroy far more civilian structures, to cripple the population, the economy, and daily life in almost all aspects.

One of the main reasons why the Battle of Britain was lost by the Germans was because Hitler ordered the Luftwaffe on Sept 5th, 1940 to stop the strategy of bombing the RAF airfields (that had reduced the RAF so greatly) and instead shift to the strategy of bombing the civilian population of London and other cities. This was in retaliation for RAF raids against Berlin that had accidentally killed civilians. This redirection of strategy allowed the RAF the time to recover and eventually win the battle.

With a demoralized crowd,

The strategy of trying to bomb the civilian population into submission had the opposite effect as it only stiffened their resolve to keep fighting the Germans.

[LAz]

This redirection of strategy allowed the RAF the time to recover and eventually win the battle.

From what I know, the RAF had 300 planes when hitler decided to stop bombing, the lowest number they ever had during the war. Is that right or wrong?

The strategy of trying to bomb the civilian population into submission had the opposite effect as it only stiffened their resolve to keep fighting the Germans.

Oh, but I would suggest that he did not bomb them into submission enough. He just barely scratched the surface of this tactic.

[guzzipat]

Quote:
The strategy of trying to bomb the civilian population into submission had the opposite effect as it only stiffened their resolve to keep fighting the Germans.


Oh, but I would suggest that he did not bomb them into submission enough. He just barely scratched the surface of this tactic.

[/quote]


I would suggest more research, there were 60-70,000 Civilians killed by the bombing, large areas of London and other Cities notably Coventry were destroyed.

I was 3 years old in 1945 and can remember the V1 flying bombs falling. I can also remember that all the bombing achieved was to harden the resolve of the people to keep fighting. It was considered a matter of honour to do everything you could to carry on as near to normal as possible. The "Blitz" on London meant that the civilians suffered 57 nights of continual bombing, over 1m homes were destoyed or badly damaged. The "2nd Blitz" in 1944 with V1's and then V2s was particularly hard because many families had brought their children back from evacuation. Does that sound like "barely scratching the surface"?

It would have been virtually impossible to destroy London by bombing, it is simply too big. Germany also had the wrong aicraft for that purpose they were not startegic bombers but army cooperation aircraft, more or less flying atrillery.
The Stukas you mention were withdrawn from the BOB, too easy to shoot down.

The much bigger raids on Germany didn't have the effect of forcing the German people to demand peace either. Germany suffered far more civilian bombing casualities.

The idea that "area bombing" a euphemism for terror bombing would break civilian moral had a thorough trial in WW2 and failed utterly.
IMO the capet bombing of civilians by both sides was a war crime. The people of the UK had some justice, the German people had none.

[LAz]

I dunno, I am still under the impression that bombing of england would have had more results for the germans had it gone on for a year instead of two months.

[guzzipat]

I dunno, I am still under the impression that bombing of england would have had more results for the germans had it gone on for a year instead of two months.

What sort of a reply is this?
The evidence is clear and overhwelming. Unless you can offer evidence that contradicts it ,your impressions are worthless. You might as well piss into the wind.

[LAz]

I offered evidence, that the RAF fighter plane total decreased to only 300 er so. That vs hitler's thousands of aircraft is no match.

[Brio]

I offered evidence, that the RAF fighter plane total decreased to only 300 er so. That vs hitler's thousands of aircraft is no match.

Although you gave no source for that information so as far as anyone is concerned you could have lifted that out of thin air.