[pugsville]

You know "Destroyer" is short for "Torpedo Boat Destroyer" ? Destroying torpedo boats is what that class of vessels was designed to do. The numbers are not good. Jan 1940 Germany has 22 torpedo boats (British 27) another 27 in construction (British 50) in September 1940 the RN had 30 Destroyers on permanent anti invasion duties (out of 200, 100 in home waters, they could be quickly reinforced) out numbered by Destroyers torpedo boats are really no match, and are really strike weapons, thee are not going to be good in the escort role. 10 Destroyers and 30 minutes and there would be no invasion fleet. British Torpedo and Gun boats, as well as submarines would also be a prime threat against barges and landing craft.

9 Months is a crash program building your first design off the drawing boards with little scope for fixing the problems (early British efforts were very un seaworthy). They are around 400 tons. 20,000 man hours. 600 LCT = 240,000 tons of steel (or 6 bismarks, or 6000 tanks make no mistake it would be a serious impact on production of other stuff) 12,000 skilled metals workers. LCT go around 8 knots, better than barges (though with the infantry and supplies on barges they would be in convoy at barge speeds) but still sitting ducks for destroyers, submarines could stalk under water and keep pace, very easy targets.

How does this massive crash LCT program not reduce significantly other armaments production? Where are the reductions you propose for this? This would be in direct competition for the same resources used to produce destroyers, torpedo boats and u boats either these would be scaled back to nothing, or massive cuts (completing halting tank production might get enough resources to build the LCTs. you wouldnt but thats the scale of impact) You obviously need to build more of these things too which is another large redirection of resources. You taking about more aircraft, more u boats, more LCTS well this stuff dont come from no where, building additional capacity would take too long (9 months most new factories are simply not gong to be operational and the Germans were short of man power anyway) for the time frame it most be diversion from other parts of of the war economy, if the Navy and Air force have huge new programs them the army must be cut back severely. Aircrew and U Boat crews take a long time to train, and performance is greatly determined by crew proficiency (U Boats in particular, 5% of the boats did 90% of the damage and as a rule the prewar very well trained crews were the ones) rapid crash programs to get more U boats and aircraft will only be effective if more crew are trained. The Training of personnel was one of the Great weaknesses of the German Blitzkrieg. Here I'm using the strategic concept of short sharp wars , The Germans planned short wars, personnel were trained and new equipment developed between wars. The Luftwaffe system of aircraft/aircrew use maximized front line strength right now, at the cost of reserve aircraft and aircrew training, the British system carried much more spares and reserve aircraft, regularly rotated aircrew to reserve/training duties. The RAF was a much more robust organization able to sustain performance .

The British coal fields were almost all out of German fighter range unless you want to just feed the Luftwaffe force to the RAF it would be foolish. Most of the Port capacity too (the British had vast amounts of port capacity, it wasnt port infrastructure short, it was through put unloading / loading which was mainly manpower and as such could be switched between ports). Railways were not a big weak point, overall Britain had a large surplus capacity (they were much better off than the Germans) still used for the civilian economy. I;m not saying a port/rail campaign would not eventually bite into British productive capacity but it's not a big weak point and would take a sustained offensive of many months (rather than say weeks) to have a significant impact, during this time the Luftwaffe is being suffering at the hands of the RAF which is growing stronger.


in 1940 Britain out produced Germany by 50% in aircraft 15,000 to 10,000. How is the RAF not well on the way to air superiority at this point?

In September 1940 the serviceable single engined fighters available was around 712.
In March 1941 it was 814.
(see
1940 http://www.ww2.dk/oob/statistics/se280940.htm
1941 http://www.ww2.dk/oob/statistics/se29341.htm
)

Best British estimates I can find
http://www.scribd.com/doc/85616206/RAF- ... nds-AIR-22
1.4.1941 1064 (though 1000 is single engined includes some beaufighters etc ) up from around 700 in September 1940.(And while those beufighters were mostly night fighters, the aircraft was one of the great marine attack aircraft of the war, this isnt France 1940's with fairly battles being used, beaufighters would be Ideal invasion attack aircraft)

Need to shoot down another 300+ British fighters (many pilots would bail out and be available again) just to break even, due to British reserve system, they actually had plenty of spare parts and reserve aircraft, aircrew determined operational strength. Again to reduce effective RAF strength aircraft manufacture is a long suit rather than short suit.

Also in the period sept 1940 may 1941 squadrons were being sent to other places like the western desert, increased axis resources focused on Britain would naturally mean more British resources remaining in Britain,

[ThirdTerm]

Two days after the RAF's convincing victory over the Luftwaffe on 15 September, Hitler ordered Operation Sealion be postponed "until further notice". However, he insisted that the assembled invasion forces maintained a high state of preparedness. Hitler's attention was now turning eastwards, and detailed planning began for the German invasion of the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa). Sealion was finally abandoned in February 1942. Some historians believe that the Germans were never serious about invading Britain, and had hoped to intimidate the government into negotiating or surrendering. There is also considerable debate about whether the invasion plan would have succeeded. The invasion plan was revised several times and, as early as 14 August, there were signs that Hitler was already backing away from a landing if the odds were too high. There were, he said, other ways of defeating Britain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/events/hitler_postpones_the_invasion_of_britain

[Social_Critic]

The spears

. Initially the LDV – soon numbering a massive 1.5 million men - armed themselves with the shotguns, broom shanks, pitchforks and spears with which we are familiar – their only uniform being an armband! From July 1940 onwards, volunteers began to receive standard 1937 issue British Army Battle Dress as depicted in your photo. After a short while the LDV title was dropped and ‘Home Guard’ was adopted. The individuals in your photo all bear the standard curved ‘HOME GUARD’ cloth badge on their upper arms just bellow their epaulettes. Unfortunately the rather cruel LDV nickname of ‘Look Duck and Vanish’ was to stick with them until being finally stood down in December 1944 and officially disbanded in late 1945.

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/histor ... 877.print/

. Despite Churchill's demand that the Home Guard be issued with proper weapons, the War Office issued 250,000 pikes - bayonets welded onto metal poles. Local Home Guard commanders initially received little guidance from the War Office as to training and it was left to them to develop their own tactics that were relevant to their own locality. However, with little professional support, a man in the Home Guard was four times as likely to die in an accident during training than a regular soldier

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/home_guard.htm

This is just a sample. It's easy to find such material yourself. If you bother. What I did was survey the literature to understand their capability in the spring and summer of 1941. Conclusion? Not well armed at all.

The best summary for the Sandhurst warfare is at http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/seelowe.txt

But you will find lots of material if you bother to look up "Sandhurst war game sea lion". What really amazes me is that you guys start foaming at the mouth, insulting people and coming off like teenagers when the easy alternative is to do a quick search.

I intentionally didn't look up German plans because I wanted to see if my ideas made sense. But I did check later. They did plan to invade in the south, they assumed around 2000 tanks, but they listed about 15 divisions. I didn't see anything about a one two punch using strategic bombing to degrade capability the way I proposed it, but this is understandable given their structure.

I spent some time looking at google satellite coverage and southern beaches promotional material. This allowed me to find lots of spots with wide beaches and no cliffs. I also figured out they had to be defended and did find references to mine fields and pillboxes, but I didn't get to find detailed information regarding ther readiness in may 1941.

Finally I do admit the key to the puzzle remains the ability to focus strategic bombing to degrade British capability to rearm. Without a detailed report and maps, all I can do is intuitively propose that bombing ports, rail and coal mines would be quite effective. I'm also faced with the problem of how to build a small (300?) fleet of tank carriers able to sail at relatively high speed and land three tanks each onto a beach. I would have had 9 months to do it, and I don't know about German capability in this area. However landing soldiers and their anti aircraft complement and ammo seems to be a relatively easy issue given third reich ability. I'm not worried about the uk navy, it was mostly a high seas navy mismatched for this mission, and it would have been easy prey to air, e boat and submarine interdiction. I did find out reading about their destroyers that they lacked anti air capability, for example.

[Social_Critic]

Pugsville makes very good comments. I think the key as I mentioned before several times is to degrade British capability to rearm and build aircraft. Evidently in mid 1940 the Germans had the upper hand - this is why the Battle of Britain took place. But the German bombing campaign wasn't designed to degrade a focused sector. Mine would be.

Where would they get the resources? From Barbarossa. Recall the OP is a what if Sea Lion for Barbarossa. This required they divert resources towards a sea lift and air power rather than the 3 million man army assigned to the invasion in the East.

I see a lot of bragging about the British destroyers, but I did read about their capabilities and how they were sunk. And as it turns out the Germans did sink British destroyers, some by torpedo, some by dive bombers and such. Recall that the invasion requires heavy mining of the Pas de Calais. He'll even the Sandhurst exercise flawed as it was allowed for the German beachhead to be established, they just said it was eventually choked by the British fleet and bad weather.

The key then is for the Germans to have the full Barbarossa assets shifted and the missing piece is whether they could have built a 300 vessel tank carrier fleet in 9 months....now don't throw weights around unless you have optimized the design, and remember its a lot easier to build a small rugged vessel which has to sail a few hundred km vs the Bismarck. He'll I may design it and post it in a site as a mental exercise.

[Smilin' Dave]

Social_Critic
1. Your first link doesn't seem to be working
2. Your second link does indeed state the Home Guard were issued 'spears'. However in the context of the full site it becomes apparent this was during or prior to 1940. The paragraphs immediately before your quoted text is about an address in May 1940, and even discuss the BEF evacuation of Dunkirk. You said they were issued in 1941

I read a bit about the home guard in 1941, and they were being issued spears!!

I guess with all that 'speed reading' you missed that. What else have you gotten wrong.

It's easy to find such material yourself. If you bother.

It's not up to me to prove your argument. Don't add laziness to being arrogant and apparently being dishonest to your list of failures in this thread.

The best summary for the Sandhurst warfare is at http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/seelowe.txt

Yes I read that. But it does not include the refer to any absurdity like the British naval units being treated as immune or any details as to the modelling used, as you claimed.

Yeah we'll the Sandhurst boys hacked those simulations by assuming their ships were torpedo and dive bomber proof.

When you mentioned them I searched the literature and read the detailed scenarios, they describe a linear set of events, no probabilities, and factor in lousy German decision making together with brilliant and heroic moves by the defenders.

What really amazes me is that you guys start foaming at the mouth, insulting people and coming off like teenagers when the easy alternative is to do a quick search.

What amazes me is you can lie so boldly, and continue to lie even as you get caught out. What else have you lied about Social_Critic?

I intentionally didn't look up German plans because I wanted to see if my ideas made sense.

So you tested whether the Sandhurst exercise was realistic without looking at the actual materials available. Yet you claim to be suddenly an expert on the exercise, despite this deliberate exclusion of relevant information?

They did plan to invade in the south, they assumed around 2000 tanks, but they listed about 15 divisions.

I've linked you to the order of battle. There were only two panzer divisions allocated, the rest were infantry-based formations. Unless you're going to claim there were 1,000 tanks per German tank division?

I didn't see anything about a one two punch using strategic bombing to degrade capability the way I proposed it, but this is understandable given their structure.

This may shock and amaze you, but maybe actual experts in this field determined that such a strategy was actually impossible? Is it understandable to you that maybe your scenario is pure fantasy?

I also figured out they had to be defended and did find references to mine fields and pillboxes, but I didn't get to find detailed information regarding ther readiness in may 1941.

I already linked you to a page with information about this and much more... care to explain how you can criticise me for not "googling" your sources for you, when you apparently couldn't even be bothered to read sources I had actually already provided you with?

Without a detailed report and maps, all I can do is intuitively propose that bombing ports, rail and coal mines would be quite effective.

Why would a map tell you about bomber and fighter ranges? Or the efficacy of air raids using 1940s equipment against industrial targets? Basically you're saying here that you looked up the wrong kind of information, and on the basis that it didn't dismiss your idiotic scenario, that your scenario must be accurate?

Allow me to show you a similar logic chain - Social_Critic is actually The Queen of England. I had a look at Buckingham Palace using Google Maps and from this I intuited that this was in fact true.

I don't know about German capability in this area.

No don't seem to know anything about German capabilities, but that doesn't seem to have stopped you from cooking up your scenario or insisting that it is correct and dismissing all criticism. Maybe you could lie about some other nonsense to shore up the rest of your argument?

However landing soldiers and their anti aircraft complement and ammo seems to be a relatively easy issue given third reich ability.

Oh do elaborate on what this assumption is based on?

I'm not worried about the uk navy, it was mostly a high seas navy mismatched for this mission, and it would have been easy prey to air, e boat and submarine interdiction.

You've actually already been corrected on this point. You're also in disagreement with German high command in 1940 on this topic.

Where would they get the resources? From Barbarossa. Recall the OP is a what if Sea Lion for Barbarossa. This required they divert resources towards a sea lift and air power rather than the 3 million man army assigned to the invasion in the East.

So how much new production was used to equip the German army for Operation Barbarossa? And how easily would it translate into expanding the air and naval arm of the German military?

And as it turns out the Germans did sink British destroyers, some by torpedo, some by dive bombers and such.

I read that German U-Boats had also been sunk on occasion during the entireity of WWII. Clearly those were nothing to brag about either...?

He'll I may design it and post it in a site as a mental exercise.

Are you actually an engineer, or is that another one of your frauds?

[pugsville]

I release a Battleship is move complex than a LCT. Battleship 7.5 million man hours, Destroyer 1mill2mill, Minesweeper 220,000, may estimate was 20,000 man hours was hardly I think a overly high one. (me109 1940 6,000 man hours, 400,000 uboat, Panzer III 4,000 manhours. (thus it takes 10 times the steel, but only 5 * the man hours LCT v tank less complex per ton.) With the 6 bismarks I was stressing the amount of steel (Battleship armor and guns is much more high quality steel of course). The alocation of steel was the main way of determining German production priorities, I was pionting that it was a lot of steel.

Link on German LCT. Note descussion mentions problems with shortage of skilled manpower in construction. And problems with initial design.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marinef%C3%A4hrprahm

Barges 2,400 gathered only 800 motorised (and some not real well) mst would be towed providing even easier targets, and many ships would be involved in the towing making them very very easy targets. (cutting the tow would maje thebarge a loss)

Destroyers, yes the British loss quite a few during the war however losses at Dunkirk and create when teh destroyers were not under way at speed with little fighter cover in daylight is very different. U Boats scragged quite a few too, but again a destroyer on attack rather than on convoy station is a very different type of target.

Heavy Mining requires more mines to be produced and will result in attritional warfare in placing it. Germans were pretty short of small naval craft nessacry for such works, the Royal Navy had plenty of such craft. 44 'fleet' minesweepers. Also the navy built of 250 military trawlers, and requitioned 215 more, equiped for either ASW or mine sweeping/laying while not much these armed trawlers were pretty useful, escpically in mine laying and clearing. It;s not just the boats here the Royal Navy Reserve Service was trained and had registered the navak man power before the war, the Germans just didnt have the sea going persoannel available even f they had tried to set up something similar. In any long compagin in the coastal waters, the British far out numbered the Germans in most classes of ships involved, and had a lead in all. Given some attrional warfare, (a) the British are much better placed to cope with losses, while even small losses for the Germans will drastic reduce the ships/boats available for the actual invasion (b) the british having much better resources, are going to lay plenty of their own mine fields, and sweep more of the enemies.

In any of the cases of auxilaries vessals and warfare methods brought to bear to make up for the German inadequete fleet the British have greater numbers of vessals and are more likely to gain greater advanatge than the Germans from these forms (mines, torpedo boats or submarines)

The British had failry similar numbers of submarines early in the war, though the U Boots were more sucessful it's mainly due to the large numbers of their targets (though the Germans had more better trained crews, but some of the best British boats were good as well). In any invasion, the British attack deroyers and small craft are going to be fast moving targets, and U boots are goingto strugggle to be effective, the Germans have large numbers of very slow moving barges or LCTs to defend, pretty much easy targets. So in any actual invasion it's teh British submarines one would expect to do better than the German U boats.

Port, Rail , Coalfield as targets for air preperations, Coalfields not a easy target and mostly beyond fighter range. Britain had a lot of ports and semi spare rail capacity it's not a real galring weakness, knocking out a few sites will not do it but a long slow attritional campagain that the Luftwaffe was unable to substain in real life, and with those tragets the RAF is growing stronger every day, the Lufftwaffe weaker. The Only way the Lufftwaffe can win a battle of attrition with the RAF was targetting the RAF prety directly airfields, radar. But Even then it takes time, and the RAF can disenegae at will be relocating asmuch reserve strength as it likes outside fighter range. The RAF will always be a significant factor in a German invasion as it can always reserve as much of it's strength as it likes for any invasion.

[fuser]

During that period Germany had better chance of sending her army to Mars (for whatever reasons) than British isles.

[Travesty]

You obviously didn't read what I linked to - it has nothing to do with the number of supply ships. North Africa did not have the infrastructure to sustain a larger German force (insufficient ports, roads and rail) and German formations were short of trucks. So you can have all the ships you want, and they could even all arrive without being sunk... but the ports in Axis control won't be able to handle the influx of material and there will be no way to get it to the front.

So Germany and Italy had no way to win in North Africa at all? So silly of them for trying...

You initially suggested an advance through the Middle East. Persia can't support the German army and you still haven't done anything about the enourmous distances involved or the lack of infrastructure. In fact you went so far as to suggest the USSR would be stupid for allowing the Germans to launch an invasion from its own territory, so I'm unclear why you think they would have ever allowed it even as allies.

A hypothetical which I've already pointed out is absurd. You're just making it worse.

This entire thread is based on the ridiculous premise that the USSR is allied with Germany in the first place. I dont see why a smaller military cant advance through Persia, Perisa being friendly territory as opposed to Barbarossa where the infustructure was just a little better but not much. Infustructure counts for much but not everything, the Soviets mangaged to encircle and destroy the entire Kwantung army in Manchuria in 10 days with no infustructure to speak of.

[fuser]

So Germany and Italy had no way to win in North Africa at all? So silly of them for trying...

Yes it was silly but we know that only because of "Hindsight".

the Soviets mangaged to encircle and destroy the entire Kwantung army in Manchuria in 10 days with no infustructure to speak of.

Logistical preparation went for months before attacking Manchuria. It was not simple transfer of troops only, then the key thing here is that the operation was over pretty soon. If it had developed in to a slug fest, Soviets would indeed had been hard pressed to supply a army that large in Manchuria at maximum readiness.

[Travesty]

Yes it was silly but we know that only because of "Hindsight".

this is an alternate history thread, suppose the Germans won in Al-Almein and continued to advance, what was this impossible?

Logistical preparation went for months before attacking Manchuria. It was not simple transfer of troops only, then the key thing here is that the operation was over pretty soon. If it had developed in to a slug fest, Soviets would indeed had been hard pressed to supply a army that large in Manchuria at maximum readiness.

yes, so prepare...

[fuser]

this is an alternate history thread, suppose the Germans won in Al-Almein and continued to advance, what was this impossible?

Yes that was impossible, Axis powers simply didn't had the shipping capacity to load off enough supplies overseas to continue the advance specially with total naval dominance of Royal Navy in Mediterranean. The mediocre Libyan ports and horrendous Infrastructure added another constraint.

Then unlike the Japanese British Commonwealth Army was not in such a bad shape or lacked strategic depth to be destroyed in one single operation like the Japanese in Manchuria.

yes, so prepare.

Better said than done, eh. Why don't you propose something if are in favor of this scenario, simply saying prepare is not good enough.

[Travesty]

Well we already outlined that Germany would re-tool its industry and focus on its navy since the Germans wont be invading Russia which is what this thread assumes in the first place. The main problem of this thread is the existence of the USSR. In fact Andropov who started this thread has to outline exactly how and why the USSR would be allied with Germany and vice versa.

Better said than done, eh. Why don't you propose something if are in favor of this scenario, simply saying prepare is not good enough.

Propose what? Attack, win, take the Suez Canal, blockade Britain, take the already friendly areas in the middle East and India would fall by itself with a little push from Japan Germany, and the Indian liberation army lead by Bose.

[fuser]

Well we already outlined that Germany would re-tool its industry and focus on its navy

And how would they do that? And this preparation will begin in what year? And Why won't Royal Navy react to it? Won't much of the German resources will be wasted in order to increase her ship building capacity anyway?

Propose what? Attack, win, take the Suez Canal, blockade Britain,

Not what but how. I can also claim that "Somalia" can take over USA today by "attacking and winning".

[Travesty]

Preparation would begin after France. Germany would have to start producing submarines and bombers in large quantities. The Germans will have to deny the Royal navy its bases in the medittereanean, and sink British convoys. So since we wont be focusing on the USSR the Luftwaffe would then focus on bombing British bases, and airborne troops will have to take them like in Crete. Germany would focus on Defeating Britain not the USSR so instead of tanks, half trucks and artillery, they would focus on their air force, submarines and specialized troops. And ofcourse the USSR by 1942 or 43 would invade Germany and march into Berlin despite any alliances, which is why this scenario is impossible.

Not what but how. I can also claim that "Somalia" can take over USA today by "attacking and winning"

Germany ain't Somalia and British forces in North Africa weren't that significant it was like 50, 000 men, Suppose instead of one German division in North Africa Germany would send two divisions or three, with adequate air support, etc that and the Italians.

[fuser]

Germany would have to start producing submarines and bombers in large quantities The Germans will have to deny the Royal navy its bases in the medittereanean, and sink British convoys

Why submarines? When you are planning the invasion of the British isles? Battle of Atlantic is hugely overblown. In the entire war it was only two months where they sank more convoys than what was produced. And how Germany will deny these bases?

So since we wont be focusing on the USSR the Luftwaffe would then focus on bombing British bases, and airborne troops will have to take them like in Crete.

You think entire British isles can be taken by just airborne forces? Germany neither had the men nor the equipment for such an operation anyway. Then, the question still remains how in your scenario Germany is winning the "Battle of England" to commence such an operation anyway.

Then, how are you planning to supply these airborne troops, by air alone?

Germany would focus on Defeating Britain not the USSR so instead of tanks, half trucks and artillery, they would focus on their air force, submarines and specialized troops.

A tank factory would not suddenly start making ships, German ship building capacity was very meager. To achieve any respectable level of ship building capacity, much resources were needed to be invested first which would have taken time.

Germany ain't Somalia and British forces in North Africa weren't that significant it was like 50, 000 men, Suppose instead of one German division in North Africa Germany would send two divisions or three,

Germany had more than one division in Africa, then your analysis is very biased as you are only considering Germany's position and not British. Even, let's say Germany could have supplied these extra troops, what makes you absolutely certain that it the increased presence of Germany in Africa would not have prompted Britain to do the same?

[pugsville]

Germany cant build ships on the med. more ships on the north sea and Baltic would still be bottled up. The difference in strength between the Royal Navy and the Kreigsmarine means that it's not possible to challenge the Royal Navy in the North Sea or Channel directly. Resources could be diverted to the Italians, but again they are fair way short. Ship building takes time. Naval personnel need training and there is a real limit to rapid expansion. Air power can be pretty effective in the Med, so more air resources cold lead to "control" in some sense.

But supporting more forces in North Africa is hard. Some sort of defeat of the British forces around Tobruk and quick advance to Suez befoe regrouping is possible, just historically it failed. The British with their large logistical base and available reserves in the region always have the ability to form some sort of defense and with the extremely long thin supply lines axis North African forces are up against it.

But Even taking Suez does not directly lead to anything.

India is pretty secure. It has large resources amd a large Garrsion.

Bose's force was a joke , not large enough or supported in India to any degree to be more than a nuisance. "Friendly" areas are regimes with little power. Not really capable of providing a real logistical base or significant forces.

The overland approach from Bruma is again a region with poor infrastructure and logistical capabilities. The Japanese could simply support a large enough force to be a real threat.

German land forces approaching India is a fantasy. The Logistical problems are simply too difficult. From Suez to the Persian Gulf there is no real logistical infrastructure to support large operations. A couple of divisions would be very very hard to support on the Persian gulf and to go overland to India the logistical support would be pretty much impossible.

When attacking an enemy who as a large logistical base and large forces through areas with really really poor logistical infrastructure a long way from your logistical base things rapidly become virtually impossible.

[pugsville]

U Boats take time around a year would be required for reasonable numbers, and crews require lots of training. Once the U boats lost their pre war well trained crews they lost effectiveness. The top 5% of commanders and crews inflicted most of the damage. It's no a matter of flicking the switch. Increasing U Boats will directly compete with the building of other naval assets. increase shipyard capacity is slow.

Bombers take much more resources to produce than single engine fighters. (German production later in the war was able to reach higher numbers in part because of the dominance of single engine fighters in production.

[Travesty]

Germany couldn't have defeated the Royal Navy even if it started making subamrines like babies like Andropov said. So the goal would be to take their bases and deny them fuel. This is where Airborne troops in the Mediterenean come in and taking the Suez Canal and the Submarines. How long could Britain have hold on being bombed by the Luftwaffe focused on Britian in its entirety and denied fuel.

Submarines would have to sink convoys and harass them, the only difference being that there would be more of them.

The Africa corps was jumbled together from three divisons and had also around 50,000 men. Why couldn't have the Germans doubled that the Italians did. And why couldn't they have won in El-Almein? Suppose Montgomery caught Syphilis or something.

tank factory would not suddenly start making ships, German ship building capacity was very meager. To achieve any respectable level of ship building capacity, much resources were needed to be invested first which would have taken time.

yep. Andropov has to explain this one.

Germany had more than one division in Africa, then your analysis is very biased as you are only considering Germany's position and not British.

yeah I'm biased for the Nazis. This thread is just a futile exercise in Alternative history.

[fuser]

yeah I'm biased for the Nazis.
This thread is just a futile exercise in Alternative history

I never accused you of being biased towards Nazis. Don't create Straw man and I am still saying your position is totally biased towards German army in this particular case, whether politically motivated or not, I don't care.

And why is this perfectly clear is because at every step you are always considering What German can/should do without considering What Britain could do at the same time specially by reacting to different German strategies. As both sides were involved in the conflict, action from both side mattered and your proposition is totally lacking one side.

Then finally Alternative history =/= Fantasy History, You can't expect to create any erroneous premise and expect everyone to go with it.

[Travesty]

Yeah I'm going off the German perspective and their strategy for winning the war since this thread is about The Germans succeeding in operation sea lion not the British succeeding in repelling them.