Citizens of London facing German Army (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Time of Fury



Message

doomtrader -> Citizens of London facing German Army (12/18/2011 2:46:15 PM)

How do you think citizens of London would react if the German army reach the town's outskirts?

Would they do everything to defend the city, or just give up?
Would the siege of London be similar to the siege of Leningrad?



fvianello -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/18/2011 3:17:40 PM)

I think it would have been harder than leningrad / stalingrad; citizens joining the local militia en masse and street fighting with civilians joining the fray spontaneously.



freeboy -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/18/2011 3:21:17 PM)

not sure.. remember in these things its always about mass culture and leadership.. the leadership to resist ? not sure in London, hypothetically as we do not know what happens up to London being threatened..
but for sure the royal navy would put up fight over shorelines.. tough to model, England as Island nation at war in her history without and within for many years over the last melinia..sp?( 1000 years)



Flaviusx -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/18/2011 3:57:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

I think it would have been harder than leningrad / stalingrad; citizens joining the local militia en masse and street fighting with civilians joining the fray spontaneously.


Let's just go with equally as hard here.



sabre1 -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/18/2011 6:15:28 PM)

England still had a society much like the US in terms of gun laws IIRC (they could own them). I would venture that they would fight every bit as tenaciously as a country who had no private property rights.



doomtrader -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/18/2011 7:05:01 PM)

Does anyone has got some data available how many handguns were stockpiled in and around London?

I do agree that the RN will give a good fight. IIRC many of the RN ships were able to anchor in London.



Lascar -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/18/2011 10:26:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

Does anyone has got some data available how many handguns were stockpiled in and around London?

I do agree that the RN will give a good fight. IIRC many of the RN ships were able to anchor in London.

There is some information on the gun control laws passed in the early twentieth century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

And I found this interesting comment about the the state of private gun ownership in Britain during WWII.
As a direct consequence of the 1920 gun control act, not only did Britain not have "a rifle in every cottage" but they had to ask American citizens to send them every type of rifle and handgun at the outbreak of WWII, so British people would have some means of defending their homes and islands against the Nazi hordes massing across the English Channel. Americans responded by sending every type of firearm to the unarmed and helpless people of Britain. No surprise, but at the end of the war the British people did not get to keep the guns, the government seized many of them back and dumped them in the sea. Such was the British government's gratitude to the American public and distrust of their own people.
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle558-20100221-07.html

From what I have read on the matter the Royal Navy would have reacted very aggressively against any attempted invasion by the German across the channel. The Home Fleet based in Scapa Flow would have descended on the Germans like a pack of wolves. This is of course why the Germans fought the Battle of Britain in the first place. To achieve undisputed air superiority over southern England so that Luftwaffe bombers could concentrate on the Royal Navy unmolested. The Krigesmarine, only a few months earlier, had suffered heavy losses at the hands of the Royal Navy during the invasion of Norway. From that experience the Germans realized that only an unhindered Luftwaffe could have given them any chance of defeating the Royal Navy.

As far as the resolve of the British people to go on fighting even if invaded well there is the famous Churchill "on the beaches" speech.
Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

At the very least Churchill himself would have given Jerry some grief before he went down fighting.
[image]http://iconicphotos.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/08-churchill-met-tommy-gun.jpg[/image]



Lascar -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/18/2011 10:59:54 PM)

You may also find this discussion on the Axis History Forum on "Seelöwe: German Air Operations and anti-ship Capabilities" quite interesting and informative. Axis History
Generally it is doubtful that the Luftwaffe bombers could have decisively defeated the Royal Navy at sea due to their poor quality aerial torpedoes and mediocre skills at bombing ships at sea.



Rasputitsa -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/20/2011 11:05:31 AM)

There is no doubt that the RAF and the RN would have fought tenaciously to defend the British Isles, there are many instances of British ships making suicidal attacks on superior enemy forces, even when the fate of the nation was not in question. The captain of the armed liner 'HMS Rawalpindi' chose to fight the Scharnhorst and Gniesenau, rather than take their offer to surrender. When the same German ships were making the 'Channel Dash' back to Germany, six RN Swordfish torpedo bombers were based at Manston, to be used in a night attack on the anticipated targets. When the German ships unexpectedly came through the Channel in daylight the station commander at Manston contacted the Admiralty to cancel the attack. The reply was that the Royal Navy would attack the enemy wherever and whenever he can be found, all six aircraft were shot down.

The RN would have fought in the Channel whatever the cost, likewise throughout the Battle of Britain the RAF was never diverted by the odds and every attack was met, there is no reason the expect any change on policy if the invasion was taking place.

However, if a successful landing had taken place, most of the civilian population living in the cities and towns where unarmed, gun ownership was fairly widespread in the country (mainly shotguns - limited military use), but not in the large industrial areas. Despite Churchill's speeches I would not expect that a serious resistance could have been made. No towns were surrounded, by anti-tank ditches, defence preparations were limited to coping with landings by parachute troops. A major attack by tank forces would have been overwhelming, but then Britain's tank ditch was the Channel.

I do not believe that London, or any other major city, would have become a Leningrad, or Stalingrad, otherwise there would have been much greater preparation made in terms of real defences. The Russians prepared miles of anti-tanks ditches and fighting trenches for defence against major assault. In Britain, trenches were dug as air-raid shelters and the concrete and brick 'pill boxes', which still litter the countryside, would not have stood against a serious attack.

The battle would have been won, or lost, at sea, or on the beaches.



Lascar -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/20/2011 2:06:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

There is no doubt that the RAF and the RN would have fought tenaciously to defend the British Isles, there are many instances of British ships making suicidal attacks on superior enemy forces, even when the fate of the nation was not in question. The captain of the armed liner 'HMS Rawalpindi' chose to fight the Scharnhorst and Gniesenau, rather than take their offer to surrender. When the same German ships were making the 'Channel Dash' back to Germany, six RN Swordfish torpedo bombers were based at Manston, to be used in a night attack on the anticipated targets. When the German ships unexpectedly came through the Channel in daylight the station commander at Manston contacted the Admiralty to cancel the attack. The reply was that the Royal Navy would attack the enemy wherever and whenever he can be found, all six aircraft were shot down.

The RN would have fought in the Channel whatever the cost, likewise throughout the Battle of Britain the RAF was never diverted by the odds and every attack was met, there is no reason the expect any change on policy if the invasion was taking place.

However, if a successful landing had taken place, most of the civilian population living in the cities and towns where unarmed, gun ownership was fairly widespread in the country (mainly shotguns - limited military use), but not in the large industrial areas. Despite Churchill's speeches I would not expect that a serious resistance could have been made. No towns were surrounded, by anti-tank ditches, defence preparations were limited to coping with landings by parachute troops. A major attack by tank forces would have been overwhelming, but then Britain's tank ditch was the Channel.

I do not believe that London, or any other major city, would have become a Leningrad, or Stalingrad, otherwise there would have been much greater preparation made in terms of real defences. The Russians prepared miles of anti-tanks ditches and fighting trenches for defence against major assault. In Britain, trenches were dug as air-raid shelters and the concrete and brick 'pill boxes', which still litter the countryside, would not have stood against a serious attack.

The battle would have been won, or lost, at sea, or on the beaches.

London, or any other major British city, may not have become a Leningrad or Stalingrad, but I seriously doubt that London would have been declared an open city like Paris followed by a rapid capitulation. The nature of the British government was quite different from the French and British morale seems to have been far more robust than of the French who had lost the will to fight the Germans.

The British might have not been able to offer a sustainable resistance because they lacked the vast hinterland from which to draw upon manpower and resources. Inevitably the Germans would have probably prevailed as long as they were able to maintain lines of communications with the continent. That is a big if, because it is not at all certain that the Luftwaffe could have fully neutralized the Royal Navy and what ships that evaded the Luftwaffe would be able to interdict the soft targets of the German supply ships and would have had significant impact on the effectiveness of the German army operating in Britain.



Rasputitsa -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/20/2011 6:18:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lascar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

There is no doubt that the RAF and the RN would have fought tenaciously to defend the British Isles, there are many instances of British ships making suicidal attacks on superior enemy forces, even when the fate of the nation was not in question. The captain of the armed liner 'HMS Rawalpindi' chose to fight the Scharnhorst and Gniesenau, rather than take their offer to surrender. When the same German ships were making the 'Channel Dash' back to Germany, six RN Swordfish torpedo bombers were based at Manston, to be used in a night attack on the anticipated targets. When the German ships unexpectedly came through the Channel in daylight the station commander at Manston contacted the Admiralty to cancel the attack. The reply was that the Royal Navy would attack the enemy wherever and whenever he can be found, all six aircraft were shot down.

The RN would have fought in the Channel whatever the cost, likewise throughout the Battle of Britain the RAF was never diverted by the odds and every attack was met, there is no reason the expect any change on policy if the invasion was taking place.

However, if a successful landing had taken place, most of the civilian population living in the cities and towns where unarmed, gun ownership was fairly widespread in the country (mainly shotguns - limited military use), but not in the large industrial areas. Despite Churchill's speeches I would not expect that a serious resistance could have been made. No towns were surrounded, by anti-tank ditches, defence preparations were limited to coping with landings by parachute troops. A major attack by tank forces would have been overwhelming, but then Britain's tank ditch was the Channel.

I do not believe that London, or any other major city, would have become a Leningrad, or Stalingrad, otherwise there would have been much greater preparation made in terms of real defences. The Russians prepared miles of anti-tanks ditches and fighting trenches for defence against major assault. In Britain, trenches were dug as air-raid shelters and the concrete and brick 'pill boxes', which still litter the countryside, would not have stood against a serious attack.

The battle would have been won, or lost, at sea, or on the beaches.

London, or any other major British city, may not have become a Leningrad or Stalingrad, but I seriously doubt that London would have been declared an open city like Paris followed by a rapid capitulation. The nature of the British government was quite different from the French and British morale seems to have been far more robust than of the French who had lost the will to fight the Germans.

The British might have not been able to offer a sustainable resistance because they lacked the vast hinterland from which to draw upon manpower and resources. Inevitably the Germans would have probably prevailed as long as they were able to maintain lines of communications with the continent. That is a big if, because it is not at all certain that the Luftwaffe could have fully neutralized the Royal Navy and what ships that evaded the Luftwaffe would be able to interdict the soft targets of the German supply ships and would have had significant impact on the effectiveness of the German army operating in Britain.


I am not saying that London, or any other city in the UK would have been declared 'open', just that no meaningful preparations were being made. Anti-tank guns were not being dug-in at each street corner, the population was not being mobilised to dig defences, etc..

The British government was quite capable of organising and planning on a large scale, there was a plan, enacted as war started, to move 3,000,000 people out of major cities (only 1, 500,000 actually moved, because the rest refused), a major undertaking, which was completed in a few days. 337,000 troops were lifted from Dunkirk, in a staggering feat of improvisation and short notice planning.

The British government was fully capable of organising a last ditch defence of London, but they did not prepare for that eventuality, they prepared for what they expected to happen inland - parachute drop. All other meaningful preparations were confined to the beaches and the Channel, that was were the battle would take place, not in the cities.



Lascar -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/20/2011 7:35:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lascar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

There is no doubt that the RAF and the RN would have fought tenaciously to defend the British Isles, there are many instances of British ships making suicidal attacks on superior enemy forces, even when the fate of the nation was not in question. The captain of the armed liner 'HMS Rawalpindi' chose to fight the Scharnhorst and Gniesenau, rather than take their offer to surrender. When the same German ships were making the 'Channel Dash' back to Germany, six RN Swordfish torpedo bombers were based at Manston, to be used in a night attack on the anticipated targets. When the German ships unexpectedly came through the Channel in daylight the station commander at Manston contacted the Admiralty to cancel the attack. The reply was that the Royal Navy would attack the enemy wherever and whenever he can be found, all six aircraft were shot down.

The RN would have fought in the Channel whatever the cost, likewise throughout the Battle of Britain the RAF was never diverted by the odds and every attack was met, there is no reason the expect any change on policy if the invasion was taking place.

However, if a successful landing had taken place, most of the civilian population living in the cities and towns where unarmed, gun ownership was fairly widespread in the country (mainly shotguns - limited military use), but not in the large industrial areas. Despite Churchill's speeches I would not expect that a serious resistance could have been made. No towns were surrounded, by anti-tank ditches, defence preparations were limited to coping with landings by parachute troops. A major attack by tank forces would have been overwhelming, but then Britain's tank ditch was the Channel.

I do not believe that London, or any other major city, would have become a Leningrad, or Stalingrad, otherwise there would have been much greater preparation made in terms of real defences. The Russians prepared miles of anti-tanks ditches and fighting trenches for defence against major assault. In Britain, trenches were dug as air-raid shelters and the concrete and brick 'pill boxes', which still litter the countryside, would not have stood against a serious attack.

The battle would have been won, or lost, at sea, or on the beaches.

London, or any other major British city, may not have become a Leningrad or Stalingrad, but I seriously doubt that London would have been declared an open city like Paris followed by a rapid capitulation. The nature of the British government was quite different from the French and British morale seems to have been far more robust than of the French who had lost the will to fight the Germans.

The British might have not been able to offer a sustainable resistance because they lacked the vast hinterland from which to draw upon manpower and resources. Inevitably the Germans would have probably prevailed as long as they were able to maintain lines of communications with the continent. That is a big if, because it is not at all certain that the Luftwaffe could have fully neutralized the Royal Navy and what ships that evaded the Luftwaffe would be able to interdict the soft targets of the German supply ships and would have had significant impact on the effectiveness of the German army operating in Britain.


I am not saying that London, or any other city in the UK would have been declared 'open', just that no meaningful preparations were being made. Anti-tank guns were not being dug-in at each street corner, the population was not being mobilised to dig defences, etc..

The British government was quite capable of organising and planning on a large scale, there was a plan, enacted as war started, to move 3,000,000 people out of major cities (only 1, 500,000 actually moved, because the rest refused), a major undertaking, which was completed in a few days. 337,000 troops were lifted from Dunkirk, in a staggering feat of improvisation and short notice planning.

The British government was fully capable of organising a last ditch defence of London, but they did not prepare for that eventuality, they prepared for what they expected to happen inland - parachute drop. All other meaningful preparations were confined to the beaches and the Channel, that was were the battle would take place, not in the cities.


Obviously, at the beaches is where, in the limited time they had to prepare for invasion, they would put most of their resources into stopping the Germans.

In the summer of 1940 their one intact and most powerful branch of the military was the Royal Navy. The army had been deprived of most its heavy weapons in France and the RAF had been badly bloodied in the fighting over France. The linchpin of the British strategy to defeat the German invasion was the Royal Navy.

But in the event that the RN and army failed to defeat the Germans at the initial point of invasion does not suggest that there would have been no further resistance in the interior of the country; regardless if they had not established prepared defensive positions in the interior. They still had an army in the field supported by territorial units; although they were poorly equipped they would have continued to resist.

Meanwhile other naval assets from around the empire would have been called back for the defense of the home islands. As long as they controlled the seas Britain had the means to continue resistance at home. There back was not truly up against the wall as long as the Royal Navy ruled the waves.



Rasputitsa -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/21/2011 12:07:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lascar
Obviously, at the beaches is where, in the limited time they had to prepare for invasion, they would put most of their resources into stopping the Germans.

In the summer of 1940 their one intact and most powerful branch of the military was the Royal Navy. The army had been deprived of most its heavy weapons in France and the RAF had been badly bloodied in the fighting over France. The linchpin of the British strategy to defeat the German invasion was the Royal Navy.

But in the event that the RN and army failed to defeat the Germans at the initial point of invasion does not suggest that there would have been no further resistance in the interior of the country; regardless if they had not established prepared defensive positions in the interior. They still had an army in the field supported by territorial units; although they were poorly equipped they would have continued to resist.

Meanwhile other naval assets from around the empire would have been called back for the defense of the home islands. As long as they controlled the seas Britain had the means to continue resistance at home. There back was not truly up against the wall as long as the Royal Navy ruled the waves.


The questions were :

How do you think citizens of London would react if the German army reach the town's outskirts?
Would they do everything to defend the city, or just give up?
Would the siege of London be similar to the siege of Leningrad?

All that you say is correct and I have made similar comments, but it does not address the original questions.

The real answer is we do not know, because it never happened, but I'm saying that as far as I know, no preparations were made to defend London, with any similarity to Leningrad, or Stalingrad. The citizens of London had no way of resisting a serious German assault, all preparations were directed against air attack and parachute landing.

Plans were made for military 'stop lines', with some defensive positions prepared, in the hills South of London and I never suggested that there would be no resistance in the interior of the country, just that the citizens were neither prepared, nor equipped to defend their towns and cities from a major attack.

Again this was not due to an inability to plan and mobilise, as 1000s of civilian observers were an essential part of the air defence system, providing a continuous flow of information on the movements of friendly and enemy aircraft, from prepared and equipped observer sites. These were an integral part of the RAF's network and operated in the inland areas not covered by radar, many more 10,000s of civilians spent their nights after work as fire watchers, and dozens of other air defence tasks.

The point being, that the British government was ready and able to mobilise and equip 100,000s of people, but the tasks were almost exclusively directed against air attack, which was were the danger was seen. It was not envisaged that there would need to be a mobilisation of civilians against a large scale land attack and no significant provisions were made for that.

Quite correctly as it turned out.





Lascar -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/21/2011 12:54:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lascar
Obviously, at the beaches is where, in the limited time they had to prepare for invasion, they would put most of their resources into stopping the Germans.

In the summer of 1940 their one intact and most powerful branch of the military was the Royal Navy. The army had been deprived of most its heavy weapons in France and the RAF had been badly bloodied in the fighting over France. The linchpin of the British strategy to defeat the German invasion was the Royal Navy.

But in the event that the RN and army failed to defeat the Germans at the initial point of invasion does not suggest that there would have been no further resistance in the interior of the country; regardless if they had not established prepared defensive positions in the interior. They still had an army in the field supported by territorial units; although they were poorly equipped they would have continued to resist.

Meanwhile other naval assets from around the empire would have been called back for the defense of the home islands. As long as they controlled the seas Britain had the means to continue resistance at home. There back was not truly up against the wall as long as the Royal Navy ruled the waves.


The questions were :

How do you think citizens of London would react if the German army reach the town's outskirts?
Would they do everything to defend the city, or just give up?
Would the siege of London be similar to the siege of Leningrad?

All that you say is correct and I have made similar comments, but it does not address the original questions.

The real answer is we do not know, because it never happened, but I'm saying that as far as I know, no preparations were made to defend London, with any similarity to Leningrad, or Stalingrad. The citizens of London had no way of resisting a serious German assault, all preparations were directed against air attack and parachute landing.

Plans were made for military 'stop lines', with some defensive positions prepared, in the hills South of London and I never suggested that there would be no resistance in the interior of the country, just that the citizens were neither prepared, nor equipped to defend their towns and cities from a major attack.

Again this was not due to an inability to plan and mobilise, as 1000s of civilian observers were an essential part of the air defence system, providing a continuous flow of information on the movements of friendly and enemy aircraft, from prepared and equipped observer sites. These were an integral part of the RAF's network and operated in the inland areas not covered by radar, many more 10,000s of civilians spent their nights after work as fire watchers, and dozens of other air defence tasks.

The point being, that the British government was ready and able to mobilise and equip 100,000s of people, but the tasks were almost exclusively directed against air attack, which was were the danger was seen. It was not envisaged that there would need to be a mobilisation of civilians against a large scale land attack and no significant provisions were made for that.

Quite correctly as it turned out.




Yes, my response has encompassed a larger question than just the defense of London. If doomtrader is simply concerned about the question of defense of London then I am not quite sure why that in and of itself would be an issue. Does the capture of London trigger some kind of surrender event?

Also, to what extent were civilians involved in the defense of Leningrad and Stalingrad? I have read of some amazing exploits of Soviet civilians manning the defenses of Stalingrad and Leningrad. Namely the young women volunteers of the 1077th Anti-Aircraft Regiment, which held up the advance of the 16th panzer division for the better part of the day, fighting to the last woman.

So is doomtrader thinking of a situation where there are none or very few army units in London with the bulk of the resistance coming from the civilians? In that case it seems that in the fall of 1940 the lack of weapons both civilian small arms and military arms would have made such a defense meager at best. In the case of Leningrad and Stalingrad they had actual armaments factories producing weapons in the midst of battle. So I would agree that London relying on some intrinsic defense strength (resistance of civilians) without the presence of regular army units would have had a low level of effective resistance but they would not simply give up at the approach of the Germans like the French.



paullus99 -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/21/2011 3:08:52 PM)

Actually, much of the wartime instructions to civilians were to stay put, go about their daily lives as best as possible & not intefere with military operations. I can't see a bunch of civilians being too handy against well-trained German soldiers.



Wolfe1759 -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/23/2011 8:15:33 PM)

Even well-trained German soldiers couldn't stand up to a charge by these defenders of London (and Walmington-on-Sea)[:D]



[image]local://upfiles/27984/45E4A42FB6A44C7887B955DD6507D198.jpg[/image]



Titanwarrior89 -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/23/2011 8:29:53 PM)

I think if the germans were ashore in Mass.  It would have been a done deal.  I think England would have declare London a open city.  I don't think it would have been a Leningrad or a Stalingrad.  Especially in 1940 and early 41 without the russian invasion.  I think the Brits would have put up a hard fight but in the end it would not have gone well for them.



Rasputitsa -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/23/2011 11:07:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

I think if the germans were ashore in Mass.  It would have been a done deal.  I think England would have declare London a open city.  I don't think it would have been a Leningrad or a Stalingrad.  Especially in 1940 and early 41 without the russian invasion.  I think the Brits would have put up a hard fight but in the end it would not have gone well for them.


The problem was not just getting across the Channel, but in keeping a supply line open. Many of the barges and ships that the Germans were going to use were adapted to carry military loads, but were not very seaworthy and once beached in England, to unload, may not have been able to be easily reused. With winter coming, it was essential that there be a very quick victory and as air superiority had not been won by September, it is difficult to see when the Germans could ever have made a successful crossing.

Which seems to indicate why the British government never took any serious steps to defend London to the last and as an admiral during the Napoleonic wars once said, 'I don't say that Napoleon can't come, I just say that he can't come by sea', the same applied to Hitler.





battlevonwar -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/24/2011 12:07:04 AM)

That is a very difficult question to answer. I remember when I lived in East Anglia we had a article covered on TV about the many pillboxes still there today that were made in haste due to the fear of an invasion, here is a link to one such site, and these were all over England, not near London alone. The whole Island would have been tough to easily chew up, unless the invasion came too early! http://www.pillbox-study-group.org.uk/tonyhendrypillboxpage.htm



Rasputitsa -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/24/2011 8:54:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar
That is a very difficult question to answer. I remember when I lived in East Anglia we had a article covered on TV about the many pillboxes still there today that were made in haste due to the fear of an invasion, here is a link to one such site, and these were all over England, not near London alone. The whole Island would have been tough to easily chew up, unless the invasion came too early! http://www.pillbox-study-group.org.uk/tonyhendrypillboxpage.htm


The pillboxes and obstacles which were installed in open areas were mainly intended as a defence against parachute troops and glider landing. They might have held up quite well against lightly armed paratroops, but they would not have had much impact on a serious ground attack by an invading force with heavy weapons. [:)]





aspqrz02 -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/24/2011 11:01:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa
The pillboxes and obstacles which were installed in open areas were mainly intended as a defence against parachute troops and glider landing. They might have held up quite well against lightly armed paratroops, but they would not have had much impact on a serious ground attack by an invading force with heavy weapons. [:)]


Of course, that depends on what you call "heavy weapons" ... you realise, of course, that the initial planning for Sealion had the *elements* of the Infantry divisions landed with only Mortars, and no heavier artillery. AFAIR at this period of the war, that means 81mm Mortars, as the German 120mm model was basically a copy of/or inspired by their contact with the Red Army during the opening stages of Barbarossa.

Even the later plans, the ones for elements of 12 Infantry divisions being landed (the equivalent of 3 divisions spread along the whole east coast from Dover south and west) initially, didn't have anything more than mortars for this stage ... and the followup wave was going to be, seriously, *three weeks later* ...

The Luftwaffe was supposed to be the artillery. And simultaneously fight off the RAF *and* the RN.

So maybe those pillboxes would have done better than you think under the actual circumstances on the ground.

The German planners were even somewhat worried by the presence of the Martello Towers erected by Henry VIII, IIRC [8D][:D]

Phil



battlevonwar -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/25/2011 6:26:26 AM)

From documentaries I watched as a boy until very recently I remember the ole drills of watching German Paratroopers loaded unto massive super gliders. The Germans were very innovative at getting things done. They even had light tanks in the nose. I'm sure anything is possible..(in small #s)

Imagine if you will a few SMGs, lots of Mausers, Grenades and perhaps if you were lucky LMGs... Imagine a silkscreen of divebombers. 20 miles of the awful questionable English Channel could have made it unlikely for anything but that. A few lbs in water sinks like an elephant! Ask a Navy Seal.

Although I hear that the RAF would have been moved North in the event of a real invasion, reserved for the inevitable. I heard that if the BEF was destroyed at Dunkirk there would be nothing left to fight the Germans at all. It would be just a cakewalk period...

We must assume the threat was very real though. Look at the way the English built up for it. Look at the Speeches, the Dogfights! 109s with 30 minutes to Rock N Roll over English territory until suitable landing strips were created!

This was a logistical nightmare for either side given different circumstances. So it's not impossible, just EXTREMELY expensive for either side. So much the Germans decided against it and the British were willing to pay their entire Fighter Defense for it.

"Londoners fighting? There are some pretty vicious and nationalistic men there. As bad as Americans or Russians? The Russians knew what was coming I don't think they were as naive as we think. I think they knew the Germans were bad by December '41. London could have been street fighting, that could have had tens of thousands of poorly equipped strong willed 14-65 year old men!"



aspqrz02 -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/25/2011 7:49:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar
From documentaries I watched as a boy until very recently I remember the ole drills of watching German Paratroopers loaded unto massive super gliders. The Germans were very innovative at getting things done. They even had light tanks in the nose. I'm sure anything is possible..(in small #s)


Pretty sure that what you saw has been misremembered. AFAIR the Germans didn't have light tanks designed to be used in Gliders. The Brits did, but they were basically useless ... and not available in 1940.

The Germans *did* have a big glider, the Me-321, from which the 6-engined Me-323 "Gigant" was developed. But, as far as I can tell, though it was the result of a 1940 design competition for a large Glider for Sealion, it didn't actually enter service until 1941, and not in large numbers at that time.

Both models had a maximum payload of 20 tons, give or take, and that precludes carrying anything larger than a Panzer I/II or, perhaps, a Panzer 38(t) [both weighing in at around 10 tons, whereas the Panzer III was c. 23-24 tons, and obviously too heavy) ... *if* the Me-321 had been available, which it wasn't.

All the Germans had for Sealion were a number of DFS-230's, with a payload of 1200 kg or 9 soldiers. And I don't think they had very many of those, as, for example, they were only able to muster *80* for the entire Marita-Merkur operation (the invasion of Crete).

Also, the reality was that the number of Ju-52's available for Sealion operations was much more limited than for Crete, for the simple, obvious, and rarely understood fact that the losses (damaged and destroyed) to the Ju-52 force in the operations against Holland, Belgium and etc. had savaged them ... and, indeed, of the (IIRC) 3 parachute Divisions (really Brigades, strength wise) available at the beginning of the operation, only one was still operationally viable at the end ... and there evidently weren't enough Ju-52s and Gliders to carry all of what was available, even these reduced numbers, all in one wave.

(Oh, and production of Ju-52s had, IIRC, ceased even before Fall Gelb, so operational losses couldn't even be replaced by new productiuon)

Of course, as the Battle of Britain progressed, the reorganisation of the Parachute Divisions and Ju-52 units rectified the situation somewhat, but never to the point where the Germans could manage an entire divisional (and these were small even by US/UK Airborne Divisional Standards, around 6-7k IIRC) drop with the resources available.

So, they *might* get a half division drop, or less, over the UK. Once. After that, well, what do you call Gliders and Glider Tugs and Ju-52s in general in disputed airspace?

Targets.

Dead targets.

Don't like the chances of the second and succeeding waves, no siree!

So, no tanks on Gliders.

quote:

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar
Although I hear that the RAF would have been moved North in the event of a real invasion, reserved for the inevitable. I heard that if the BEF was destroyed at Dunkirk there would be nothing left to fight the Germans at all. It would be just a cakewalk period...


Most people don't know that the RAF only committed three of five Groups against the Germans directly, and those three Groups only had 55% of the fighter strength.

So, even if the Germans *had* savaged the 3 Groups committed to the BoB, they'd only have been up against 55% of the RAF fighters.

The RAF plan was that, if the fighter strength of the three Groups committed was reduced to less than 50%, they'd withdraw north of the Luftwaffe Fighter range ... which would leave the RAF with 45% (uncommitted) plus 27.5% (half of the 55% committed) = 72.5% of their entire fighter strength and, therefore, actually *more* than they had committed originally, left to sortie south in the event of an invasion.

Now, the Germans, as is shown historically, couldn't even handle the 55%! With an additional 20%, and with the Luftwaffe now committed to Air Superiority PLUS Ground Support PLUS Anti-Surface Warfare *simultaneously*, 24/7 ... well, lets just say that it doesn't look good ... for the Luftwaffe [;)]

As for the BEF. Most people, back in 1940 as well as now, assume that 100% of the BEF was pocketed in the Dunkirk pocket and could, therefore, have been lost "if only" Hitler hadn't told the Panzers to halt.

Sadly, none of the above is true.

Around 45% (yes, again) of the BEF was *not* at Dunkirk and was never encircled. It was able to withdraw (mostly, not all, and not with a lot of their equipment) through the Breton ports about a month or six weeks later. So, no, the whole of the BEF wasn;t ever going to be lost.

As for whether all of what was in the Dunkirk pocket was losable, the assumption here is based on Hitler's (in)famous "Stop" order to the Panzers. Allegedly (postwar, mainly) the argument is that Hitler did this because he didn't want to destroy the BEF, somehow seeing this as a political ploy that would make Churchill more likely to negotiate.

"Rubbish" wouldn't be too strong a word for this theory. Mostly it's postwar justifications by German Generals blaming Hitler for every alleged mistake made during the entire war.

The reality is that the Panzer divisions had just about shot their bolt. Divisional records show that they had largely outrun their supply network, and were short on fuel, ammo and other supplies, and their ability to initiate another offensive was much reduced, if possible at all. The other thing that the German divisional records show is that the rate of traffic accidents amongst Tank and Truck (and other) drivers was skyrocketing ... because the units had been in virtually nonstop action since the beginning of the campaign and drivers were, quite literally, falling asleep at the wheel! So whether the soldiers would have been able to continue with another assault, given the poor supply situation, is also questionable.

Then there's the fact that the Panzer divisions had outrun the infantry. There's two issues here, the Panzers were more exploitation than breakthrough units ... the Infantry's heavy artillery was to provide the rupture through which the Panzers would then rumble. So they'd have been being asked to do something for which they were not really equipped, while short on supply and with exhausted soldiers.

Then there's the other problem ... their flanks were, quite literally, in the air ... nothing was securing them. Now, with the advantage of 20:20 hindsight we know now that the French, even their armoured formations, had well and truly shot their bolt and were, at best, able to offer limited resistance to attacks and had no hope at all of mounting another offensive such as the one led by De Gaulle at Arras (which has been much overblown in significance, but worried the Germans regardless), but neither the French nor the British nor the Germans knew that at the time. In fact, based on what the Germans *did* know, they were very worried about moving further ahead until the Infantry caught up.

So, in reality, the German generals in charge actually had stopped the advance, for good and sufficient reasons, and Hitler more or less formalised it when they explained their reasoning.

Even if they *had* resumed (or attempted to) their advance/attack, the likelihood is that it merely reduces the number of British and French (mainly French, indeed, as few people realise as well) soldiers that are evacuated rather than preventing it completely.

But say they did get most of the forces in the Dunkirk pocket ... that still leaves almost half still intact. A disaster, sure, but not an overwhelming one.

Then there's the issue of how many soldiers were in the UK at the time.

Lots.

And Lots.

And Lots and Lots and Lots.

More than were in France.

Much More.

Much Much More.

There was a whole, fully equipped, Canadian Division in the SE. A whole UK Armoured Division (not with the best tanks, but since the Germans weren't likely to have *any* at the beginning of the Sealion window, and the Brits were replacing their losses every week of delay ... IIRC even the final Sealion plan only planned on a dozen or so tanks being committed to the first wave ... and the second wave was to be *three weeks later* ... seriously! [8|]) was also in the area. There were several more fully equipped Brigades in the SE, and there were the equivalent of a dozen more divisions spread around the country, in various stages of training and equipment, but the UK would *always* have been able to outnumber any planned German invasion force from very early on ... even the final plan involved elements of 12 divisions in the first wave (and German divisions were anywhere between half and 2/3rds the manpower of British Divisions, and all British units were motorised ... the Germans were planning on bringing their horses with them, and one of the problems their planners faced was brining fodder enough for said horses over) ... or about 3 divisions in absolute strength, spread across the SE coast from Dover to Southhampton ... and the second wave would be *three weeks later*.

*THREE WEEKS LATER*

That was their *best* plan. And even that was, obviously, a fantasy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar
We must assume the threat was very real though. Look at the way the English built up for it. Look at the Speeches, the Dogfights! 109s with 30 minutes to Rock N Roll over English territory until suitable landing strips were created!


Nope. Not a real threat at all. Not even close.

Of course, all this is with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight. No-one at the time *knew* this for sure.

I suspect the British had a fair idea of the problems the Germans were likely to face ... they mainly feared a coup de main, and even that wasn't (as we now know) very likely at all.

The Kriegsmarine seem to have had a pretty fair idea that it was impossible.

The Wehrmacht? Not so obviously sure as the Kriegsmarine, and perhaps thinking it might work.

The Luftwaffe? Well, Goering professed to think it possible ... but he was a blowhard. I suspect the rest of the Luftwaffe may have been somewhat more sanguine at their chances.

quote:

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar
This was a logistical nightmare for either side given different circumstances. So it's not impossible, just EXTREMELY expensive for either side. So much the Germans decided against it and the British were willing to pay their entire Fighter Defense for it.

"Londoners fighting? There are some pretty vicious and nationalistic men there. As bad as Americans or Russians? The Russians knew what was coming I don't think they were as naive as we think. I think they knew the Germans were bad by December '41. London could have been street fighting, that could have had tens of thousands of poorly equipped strong willed 14-65 year old men!"


Nope. 27.5% of their fighter strength ;-)

I seriously doubt any significant number of Germans would have gotten anywhere near the streets of London except, perhaps, passing through them on the way to POW camps [:)][:D]

Phil



Greyshaft -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/25/2011 9:46:00 AM)

I think there is a bit more to say about Fighter Command.

During the Battle of Britain their were only four effective Fighter Groups, each controlling a different part of the UK. 11 Group took the brunt of the German attack, as it controlled southeast England and London. It was reinforced by 10 Group, which covered southwest England, 12 Group, which covered the Midlands and East Anglia and 13 Group which covered the North of England and Scotland.

So what about 14 Group? On 20 January 1940 No. 60 Wing in the British Expeditionary Force was raised to Group level as No. 14 Group. The Group was then disbanded on 22 June. However a few days later it was reformed in Fighter Command to provide cover for Scotland. The Group was disbanded on 15 July 1943. This Group was never a serious operational command in the same league as the other well established Groups. It was based around the squadrons returning from France (remember the BEF?) and it had additional Fleet Air Arm squadrons allocated to it for a while. It was based in the Petershead/Dyce area of northern Scotland but IMHO it was more of an administrative shuffle rather than a serious attempt to create another Fighter Group.

In addition Richard Sauls 13 Group in the north rarely got to fly their planes in anger. "On August the 15th 1940 the German air force attempted its one and only daylight flank attack on Northern England. North East England was attacked by 65 Heinkel 111s escorted by 34 Messerschmitt 110s, and RAF Great Driffield was attacked by 50 unescorted Junkers 88s. Out of 115 bombers and 35 fighters sent over 16 bombers and 7 fighters were destroyed"

In any event the individual squadrons were transferred between Groups as required to allow the burned out fighters of 11 Group to get some R&R during a spell in 12 or 13 Group. The Groups controlled the airfields and they only controlled the squadrons while those squadrons were based at airfields within that Groups territory. What this means is that 12 and 13 Group were not composed of completely 'fresh' units waiting to be let loose into the battle - they had a high proportion of squadrons who were just as weary and war-torn as the squadrons currently based on the front line in 11 Group.

So the real strength of Fighter Command over any German bridgehead was never based on a percentage of RAF squadrons allocated to 10 and 11 Group but rather on the number of effective squadrons that were available at all Groups. You may consider this to be splitting hairs but I think its a key point. You say ...
quote:

The RAF plan was that, if the fighter strength of the three Groups committed was reduced to less than 50%, they'd withdraw north of the Luftwaffe Fighter range ... which would leave the RAF with 45% (uncommitted) plus 27.5% (half of the 55% committed) = 72.5% of their entire fighter strength and, therefore, actually *more* than they had committed originally, left to sortie south in the event of an invasion.


... while I say that the "uncommitted" 45% in the north were not all fresh units and that if the 55% in the south HAD been reduced to less than 50% strength then they could hardly have been relied on as 'Category A' units. In this case the remaining half of 55% may well have been totally unfit for battle - you can scramble the squadrons but would they still fight effectively having lost half of their strength? I don't think morale works on a linear reduction method. Once it cracks it is completely gone and the fighting man runs for cover as fast as his overworked Merlin engine will carry him.

OTOH we also need to consider that RAF Training Command held an additional reserve of highly skilled instructor pilots. These pilots were the cream of Fighter Command and were withdrawn from active duty as required to assist in the training of the next generation of pilots. If the Germans had landed you can bet that classes would have been suspended for a month as all of these pilots were transferred back into the battle.

My point is that using precise statistics is very misleading. This was a very complicated situation and I doubt anyone will ever be able to untangle the ball of string and arrive at the "correct" figure (which would have changed on a daily basis anyway). So aspqrz, I agree with the thrust of your argument that Fighter Command could have mounted an effective "maximum effort" assault on any German bridgehead and for what its worth I believe that they would have won the day against the Luftwaffe. I just think your numbers are open to debate (in the friendliest possible way)


BTW: all quotes in italics are from Wikipedia. Now I agree that Wikipedia is hardly an authoritative reference but those quotes agrees with my other references and its easier to cut and paste from Wikipedia than to retype from a hardcover book.



aspqrz02 -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/25/2011 1:06:48 PM)

Indeed, you are quite correct.

However, the problem is that the Germans were almost certainly not able to react as quickly to any withdrawal by the Groups involved as would be needed to stage the invasion.

Depending on the point at which they manage to force the withdrawal of the RAF ... which, of course, they never actually achieved, which should be remembered ... you need to consider how quickly they would have been able to load the troops slated for the operation onto whatever vessels they had available at that point. And, IIRC, they never did assemble all the troops allegedly committed all that close to the ports where the vessels to be used were being gathered.

Since they cannot predict in advance that when, or even if (*they* didn't know what the Brit plans were, after all!), the RAF will withdraw, they don't really have a capacity to load the barges and boats all that quickly ... I'd guess several days, more likely several weeks ... which brings us to the *other* part of the RAF plan.

The RAF wasn't planning to simply run away, tail between legs and remain beaten ... they were planning to rest, train, re-equip and build up their forces and go back south again *as soon as possible* ... given that the Brits were outproducing the Germans in numbers of aircraft *and*, more importantly, out-training them in number of pilots, pretty much every day during the Battle, even a couple of weeks delay would mean that the RAF would be able to return south considerably better off than when they had withdrawn.

Then the Germans have a serious problem.

Their "plan", such as it was, *always*, in *every* version, relied not just on the Luftwaffe attaining air superiority, but on the Luftwaffe attaining air *supremacy* ...

The former wasn't enough, as it implies that your opponent is still there, but overmatched more often than not ... the latter means that the opponent has been *destroyed* to all intents and purposes.

Why was this necessary?

Well, for the simple reason that *all* iterations of Sealion required the Luftwaffe to do *three* separate things *simultaneously* ...

* Maintain Air Supremacy (see above)

* Act as artillery for the Wehrmacht, as they had no way of getting artillery support ashore with the first wave ... or, indeed, for a long time thereafter ... and *none* of the plans allowed for this to be achieved in the first wave.

* Prevent the RN and RAF from destroying the Kriegsmarine and the invasion barges and etc.

But the problem was that the Luftwaffe couldn't perform all three functions, it simply wasn't a big enough force and wasn't equipped and trained to do all of them in the strength needed.

For example, there weren't enough Stukas to act as Artillery. The medium bombers were less than useful in this role, comparatively. And the Fighters, apart from their small potential bombload ... well, they have to maintain air supremacy, so cannot be used because the Luftwaffe was simply never capable of destroying the RAF.

But there's more!

While the Stukas and medium bombers are *entirely* committed to providing artillery support to the ground forces, they *also*, simultaneously, have to sink the RN ... I could point out that the Luftwaffe, in 1940, had exactly *one* Squadron trained and equipped for aeronaval warfare. *One* squadron.

Oh. And the torpedoes they were equipped with? Broke up or otherwise failed completely in the overwhelming number of launches ... in the end they solved the problem (out of BoB/Sealion timeframe) by buying *Italian* torpedoes.

Level bombers, as pretty much everyone involved in WW2 found, unless specially trained for aeronaval attack, are pretty much useless for sinking any sort of ship.

Dive Bombers, well, again, unless they're trained for it, they're better than level bombers, but still piss poor. Luftwaffe Stukas *did* sink RN vessels off Crete ... usually, however, only when they'd shot off all their AA ammo. One of the RN ships actually kept the Stukas at bay, and survived, by firing *practise* ammo, which did nothing but make pretty smoke puffs, at the attacking Stukas.

And, of course, the Stukas are already fully committed to the artillery support of the invading ground forces.

Consider the two main Sealion variants ... the earlier one involved sending the troops across largely in unpowered, towed, Rhine River Barges ... and, from the ports where they were stationed, it was approximately a 48 hour *one way* trip at the top speed at which they could be towed by the vessels available ... which means that, no matter how they cut it, there are at least two night periods *each way* that they'd have to be "at sea" ...

The Luftwaffe's record of successful aero-naval attacks at *night*?

Pretty close to, if not, zero.

So, the RN remains north of the Luftwaffe's daylight escorted bomber range and sorties south to hit the invasion barges, coming and going, and gets two bites at them *each way*, withdrawing north before the Luftwaffe can attack them each morning ... and we're talking ships that can do 30 kts, compared to barges which could manage 3-4 kts here, remember.

Now, one of the reasons that the Barges were so slow was because they were unpowered, most of them, and had to be towed, and there simply weren't enough powered barges and/or potential towing ships to pull them at greater speeds ... but *another* reason was that the Germans found that their low freeboard (no more than 18 inches, and often as little as six inches) meant that towing them at higher speeds led to the wake of the tow vessel, or of the barges themselves, slopping over the sides and, potentially, rapidly sinking the barge.

So, one planned RN method of dealing with them was simply to do a high speed pass against a line of them, and watch them be swamped ... and since access to them was often restricted, and the soldiers were deep inside, one could assume a lot of soldiers drowning before they could get out ... oh, and the Kriegsmarine found they could only provide one trained sailor or less per Barge, compounding the problem.

I suspect, of course, that considering the RN was pretty fair at night gunnery, though not up to Japanese standards, perhaps, that being swamped by the wake of the passing RN warships would have been the least of the problems the barges would be facing.

Did I mention that they would have been attackable at night *twice* in *each* direction?

So, yes, they might get one wave ashore ... but the savaging they'd get in withdrawing and attempting a resupply ... which couldn't be done in less than a week, would be debilitating to the point of making it impossible.

Their second brilliant plan was to wait *three weeks* between the first wave and the second, with *no* intervening attempt to resupply ... and the problem with that should be obvious.

So, really, there are so many things wrong with Sealion in real world terms that it is simply a joke to take it seriously.

In fact, it's been discussed to death on soc.history.what-if, where I often hang out, and the most believable suggestion for German victory involved the use of millions of tons of jello dumped by the Germans into the Channel so they could drive across

[:D][:D][:D]

Phil



Lascar -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/25/2011 8:17:28 PM)

Phil,

You present a compelling case how operation Sealion could never have been more than a bluff by the Germans. I recall seeing a documentary several years ago that had discovered some documents in the German archives that demonstrated just that. If it took the British and Americans more than two years to build up sufficient forces for Overlord, with the vast industrial might of the U.S.A. behind it, it is fanciful to believe that the Germans could have pulled off an impromptu Jerry-rigged invasion in 1940, even against a British army trying to recover from Dunkirk. Even if the RAF had been totally annihilated it is hard to see how the Luftwaffe could have kept a determined Royal Navy from entering the channel ravaging the Germans invasion barges. It would have been a slaughter.

The question as to whether the civilians of London would have resisted a German attack is really besides the point. The point being that operation Sealion in 1940 was simply not possible.



Greyshaft -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/25/2011 8:28:17 PM)

Personally I believe that the best German strategy for late 1040 would have been a holding action in the BoB and to divert all resources to a push on Egypt and beyond. Control of the Arabian oil fields would have solved a lot of German problems.



battlevonwar -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/25/2011 11:42:20 PM)

Interesting statistics :: eyes get wide :: you're a true buff to the core. I started a book earlier this year about the invasion of Poland. It was something else, I don't recall the feeling I was getting from it. They seemed to praise the German Generals and share the dread that they had for this invasion, it may been the men on the ground, not just drills.In terms of statistics, talk about nightmares? Which was a worse choice? To lose outright a million men in the Channel to the Royal Navy or many millions to a long protracted war, you could never win. My whole feeling was sue for peace and pray that you kept most of your winnings.

I have to agree with the United Kingdom being a near impossible target. Fun to imagine though in a game and we know from History, no plan is perfect, no one statistic means everything. Gambling was a German Virtue. :) they won a lot of territory due to it

~if in this game the RAF commits everything and the Royal Navy runs off to fight elsewhere, i.e. protecting from the real threat, U-boats, aid Allied Invasions too early in the war....then the consequence should be a possible Sea Lion. To keep the Brits Honest.




Greyshaft -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/26/2011 1:36:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar
~if in this game the RAF commits everything and the Royal Navy runs off to fight elsewhere, i.e. protecting from the real threat, U-boats, aid Allied Invasions too early in the war....then the consequence should be a possible Sea Lion. To keep the Brits Honest.


RAF doesn't really matter once you get ashore. It's easy enough to recon their locations then strafe them with your own fighters or overrun them with Panzers.

The RN should be the impenatrable Channel shield perhaps 30% of the time with varying levels of response for the other 70% of the time.



Lascar -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/26/2011 2:49:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

Personally I believe that the best German strategy for late 1040 would have been a holding action in the BoB and to divert all resources to a push on Egypt and beyond. Control of the Arabian oil fields would have solved a lot of German problems.

You are quite right about that. The Germans had not "earned" the right to invade England in 1940. They simply hadn't built up the necessary sea-lift,amphibious capability and naval and air power to pull of a credible invasion. It takes a lot of time and hard effort to prepare for something like that.

The only viable strategy the Germans could have had against Britain in 1940 to 41 would have been to blockade Britain with the Kriegsmarine with support by the Luftwaffe (and equipping and training Luftwaffe units to effectively operate against ships at sea) They could have effectively neutralized Britain with an aggressive blockade while devoting sufficient forces to an aggressive Mediterranean strategy. Take or at least neutralize Malta, pressure Franco to cooperate in the capture of Gibraltar, support the Italian army fully in their drive on Egypt and once in the Middle east securing the Iraq oil fields and also threaten British access to the Persian fields. Meanwhile they are giving priority to U-boat construction and to building up the strength of the Luftwaffe. This of course would have meant postponing Barbarossa for a post 1941 start date.

In this position Britain might have had to come to terms without the Germans having to invade. The Germans would have been in a superior strategic position that would have allowed them to expand their production of panzers and vehicles for a more fully mechanized army, because they would have had adequate oil supplies. The USSR would have been threatened from the south which may even had encouraged Turkey to join the Axis once the Germans and Italians had conquered the middle east.

This is a viable war wining strategy for Germany that is also in alignment with the constraints facing Germany in 1940. The ease that operation Sealion seems to be pulled off ToF in 1940 may be fun in a fantasy sort of way but it really is coming off as more of a cheat that doesn't make the player really prepare and work for it. Sealion should be possible at a later date...1941 or whatever, but the German player should have to make hard choices and plan for it and not have it handed to him on a silver platter.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.1875