Jump to content


If Dunkirk failed?

Dunkirk

  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

Cruiser Abukuma #21 Posted 25 July 2017 - 12:23 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 17137 battles
  • 12,072
  • [KMD]
  • Member since:
    08-10-2013

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 24 July 2017 - 07:02 PM, said:

Yeah, Sea Lion was postponed several times, because it was a stupid plan, which had no chance of working. They were going to use river barges (only half of which had engines) to try and cross the strait for god's sake. How the German navy & airforce expected to stop the Royal Navy from annihilating that flotilla is a mystery. The wake of a destroyer sailing past probably could have sunk half of them.

 

Of the 12 American carriers lost in WWII, one was sunk by naval gunfire. Of the 20 Japanese carriers lost in WWII, one was sunk by naval gunfire. At least 24 battleships were sunk by aircraft. Clearly, battleships were not well suited for fighting aircraft carriers. If you want a real life example of how a carrier-based fleet renders a BB-based fleet superfluous, you might want to turn your attention to the Pacific theatre of WWII. If Germany cared to gather their entire fleet of Tirpitz, Bismarck, Scharnhorst& Gneisnau, all of the Hipper-class, and as many destroyer flotillas as they could manage, they would still be entirely defenseless against an American carrier task force, which could bring as many as 1000 planes to battle, and be entirely unable to retalitate against those carriers, which would be safely 100's of km away. 

 

Again, we know this, because the Japanese (who were approximately 1,000,000x more competant at sea than Germany) had a significantly superior fleet to that described above (Tirpitz and Bismarck are pathetic compared to Yamato and Musashi, amazingly having more armour by mass, while having hugely inferior protection), including the best naval aviators in the world, and still were crushed by the Americans.

 

Clearly, I'm talking to a weeb who doesn't know enough about Japanese history to understand how thoroughly useless Germany's fleet would have been in a battle between carrier-based navies. Maybe, instead of reading 'alt-history', you should try reading real history first. But don't let me dissuade you, tell me more about how Japan and Germany could have won WWII. 

Sure, if the Luftwaffe had continued to attack RAF bases, they hypothetically could have made it impossible for them to base out of southern England. They could achieve some superiority in the air, because the RAF would at least then be basing as far away from the battle as the Luftwaffe was, and possibly Britain would have had significantly more trouble bombing Germany because of the increased range. (Tho idk the specifics) But the idea that the Luftwaffe would be able to achieve the kind of dominance that the allies had over France in 1944 is a fantasy. 

and then you realize the americans didnt have an actual navy in the atlantic because they were heavily focused in the pacific... and by the time they repositioned.. the german fleet wouldve already suceeded... sea lion wouldve suceeded, etc etc... Britain wouldve had to have surrender had it not been for miscalls on hitlers part.. until you get some real facts... dont argue

 


 

Looking For A Clan That Openly Accepts Anime And Was Founded On It?

Then Join The Kuromorimine Mechanized Division, The Largest and Best Anime Clan On Xbox!!

Want More Information? Then PM Myself Right Here On The Forums!!


Matthew J35U5 #22 Posted 25 July 2017 - 02:54 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostCruiser Abukuma, on 24 July 2017 - 07:23 PM, said:

and then you realize the americans didnt have an actual navy in the atlantic because they were heavily focused in the pacific... and by the time they repositioned.. the german fleet wouldve already suceeded... sea lion wouldve suceeded, etc etc... Britain wouldve had to have surrender had it not been for miscalls on hitlers part.. until you get some real facts... dont argue

 

Lol. 

View PostCruiser Abukuma, on 19 July 2017 - 04:07 AM, said:

 Now assuming this didn't take until 1945, i'm fairly certain that Italy would also still be on the axis side at this point, and both the german and italian navies would send help to japan.. which would ultimately seal the fate for the u.s. Alternate timelines are my specialty..

In real life you might be able to get away with reframing your argument to suit yourself, but on a forum, there are copies of all of your posts. The two major points of contention were that:

a) Germany had no ability to carry out Sea Lion, due to the British

b) Even if Germany had successfully defeated Britain, they had no ability to meaningfully assist the Japanese against the Americans, because their 'navy' was worse than useless against American airpower. (And the whole thing about how the Pacific is a little far from Wilhemshaven...)

 

So, would you like to address either of these? Tell me how Germany would have been able to invade Britain using river barges (of which only half had engines!), and keep their army supplied, and supply their necessary heavy equipment, and keep either the Royal Navy, or the RAF from sinking all of their boats? Also, you've gone from 'german navy could fite us carriers' to 'america no able to fite german navy'. Should I take that as an admission that the German navy would have been eradicated had it dared challenge an American carrier task force, as you had initially claimed it would be able to?

 

Pls include facts in your reply, rather than rhetorical back-peddling.

 

 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


Greyhounds away #23 Posted 25 July 2017 - 05:25 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 26792 battles
  • 365
  • [PZ512]
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013

View PostSadriel Fett, on 19 July 2017 - 02:58 AM, said:

Do you mean our war time supply lines to Russia?  Because, since the Germans had most of the North Atlantic and the Baltic Sea bottled up pretty good and the Japanese Navy pretty much controlled the Pacific, the majority of our supply lines to Russia during the war was through the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf, through Iran.  The Allies actually had to build up and help upgrade a lot of those older ports and the infrastructure roadways through central Iran to transport most of the stuff up to Western Russia.  So, a lot of those ports they launch their ships from now that harass our own Navy boats in the Persian Gulf were built up by us during WWII.  Ain't that some sh*t?  How's that for gratitude?   :teethhappy: 

 

 

 

I enjoyed your post, but you are only telling part of the story.  Although the Arabian Persian Gulf route you mentioned was critical, it was statistically equal to the American-British-Canadian maritime suppy route.  The American-British-Canadian Artic run supply lines to Russia up through Archangel and Murmansk accounted for over 3,964,000 tons of supplies to Russia; approximately 23%.  The Persian Gulf-Arabian route accounted for 4,160,000 tons of supplies to Russia for a total of approximately 27% of the supplies received.


 

Again, I did enjoy your post.


 


Metalrodent #24 Posted 25 July 2017 - 06:41 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 10186 battles
  • 14,432
  • [KMD]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

I think people are also missing the point that Britain had an empire.

 

Churchill probably would have ordered Britain to be defended pretty much to the death, but irregardless of that even if the Uk had to surrender it, like France, had much over-ses territory and units available.

 

In the event of the loss of the RN bases at home, it's quite logical to assume that much of the surviving fleet would have moved to the Far East. (Indeed before Italy declared war the plan was that in the event of Japanese attack much of the fleet was to be moved to combat them.


<a data-cke-saved-href='http://i.imgur.com/sCeAbYa.gif' href='http://i.imgur.com/sCeAbYa.gif' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/sCeAbYa.gif</a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s...sCeAbYa.gif</a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s...bYa.gif</a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s...gif</a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'>http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>

There’s a mask upon my face
I can’t live without
So you won’t recognize me
When I am in the crowd


Sadriel Fett #25 Posted 25 July 2017 - 08:11 AM

    Major

  • Supertest - Xbox One
  • 28229 battles
  • 5,241
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostGreyhounds away, on 25 July 2017 - 01:25 AM, said:

 

 

I enjoyed your post, but you are only telling part of the story.  Although the Arabian Persian Gulf route you mentioned was critical, it was statistically equal to the American-British-Canadian maritime suppy route.  The American-British-Canadian Artic run supply lines to Russia up through Archangel and Murmansk accounted for over 3,964,000 tons of supplies to Russia; approximately 23%.  The Persian Gulf-Arabian route accounted for 4,160,000 tons of supplies to Russia for a total of approximately 27% of the supplies received.


 

Again, I did enjoy your post.

 

Didn't realize they were able to ship that much down from the North.  I'd been reading about the logistics of a lot of the supplies we sent over.  It's amazing how much stuff we sent to Russia.  Even more amazing how much that got through.  Just so they could keep Germany occupied long enough for us to finally invade France.  The sheer amount of infrastructure we had to build up in some countries just to be able to transport it all is mind boggling.  It's amazing how much our efforts in fighting the Germans had such repercussions decades later when it came to stabilizing (and destabilizing) different parts of the Middle East.  Some, you could sort of see what might happen, others there was just no way to have foreseen how the Allies involvement would play out like it did in that part of the world.  I guess, "No good deed..." and all that.


 

~ "This game would be great, if it wasn't for our teammates." ~

~ There's no such thing as Arty Safe. You have to play Arty Aware. You have to play SmArty. ~


Panthergraf #26 Posted 25 July 2017 - 09:21 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 36859 battles
  • 1,504
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

Ten minutes of reading about Weserübung, the invasion of Norway are enough to recognize that Sea Lion was pure fantasy. Hitler knew it, the german Navy knew it. The german surface fleet, especially the Destroyers, suffered irreversible losses during Weserübung. A fleet that can't handle rough weather can't handle the RN.

Even if the french fleet wasn't sunk or scuttled but pressed in german service and the Italians were added and the BoB won - no chance. Not even if the british were surprised with their pants down (Cerberus channel dash comes to mind).

 

The Kriegsmarine (minus U-Boats) wasn't a factor like in WWI.



Matthew J35U5 #27 Posted 25 July 2017 - 09:26 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostSadriel Fett, on 25 July 2017 - 03:11 AM, said:

 

.  Just so they could keep Germany occupied long enough for us to finally invade France. 

I don't think I would characterize it quite like that. 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


bmick85 #28 Posted 28 July 2017 - 04:47 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 27014 battles
  • 2,482
  • [MCWLF]
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013

as a history major, I will chime in on this.  Had all 340K soldiers been captured, Germany would still easily lose the war.

Here is why:

  • You still have all British Common Wealth countries to answer the call to Queen and Country
  • USA 
  • Russia
  • Holocaust: the manpower and resources to exterminate the Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals of Europe used vast amounts of fuel, steel and manpower.  Had the Holocaust not happened and Dunkirk succeeded, then a sliver of a chance could Germany had some negotiating power to call an armistice and keep the land they won like Poland and France, but the fuel issue and the attrition rate of 2 fronts lead to their ultimate defeat.  


aGundamDownHere #29 Posted 01 August 2017 - 05:02 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 16524 battles
  • 2,670
  • Member since:
    02-24-2014

View Postbmick85, on 28 July 2017 - 11:47 AM, said:

as a history major, I will chime in on this.  Had all 340K soldiers been captured, Germany would still easily lose the war.

Here is why:

  • You still have all British Common Wealth countries to answer the call to Queen and Country
  • USA 
  • Russia
  • Holocaust: the manpower and resources to exterminate the Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals of Europe used vast amounts of fuel, steel and manpower.  Had the Holocaust not happened and Dunkirk succeeded, then a sliver of a chance could Germany had some negotiating power to call an armistice and keep the land they won like Poland and France, but the fuel issue and the attrition rate of 2 fronts lead to their ultimate defeat.  

 

Problems with the that argument:

-If Dunkirk had failed, it would have been a major blow to the morale of the entire Commonwealth.  Nazi Germany had been in discussion with several nations to try and pressure them into taking sides, switching sides, or staying out of the war altogether. For instance, they tried to convince Mexico to attack the US in order to draw off US troops from the war effort. It's difficult to tell if a loss at Dunkirk would have shaken colonial morale enough to for members of the Commonwealth to jump ship, but remember that Dunkirk wasn't a victory. It was a successful ending to an otherwise complete military failure. Had it been a complete fiasco resulting in 400,000 soldiers being killed or capture, I can easily imagine British colonies not volunteering to join the fight, or switching their allegiance. Fascist Spain, for instance, might have decided to join the Axis rather than remain neutral during the war.

 

-The US wasn't entirely thrilled after France surrendered and Britain limped away with a bloody nose. Imagine if Britain had lost nearly its entire army in the disastrous "defense" of France. Isolationism was high in the US at the time, and there were plenty of people who either didn't mind the Nazis or even agreed with them. (Little known fact: Henry Ford bought a copy of Mein Kampf for all his employees and considered it required reading.) Churchill also knew that the US was hesitant to even send the British supplies to fight the war, never mind joining in the conflict at all. Roosevelt also didn't feel like sending the British material aid that would just wind up at bottom of the ocean or in the hands of the Nazis. The US could simply have withdrawn its support of Britain and sued the Axis for peace.

 

-Russia: Most of Germany's casualties on the Eastern Front resulted from the failure to take Stalingrad before winter set in and during their chaotic retreat from the Russian counterattack. They initially advanced so far because they were able to catch Stalin by surprise in a three-prong attack. In real life, German forces could arguably have made it all the way to Moscow if Hitler hadn't decided to divert soldiers from the push to Moscow and relocate them to taking Stalingrad. In this theoretical, without having to worry as much about an attack from the West, he wouldn't have had to take men away from the attack on Moscow. He may even have taken Stalingrad as well, which would have destroyed Soviet morale while Germany's skyrocketed.

 

There are a lot of unknowns, but never underestimate the role morale plays in war. If Dunkirk had failed, all the Allies would have felt that loss. And the Axis didn't exactly want a war with America. They envisioned a world that was divided into three parts: Germany would control all of Europe and Africa, Japan would rule over Asia, and America's sphere of influence would be both North and South America.


Be verbose - you have a vocabulary for a reason.

 

Good with words; bad with tanks. At least I can talk you to death.

 

Required Reading: https://leadershipfr...-like-a-leader/


Panthergraf #30 Posted 01 August 2017 - 05:11 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 36859 battles
  • 1,504
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014
Moscow was 41 and it wasn't a chaotic retreat. Stalingrad was a year later.

aGundamDownHere #31 Posted 01 August 2017 - 05:37 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 16524 battles
  • 2,670
  • Member since:
    02-24-2014

View PostPanthergraf, on 01 August 2017 - 12:11 PM, said:

Moscow was 41 and it wasn't a chaotic retreat. Stalingrad was a year later.

 

Hmm, seems my dates were mixed up. Full disclosure: I'm an English grad, not a History grad.

Be verbose - you have a vocabulary for a reason.

 

Good with words; bad with tanks. At least I can talk you to death.

 

Required Reading: https://leadershipfr...-like-a-leader/


KaitoGhost #32 Posted 01 August 2017 - 09:45 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 4588 battles
  • 4,824
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    01-07-2015

View PostCruiser Abukuma, on 22 July 2017 - 08:12 AM, said:

 

lol wat... the RAF wasn't even close to full fighting force when the original beginning was supposed to take place.. This of course being back when the RAF were seeking reinforcements from the U.S.. However the actual invasion got postponed multiple times allowing great britain to bolster the RAF.. Had everything took place on time the RAF would have been scrambling and would've succumbed..  as for your bb fleet theory... That's not entirely true.. It depends of fleet composition. And if you are going to go the extra mile and try to say the RAF taking out bismarck is proof.. i'd reccomend you look back at what happened when bismarck wasnt by herself and or with one to two back up ships.. case in point the glorious loss that was the hood.. Had germany had their active fleet all together.. not their entire fleet mind you.. so take bismarck, tirpitz, the hipper class, and even their carriers which they did have mind you.. including graf zeppelin and her unfortunate fate.. you'd have a whole different story... I don't think you realize who you are arguing with here.. In regards to ways germany or japan couldve won the war.. I have many... The battle of britain being one of them... but please keep making your argument as it interests me to see people who disagree with these statements and try to have their own form of an argument

 

Germany may have had carriers (mostly imcomplete), but they lacked carrier aircraft.  The luftwaffe did not get along with the kriegsmarine at all, and only gave them a scant handful of planes grudgingly.  So Germany's carriers would have been about as effective as the IJNs carriers during Leyte Gulf.

 

Also, we know exactly who we are dealing with, and have bashed our heads against the wall enough times to sufficiently lower ourselves down to your level of intellect.



bmick85 #33 Posted 02 August 2017 - 02:54 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 27014 battles
  • 2,482
  • [MCWLF]
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013

View PostaGundamDownHere, on 01 August 2017 - 11:02 AM, said:

 

Problems with the that argument:

-If Dunkirk had failed, it would have been a major blow to the morale of the entire Commonwealth.  Nazi Germany had been in discussion with several nations to try and pressure them into taking sides, switching sides, or staying out of the war altogether. For instance, they tried to convince Mexico to attack the US in order to draw off US troops from the war effort. It's difficult to tell if a loss at Dunkirk would have shaken colonial morale enough to for members of the Commonwealth to jump ship, but remember that Dunkirk wasn't a victory. It was a successful ending to an otherwise complete military failure. Had it been a complete fiasco resulting in 400,000 soldiers being killed or capture, I can easily imagine British colonies not volunteering to join the fight, or switching their allegiance. Fascist Spain, for instance, might have decided to join the Axis rather than remain neutral during the war.

 

-The US wasn't entirely thrilled after France surrendered and Britain limped away with a bloody nose. Imagine if Britain had lost nearly its entire army in the disastrous "defense" of France. Isolationism was high in the US at the time, and there were plenty of people who either didn't mind the Nazis or even agreed with them. (Little known fact: Henry Ford bought a copy of Mein Kampf for all his employees and considered it required reading.) Churchill also knew that the US was hesitant to even send the British supplies to fight the war, never mind joining in the conflict at all. Roosevelt also didn't feel like sending the British material aid that would just wind up at bottom of the ocean or in the hands of the Nazis. The US could simply have withdrawn its support of Britain and sued the Axis for peace.

 

-Russia: Most of Germany's casualties on the Eastern Front resulted from the failure to take Stalingrad before winter set in and during their chaotic retreat from the Russian counterattack. They initially advanced so far because they were able to catch Stalin by surprise in a three-prong attack. In real life, German forces could arguably have made it all the way to Moscow if Hitler hadn't decided to divert soldiers from the push to Moscow and relocate them to taking Stalingrad. In this theoretical, without having to worry as much about an attack from the West, he wouldn't have had to take men away from the attack on Moscow. He may even have taken Stalingrad as well, which would have destroyed Soviet morale while Germany's skyrocketed.

 

There are a lot of unknowns, but never underestimate the role morale plays in war. If Dunkirk had failed, all the Allies would have felt that loss. And the Axis didn't exactly want a war with America. They envisioned a world that was divided into three parts: Germany would control all of Europe and Africa, Japan would rule over Asia, and America's sphere of influence would be both North and South America.

I counter your argument, 

  • A true defeat at Dunkirk would have boosted morale to defeat Germany even more, would have put more pressure on the US..avenge our Tommies!! 
  • Then you have Pearl Harbor still..USA declared war on Axis powers thus the "sleeping giant" was awoken 
  • Russia, your statement is based on big what if...but numbers dont lie..USSR had fuel, man power and machinery to outlast Germany regardless if half retarded Hitler didnt muck up the tactics of Moscow or Stalingrad, cant win a war so far from home and a thin supply line, plus the USA was sending massive amounts of resources to help Russia 
  • North Africa, Britain already had a force there, so the 340K Dunkirk soldiers were not apart of the Africa campaign, they were already staged and in place on June 4th, which is when Dunkirk officially evacuated. So when Africa was over if freed up 300,000 BCW soldiers 


Metalrodent #34 Posted 02 August 2017 - 05:01 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 10186 battles
  • 14,432
  • [KMD]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostaGundamDownHere, on 01 August 2017 - 06:02 PM, said:

 

Japan would rule over Asia

 

Actually I'm bringing this up as an interesting point, because it might not be true.

 

Had Britain itself fallen, the there's quite a chance that the bulk of it's naval forces would have moved to Singapore or Ceylon. Which would have been quite the dent to Japanese plans in the area, as they would have had to have enacted two Pearl Harbours in order to secure the dominance they needed.

 

Indeed as it was until Italy declared war Britain had a sizeable submarine force in the Far East, and had Japan declared war in 1939 it was planned to send the bulk of the fleet to combat them (but of course Italy did declare war denying that opportunity).


<a data-cke-saved-href='http://i.imgur.com/sCeAbYa.gif' href='http://i.imgur.com/sCeAbYa.gif' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/sCeAbYa.gif</a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s...sCeAbYa.gif</a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s...bYa.gif</a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s...gif</a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'>http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>

There’s a mask upon my face
I can’t live without
So you won’t recognize me
When I am in the crowd


Snorelacks #35 Posted 20 August 2017 - 08:03 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 27388 battles
  • 6,374
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-24-2014
Sea Lion would not have succeeded IMO and based on Churchill's information he provided in his book(s) "The History of WWII". The British still had superiority on the sea after the German Navy had been bloodied in their invasion of Norway, they needed over 2million tons of shipping to get troops across, but did not have that, they needed to completely control the air which they could not due to Britain deciding to keep 25 squadrons in Britain even though France was falling/fell and the head of the German Army, Navy and Air Force were disjointed in their plans and no cohesive strategy to invade.


 


NSW Mntd Rifles #36 Posted 16 September 2017 - 09:55 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 38450 battles
  • 593
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View PostNicholas Sapien, on 19 July 2017 - 04:37 PM, said:

 

I would imagine that the british would have trouble holding north africa and since allied bombing might not have happened if britain got taken out

 

Is there oil the axis can access from a conquered north africa

 

The North African campaigns were fought so doggedly by Britain and the Commonwealth to protect the oil fields of Iraq and Persia. This is also a reason that Britain invaded Vichy held Syria in 1941. I have argued elsewhere that North Africa was the Empire's war. Australia, New Zealand and South Africa were prepared to invest huge amounts of men and materiel into the North African campaigns because they saw them as critical to maintaining the empire east and south of Egypt. India also had a huge stake in the outcome of the campaigns in Cyrenaica, Libya and Egypt. Overwhelming Axis air power had little impact on the defence of Tobruk in 1941 and I'd like to conjecture that it would not have stopped an effective defence of the Suez Canal. 

NSW Mntd Rifles #37 Posted 16 September 2017 - 10:02 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 38450 battles
  • 593
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View PostCruiser Abukuma, on 19 July 2017 - 07:07 PM, said:

had dunkirk failed hitler really wouldve had no reason to not push into britain.. seeing as how britain wouldve lost near 400k troops. combine that with the current status of the war and i firmly believe that britain would have had to surrender.. meaning at that time germany could then focus on the eastern front and bolster their supply lines and increase their troop count, combine that i mean which was the main reason they failed on the eastern front... and this is a new europe we're talking.. Now assuming this didn't take until 1945, i'm fairly certain that Italy would also still be on the axis side at this point, and both the german and italian navies would send help to japan.. which would ultimately seal the fate for the u.s. Alternate timelines are my specialty.. 

 

Britain was in no mood to surrender in 1940 and an attempted German invasion would have been a disaster. The British would have fought an invasion with everything they could muster. Hitler and his generals were clearly reluctant to invade Britain and the crushing defeat of the Italians in North Africa from December 1940 forced the re-allocation of German forces to prop up that front.

 

I'm sure German thinking in 1940 about an invasion of Britain reflected Imperial Japanese Army thinking about an invasion of Australia in 1941-1942. Apart from logistics the Japanese assessed that the population would fight to the last man and an invasion would not succeed. As the Axis powers discovered throughout Europe and Asia, it takes huge amounts of resources to hold restive populations in thrall against their will.



Snorelacks #38 Posted 24 September 2017 - 03:47 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 27388 battles
  • 6,374
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-24-2014

View PostNSW Mntd Rifles, on 16 September 2017 - 04:02 PM, said:

 

Britain was in no mood to surrender in 1940 and an attempted German invasion would have been a disaster. The British would have fought an invasion with everything they could muster. Hitler and his generals were clearly reluctant to invade Britain and the crushing defeat of the Italians in North Africa from December 1940 forced the re-allocation of German forces to prop up that front.

 

I'm sure German thinking in 1940 about an invasion of Britain reflected Imperial Japanese Army thinking about an invasion of Australia in 1941-1942. Apart from logistics the Japanese assessed that the population would fight to the last man and an invasion would not succeed. As the Axis powers discovered throughout Europe and Asia, it takes huge amounts of resources to hold restive populations in thrall against their will.

 

Additionally, the Germans would have needed to control the seas, which they didn't particularly after the damage their navy took invading Norway. They also would have needed an estimated 2 million tons of shipping to support and invasion across the Channel, an amount they couldn't come close to having. Throw in the 25 squadrons the British held in reserve, even though the French begged for them to be sent to help defend France.


 


NSW Mntd Rifles #39 Posted 25 September 2017 - 09:08 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 38450 battles
  • 593
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View PostSnorelacks, on 25 September 2017 - 01:47 AM, said:

 

Additionally, the Germans would have needed to control the seas, which they didn't particularly after the damage their navy took invading Norway. They also would have needed an estimated 2 million tons of shipping to support and invasion across the Channel, an amount they couldn't come close to having. Throw in the 25 squadrons the British held in reserve, even though the French begged for them to be sent to help defend France.

 

I agree. It is funny though, how the French were begging for more British aircraft in 1940, while hiding their best fighters away in Normandy. :P

Snorelacks #40 Posted 01 October 2017 - 04:42 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 27388 battles
  • 6,374
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-24-2014

View PostNSW Mntd Rifles, on 25 September 2017 - 03:08 AM, said:

 

I agree. It is funny though, how the French were begging for more British aircraft in 1940, while hiding their best fighters away in Normandy. :P

 

The French were certainly desperate. Those 25 "metropolitan" squadrons the British held in reserve were critical during the Battle of Britain.


 






Also tagged with Dunkirk

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users