Could German have won World War 2?

[system]

@WildBoar

The Commonwealth didn’t dissolve the Empire did and then only in the 20th Century and most countries wanted to keep their association alongside having their Independance.SO the Commonwealth still exists.

“Commonwealth”, in relation to britain, politically means nations taxed and militarily protected by Britain, and which are ruled by the British Crown. The “commonwealth” applies to nations that Britain ruled by threat of force and which were taxed by Britain, whether they wanted to be or not. These nations supposedly shared a “common wealth” of British resources (lol - they really mean British wealth through taxation eh?). Today, England controls Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and the Faulkland Islands by conquest only. Australia, South Africa, Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica, etc are no longer under British political rule, and have not been for a long time. Britain has no has any willing subject nations.

The Queen of England has traditionally been the monarch of British commonwealth nations. Today, she is a figurhead only with no direct political power whatsoever, and rules no-one. All that changed with the coming of the 20th century, as I stated previously. In 1901 Australia created it’s own constitution, putting an end to British monarchy there. In Canada, Queen Elizabeth II remains as monarch of Canada only as a figurehead, and has no political power whatsoever there, or anywhere at all. Prior to or at the beginning of the 20th century, this scenario took place in every nation that had been considered a British “commonwealth” nation. The British crown in no longer a ruler, and no longer a monarch over nations outside the British Isles. So my friend…

There is no longer a British “commonwealth”.

[Gen_Sandworm]

K enough about the commonwealth start an offtopic or pm each other. Back to could Germany have won WW2.

[pdf27]

@Gen_Sandworm

K enough about the commonwealth start an offtopic or pm each other. Back to could Germany have won WW2.

Have done - now a “Commonwealth” topic in OT section.

Back on topic…
Sea Lion never had a hope - the Luftwaffe of 1940 couldn’t actually hit moving warships and sink them (look at how badly they did trying to stop the evacuation of Crete, under far more favourable conditions, or at how little damage they did to the ships evacuating soldiers from Dunkirk). The invasion barges were easy targets - they were so unstable and had such a low freeboard that a battleship steaming at full speed nearby would sink they with it’s wash without needing to fire a shot. A big storm (such as struck the Normandy landings a few days after D-Day) would probably have sunk 90% of the invasion fleet had it been caught at see - and the German weather forecasting was never as good as the British due to their inability to measure Atlantic weather.
From memory, the RN had roughly 50 destroyers within 2 hours steaming of the planned German invastion beaches, and the entire Home Fleet could be there within 24 hours. The Germans never had a hope of matching this - the Kriegsmarine had had 1/3 of it’s strength sunk during the Norwegian campaign, and again from memory the Admiral Scheer was the only ship bigger than a destroyer not in a dockyard being either built or undergoing major repairs in June/July 1940.
This leaves the Luftwaffe trying to protect a huge, slow moving and horrendously vulnerable target using only Stukas (their level bombers couldn’t hit a small target like a ship at that point in the war, and they didn’t yet have any torpedo bombers). As mentioned before, the Stukas did very little damage to the ships evacuating Dunkirk (and almost all of it while they were stationary loading troops). They did a little better under perfect conditions at Crete, where despite a large RN force operating without fighter cover for nearly two weeks right under the noses of the Luftwaffe they only managed to sink three cruisers and six destroyers. While this would have been unsustainable losses for a long term war, they are the sort of losses the RN would have happily taken for the chance of destroying an invasion attempt (and the Germans would only ever have been strong enough at sea to make one attempt).

[system]

So then IRONMAN, our mistake was waiting to long to tool up for war?
Whereas the states were dragged into it once they had been attacked?

Truth is no-one had seen it coming, Germanys forces were built up outsdie of their borders, and were allowed to increase under teh terms of the Versailles treaty, Understandably Europe hadnt much enjoyed WWI and so was doing an aweful lot to avoid it. We were caught napping admittedly, but to claim that this was negligence is to misunderstand.

Europe knew that German forces were on the rise but those devious Nazi’s were creating much of their forces under contract in the east, by doing this they were not breaking the ters of any treaties they had signed. and it just isnt cricket to declare war on someone who is playing inside the rules. added to that Britain and much ofthe rest of Germany were trying to recover from the depression and couldnt really imagine another war starting so soon.

http://www.fco.gov.uk/ - beauracracy hey. TB has invented an entire department for something that does not exist. and as for all those actors we have to employ at the comonwealth games every four years. no wonder our economy is suffering!

[Gen_Sandworm]

@Bluffcove

So then IRONMAN, our mistake was waiting to long to tool up for war?
Whereas the states were dragged into it once they had been attacked?

Truth is no-one had seen it coming, Germanys forces were built up outsdie of their borders, and were allowed to increase under teh terms of the Versailles treaty, Understandably Europe hadnt much enjoyed WWI and so was doing an aweful lot to avoid it. We were caught napping admittedly, but to claim that this was negligence is to misunderstand.

Europe knew that German forces were on the rise but those devious Nazi’s were creating much of their forces under contract in the east, by doing this they were not breaking the ters of any treaties they had signed. and it just isnt cricket to declare war on someone who is playing inside the rules. added to that Britain and much ofthe rest of Germany were trying to recover from the depression and couldnt really imagine another war starting so soon.

http://www.fco.gov.uk/ - beauracracy hey. TB has invented an entire department for something that does not exist. and as for all those actors we have to employ at the comonwealth games every four years. no wonder our economy is suffering!

Sorry I do think that the allies are guilty of negligence because there were many chances to stop Hitler prior to Sept 1st 1939. Why do you think Churchill eventually became PM. He was the crazy bastard that keep telling everyone that if we dont do something there will be war. And im sorry but the Allied powers of at the start of the war did Poland dirty in my opinion. You made a military alliance with Poland and did next to nothing when Germany invaded. Really all you did was prepare for the defense of France and the Low Countries. This is hard to believe from France with a that had one of the greatest military commanders ever. Napoleon. He said once “a side that hides behind its defences will eventully lose.” This holds true in most cases of war. France and England had a chance to invade Germany soon after the invasion of Poland. Germany had minimal divisions in the west to stop such an attack. Goering admitted this at Nurenberg.

Insofar as the Versailles Treaty. In my opinion there was only one sane man at that conference and that was Woodrow Wilson the American President. But no one really listened to him…not even the American people. All this treaty did was set up another war in my opinion.

But im not trying to knock ya. Just think that they allied powers of the time were negligent. Everyone makes mistakes … just happens. Thankfully you redeemed yourself later in the war. America should have joined the war sooner but most Americans felt it wasnt our problem. Again we didnt understand the entirity of the European problem.

Operation Sea Lion I give it a 50/50 chance (Assuming that Germany defeated the RAF which they almost did). Most of Germany’s landings would have probably been airborne. But it would have to be done really quickly after the fall of France.

Another thing that could have helped Germany win the war would be an alliance with Franco’s Spain. Franco was not sure if he wanted an alliance with Germany or not. And was nervous that if he didnt join that they might invade but thanks to Wilhem Carnis (German Head of Intelligence) this was twarted. Carnis interesting guy. Not sure whose side he was on.

[system]

During the Approach toward WW2,

The First world war crippled Europe, no-one imagined a second war so soon after “the great war!”

Following the Invasion of Poland, the British Expeditionary Force went to France to try and hold the German forces at bay,

Britain had not foreseen a war, a war was unthinkable! hence the BEF were forced back to Dunkirk, We stepped in to Oppose Germany, because Fascist regimes were not themselves thought to be deliberately warlike, It is the preserve of a Sovereign state not to be invaded or have its internal affairs interfered with (a contentious matter even now.)

It was not thought that Germany would be so aggresive as it did not appear to be to their benefit, The Molotov Ribbentrop pact also made (restrospectively) demonstrates that much of the Military build up was not in contravention of the ToV.

Germany had to commit an act of Wanton aggresion before the world could react, the “living room” theory and expansion into Austria was not an act of war it was a uniting of the German Speaking peoples - it was a precursor but only hindsight shows us this.

The Blitzkrieg was a new form of warfare, no-one had used airpower in a battle before, the assault on Poland is remarkable in its foresight of modern warfare, A vast air assault on infra structure, fast incisive armoured columns securing communication and road routes followed by infactry moving in to secure the areas between and connecting up the armour and mech forces.

Britain was still recovering from WWI and didnt have the forces to counter such a form of warfare, We were back footed and rather than be slaughtered on Beaches at Dunkirk retreated. We were not slow in takin g action the BEF departed very soon after the invasion of Poland we merely didnt have the uptodate technology enjoyed by the Germans who had been re-arming right up until the start of the Blitzkrieg.

[Gen_Sandworm]

@Bluffcove

During the Approach toward WW2,
The First world war crippled Europe, no-one imagined a second war so soon after “the great war!”

Agreed.

@Bluffcove

Following the Invasion of Poland, the British Expeditionary Force went to France to try and hold the German forces at bay,

They did well considering that they had not had much of a miltary focus over the past years. Hence, the loss.

@Bluffcove

Britain had not foreseen a war, a war was unthinkable! hence the BEF were forced back to Dunkirk, We stepped in to Oppose Germany, because Fascist regimes were not themselves thought to be deliberately warlike,

I agree with you that this was the opinion of the Allies prior to WW2. But this is a stance that is nieve. And i think people such as Churchill new it.

@Bluffcove

It is the preserve of a Sovereign state not to be invaded or have its internal affairs interfered with (a contentious matter even now.)

Gulp! You as a Brit and me as an American…dont know if we should go there.

@Bluffcove

It was not thought that Germany would be so aggresive as it did not appear to be to their benefit, The Molotov Ribbentrop pact also made (restrospectively) demonstrates that much of the Military build up was not in contravention of the ToV.

I can say that the Allies did not understand the what exactly the Molotov Ribbentrop pack was.

@Bluffcove

Germany had to commit an act of Wanton aggresion before the world could react, the “living room” theory and expansion into Austria was not an act of war it was a uniting of the German Speaking peoples - it was a precursor but only hindsight shows us this.

Sorry but I think that this clearly shows the Germans attempt on expansionism. And you have to admit that Munich was a disaster. Was Munich a real attempt to make peace or a "Oh shit this a**hole is getting ready for war and we arent ready???

@Bluffcove

The Blitzkrieg was a new form of warfare, no-one had used airpower in a battle before, the assault on Poland is remarkable in its foresight of modern warfare, A vast air assault on infra structure, fast incisive armoured columns securing communication and road routes followed by infactry moving in to secure the areas between and connecting up the armour and mech forces.

Maybe this is why the Allies didnt move right away. They couldnt figure out how Germany moved so quick. Not only thru Poland but Denmark and Norway. Maybe the Allies were questioning weather or not they could defend themselves. But you did and had to know the attack was coming so you did…nothing. Of course you were a bit hindered by Belguim, Holland and Luxemberg going oh S**t :shock: going I hope these bastards dont come this way.

@Bluffcove

Britain was still recovering from WWI and didnt have the forces to counter such a form of warfare, We were back footed and rather than be slaughtered on Beaches at Dunkirk retreated. We were not slow in takin g action the BEF departed very soon after the invasion of Poland we merely didnt have the uptodate technology enjoyed by the Germans who had been re-arming right up until the start of the Blitzkrieg.

I consider Dunkirk a major Allied victory. Because if the forces had been captured or destroyed. England wouldnt have had much to defend itself with. Farmers and pitchforks. (k, not that bad, but not much better)

Just think that the Allied powers made some bad decisions prior to the war. Could they have made different or better decisions. Hard to say really.

[pdf27]

@Gen_Sandworm

Most of Germany’s landings would have probably been airborne. But it would have to be done really quickly after the fall of France.

Nope. Look at the number of Ju-52s they had available, and at their actual capacity in terms of passengers and freight. At an absolute maximum effort they could possibly transport 2-3,000 men per day with no supplies. Once you start trying to support them, the amount you can supply goes way down. Even assuming no RAF/Army interference, the Germans could airlift enough supplies for a single division at most. This would then have to be carried around by hand (all draft animals would have been killed and all motorised transport destroyed when the invasion started, so the parachutists would only have what they could carry on the drop).
Given the nature of parachute operations and the later fiasco at Crete where the German airbourne forces were nearly exterminated, I really can’t see a successful invasion coming in by air. Even the later allied air/glider drops (made with an order of magnitude more troops, with better equipment and immeasurably more air transport) were very chancy things and as Arnhem showed liable to be overwhelmed if ground forces didn’t arrive soon to support them. So it all comes back to can the Luftwaffe/Kriegsmarine control the Channel.

[Gen_Sandworm]

@pdf27

[quote=Gen. Sandworm]Most of Germany’s landings would have probably been airborne. But it would have to be done really quickly after the fall of France.

Nope. Look at the number of Ju-52s they had available, and at their actual capacity in terms of passengers and freight. At an absolute maximum effort they could possibly transport 2-3,000 men per day with no supplies. Once you start trying to support them, the amount you can supply goes way down. Even assuming no RAF/Army interference, the Germans could airlift enough supplies for a single division at most. This would then have to be carried around by hand (all draft animals would have been killed and all motorised transport destroyed when the invasion started, so the parachutists would only have what they could carry on the drop).
Given the nature of parachute operations and the later fiasco at Crete where the German airbourne forces were nearly exterminated, I really can’t see a successful invasion coming in by air. Even the later allied air/glider drops (made with an order of magnitude more troops, with better equipment and immeasurably more air transport) were very chancy things and as Arnhem showed liable to be overwhelmed if ground forces didn’t arrive soon to support them. So it all comes back to can the Luftwaffe/Kriegsmarine control the Channel.[/quote]

Good point. I was refering to the help the would come from airborne operations after making the RAF combat ineffective. But you are right the main issue is the Luftwaffe/Kriegsmarine control of the channel. This is debatable and would take much research. But there is no way this is possible without having total air supremacy. And i remind you that it was close in the beginning. But lucky for Britain Hitler and Goering’s stupidity prevailed.

[reiver]

It’s fair to say that Chamberlain, Britain’s Prime Minister at the time of the Munich Agreement, was an appeaser.
Appalled, as was most of the world, at the carnage of WW1, he allowed his hopes for peace to overshadow his judgement.
Only Churchill, of the major British politicians in the prewar years had the foresight to, perhaps, have built up the British forceds to the level required to stop Hitler’s expansionist progamme any sooner, but he was not only out of power, but distinctly out of favour with the ruling party.
It is, perhaps, worth noting, that in “The Gathering Storm”, his history of the runup to war, Churchill expressed the opinion that, “had France mobilised her 100 divisions and her reputedly strong airforce, Hitler would have been forced to withdraw, or, had he not done so, would have been repudiated and probably deposed by the German General Staff.”
(Quoted from Roy Jenkins biography “Churchill”, a book I heartily recommend to anyone with an interest in an amazing soldier, politician, leader and statesman.)

[Gen_Sandworm]

@reiver

It’s fair to say that Chamberlain, Britain’s Prime Minister at the time of the Munich Agreement, was an appeaser.
Appalled, as was most of the world, at the carnage of WW1, he allowed his hopes for peace to overshadow his judgement.
Only Churchill, of the major British politicians in the prewar years had the foresight to, perhaps, have built up the British forceds to the level required to stop Hitler’s expansionist progamme any sooner, but he was not only out of power, but distinctly out of favour with the ruling party.
It is, perhaps, worth noting, that in “The Gathering Storm”, his history of the runup to war, Churchill expressed the opinion that, “had France mobilised her 100 divisions and her reputedly strong airforce, Hitler would have been forced to withdraw, or, had he not done so, would have been repudiated and probably deposed by the German General Staff.”
(Quoted from Roy Jenkins biography “Churchill”, a book I heartily recommend to anyone with an interest in an amazing soldier, politician, leader and statesman.)

To bad they didnt really listen to him untill it was to late. Chruchill didnt have the most polished record so im sure that held him aback a bit. But I agree Franch should have at least attacked thru the Siegfried line if they had too. This was nothing compard to the Maginot line. Im sure they might have had a bit of trouble but they surely could have done it in my opinion. Please feel free to correct me if im wrong.

[BDL]

Just to make some points:

Swimming Tanks - all very well for crossing a river or small lake, no use at all for the English Channel (famous for it’s sudden storms), a swimming tank would be useless for the invasion.

(by the way Gen Sandworm - the DD tanks were invented by the Brits - we showed you how to make them (and many other special tanks, which you weren’t interested in and could have saved you casualties at D-Day))

Bombing Airfields - proved to be very hit and miss during the whole Battle of Britain. The British aircraft were very well dispersed (spread out) around the airfields and were protected by revetments (big walls of earth or concrete), so only a direct hit could damage them. The medium bombers were not accurate enough to that and the stuka was too vunerable to be used.

Germany invading USSR - they could have won IF they hadn’t been fighting on two fronts and IF Hitler had let his Generals run the war. Splitting and weakening their forces by being forced to defend France meant that the Whermacht just weren’t strong enough to face the Red Army.

Naval invasion of Britain - impossible for Germany in 1940. They only had one capital ship available in 1940 (Graf Spee had been sunk, Scharnorst, Tirpitz and Bismark still being built). The Royal Navy would have destroyed an invasion fleet in a few hours - Churchill would have risked losing most of the fleet to destroy the German fleet, knowing full well we could (if required) pull our naval assets from the Med, Far East etc back to form a new Home Fleet.

Dunkirk - had the major part of the BEF been captured, we would have had severe problems defending ourselves, however the Germans would still have had to cross the Channel, and there would have been more chance of Churchill sacrificing the Home Fleet if he knew there was so few ground forces to face an invasion.

RAF strength - The strength of the RAF was actually improving when the Germans switched to bombing civillians. The problems for the RAF were training pilots quick enough - fighter production was actually faster than Germany’s (I’ll post the exact numbers tomorrow if anyone wants them).

Destroying radar - the Luftwaffe tried many times to bomb the radar towers, because of their spindly towers, they allowed bomb blast to disperse rather than being damaged by it, so they were very resistant to bombing raids.

Providing air support in France - we supplied as much as we dared, sending anymore squadrons to France would have left us unable to defend ourselves.

Britain pre-war production - we were building our forces up as quickly as we could. The Wall Street crash and Depression had hit us hard. It’s worth remembering that we were the only 100% Mechanised Army in 1939 - even Germany still used a large number of horses. It was our tactics (remember most armies prepare to fight their last war rather than their next one. Germans used Blitzkreig because they had lost their last war and wanted to avoid a long stalemate that would allow Britain to build her strength up against them again as they had in 1914/15/16.

Appeasement - as much as I hate it, it was the most sensible way we could have gone at the time. We weren’t strong enough to provoke war in 1938 over Czechoslovakia and needed the breathing space that Munich gave us to build up.

British Commonwealth - still exists today, but I’ll find the topic already existing for that arguement.

Sorry it’s such a long post, I didn’t want to miss anything out.

[Gen_Sandworm]

@BDL

(by the way Gen Sandworm - the DD tanks were invented by the Brits - we showed you how to make them (and many other special tanks, which you weren’t interested in and could have saved you casualties at D-Day))

Dont get your statement??? We used DD tanks during the invasion of Normandy just as you did. Want proof go swimming off Omaha beach and you will see loads of them at the bottom. Most DD Tanks got ashore just fine but something went wrong (something with the currents) at Omaha and only 2 made it ashore. All other beachs the majority of DD tanks made it ashore. Honestly who cares who came up with the idea. Yea for the UK. Did I say that the UK had poor engineers. Dont think so. Maybe with guns. JK

@BDL

Naval invasion of Britain - impossible for Germany in 1940…

Debatable. If the Germans had Air Supremacy they would have been a formidable opponent against the Royal Navy.

@BDL

RAF strength - The strength of the RAF was actually improving when the Germans switched to bombing civillians. The problems for the RAF were training pilots quick enough - fighter production was actually faster than Germany’s (I’ll post the exact numbers tomorrow if anyone wants them).

You had better have some pretty good info. Because ive watch many shows and read many books and most of the historians that I have heard speak or write gave the RAF 2-4 weeks of combat effectiveness before the Germans switched to civilian targets. Might be hard to change my mind on this point. But you are more than welcome to try.

[pdf27]

@Gen_Sandworm

Debatable. If the Germans had Air Supremacy they would have been a formidable opponent against the Royal Navy.

Read up on the invasion/evacuation of Crete. The RN was running large numbers of ships in daylight for roughly two weeks in broad daylight around Crete, with no air cover whatsoever. The Luftwaffe only managed to sink or damage somewhere between a third and half of the force (can’t be bothered to look the details up, running from memory here).
Then compare it to the much stronger and more modern Home Fleet, with some RAF air cover (in an invasion scenario the RAF would send anything that could fly out to the channel - even if it didn’t shoot anything down, it would distract the fighters) and only requiring 24-48 hours to destroy the invasion fleet (the Home Fleet could get to the invasion beaches far faster than the German invasion fleet could, due to the unseaworthy nature of the barges used). The Germans didn’t have a prayer of stopping the home fleet.

@Gen_Sandworm

Because ive watch many shows and read many books and most of the historians that I have heard speak or write gave the RAF 2-4 weeks of combat effectiveness before the Germans switched to civilian targets.

Have you seen the corresponding graph for the attacking German forces? It’s actually quite surprising that in terms of single seat fighters at least the Germans were losing them faster than the British. British fighter production was several times the German rate, and they didn’t have a particularly good system for getting damaged fighters back into service. The only reason they could continue ops at all was that they had a higher initial strength.
In any case, the RAF was being run by ruthless professionals. Had No. 11 Group been seriously threatened, they planned to simply withdraw North of the Thames. That basically means the Germans can attack Kent and Sussex with reasonable safety (there really isn’t anything to bomb there apart from the sector stations anyway!), but have to send unescorted raids if they want to attack anything else. At which point they get massacred by the RAF, as happened whenever they tried to attack from Norway.
Were the invasion to take place after this withdrawl, No. 11 Group could have been back in place within a day or so (the early squadrons within hours - probably before the first wave even landed).
The problem with what you’ve watched is that they’re assuming the RAF would continue going on as it was and connive at it’s own destruction. They had done what they did to date as it was the most effective way of fighting - but the overriding consideration was to protect the UK from invasion, and that meant they had to retain a certain amount of strength to protect the fleet in that event.

[Gen_Sandworm]

It really depends on the situation. I understand what you are say pdf27. But with proper tactics an Air Force can be very effective against a Navy. Example Pearl Harbor. But even better example. The Swordfish attack against the Bismark. Now they didnt sink the ship. Single torpedo shot from a almost WW1 plane disabled it so it could only turn circles and then later the RN sank her. Dont forget about German subs that could help out in such an attack.

Of course we are all talking hypothetics here.

[BDL]

@Gen_Sandworm

Dont get your statement??? We used DD tanks during the invasion of Normandy just as you did. Want proof go swimming off Omaha beach and you will see loads of them at the bottom. Most DD Tanks got ashore just fine but something went wrong (something with the currents) at Omaha and only 2 made it ashore. All other beachs the majority of DD tanks made it ashore. Honestly who cares who came up with the idea. Yea for the UK. Did I say that the UK had poor engineers. Dont think so. Maybe with guns. JK

Wasn’t having a go at the Yanks, merely spreading education. The British invented a range of tanks known as Hobart’s Funnies (the guy who ran the programme was Colonel Hobbart), based on Sherman and Churchill chassis, which would have made tha Americans lives on Omaha a lot easier - Spigot tanks firing a 270mm naval depth charge to take out gun emplacements, fascine tanks dropping large bundles of wood in trenches to allow gun tanks to cross, flail tanks to beat the ground with large chains mounted on a drum in front of the tank and detonate land mines. There were others but I’m doing this off the top of my head. The Americans were offered all of these and rejected them, with fatal results on your beaches. Had you had the Special Tanks like we did, you would have cleared the beaches much faster.

@Gen_Sandworm

Debatable. If the Germans had Air Supremacy they would have been a formidable opponent against the Royal Navy.

Maybe, but as I said, I believe that Churchill would have been willing to sacrifice the Home Fleet knowing that he could recall the Far East Fleet, the Mediterranean Fleet etc and rebuild it. Also don’t forget - those Swordfish that crippled the Bismaek were on the two or three carriers that were part of the Home Fleet, they could have destroyed most of the Naval escort for the invasion fleet before they even saw Britain.

@Gen_Sandworm

You had better have some pretty good info. Because ive watch many shows and read many books and most of the historians that I have heard speak or write gave the RAF 2-4 weeks of combat effectiveness before the Germans switched to civilian targets. Might be hard to change my mind on this point. But you are more than welcome to try.

I have to be on parade in a bit, I’ll dig the information out later on.

[Gen_Sandworm]

@BDL

Had you had the Special Tanks like we did, you would have cleared the beaches much faster.

Of course we refused them. Then we wouldnt have had much material to make Saving Private Ryan.

@BDL

Maybe, but as I said, I believe that Churchill would have been willing to sacrifice the Home Fleet knowing that he could recall the Far East Fleet, the Mediterranean Fleet etc and rebuild it.

Good point. And I agree that would have been the thing to do.

@BDL

I have to be on parade in a bit, I’ll dig the information out later on.

Looking forward to it.

[pdf27]

@Gen_Sandworm

Example Pearl Harbor. But even better example. The Swordfish attack against the Bismark. Now they didnt sink the ship. Single torpedo shot from a almost WW1 plane disabled it so it could only turn circles and then later the RN sank her. Dont forget about German subs that could help out in such an attack.

Of course we are all talking hypothetics here.

Exactly. Note that the sinking of Prince of Wales/Repulse was the first time in history that capital ships at sea, able to manouver and defend themselves. The Germans in 1940 had none of the torpedo bombers needed to sink these ships. Oh, and IIRC no submarine has ever sunk a battleship/cruiser moving at high speed - the Belgrano is probably the closest. It certainly hadn’t happened in 1940.

[BDL]

Ok, on July 1st 1940 (a rough start date for the Battle), the British had a front line strength of 745 single seat fighters (Hurricanes roughly outnumbered Spitfires 3 to 2, so that makes about 447 Hurricanes and 298 Spitfires). The Luftwaffe had 1,107 Bf-109s and 357 Bf-110 (although the standard response of the Bf-110 on being attacked by fighters was to form a defensive circle and then run away, they were outclassed by both the Hurricane and the Spitfire). The Luftwaffe also had 1,380 bombers and 428 Stukas.

Over the course of July - October 1940 (the qualifying period for the Battle of Britain Star awarded by the RAF for flying in the Battle), the RAF lost 538 Hurricanes destroyed (33 in July, 211 in August and 294 in September and October) with a further 138 damaged to varying degrees. Spitfire losses for the Battle were 342 destroyed (34 in July, 113 in August and 195 in September and October), plus 140 damaged. On October 18th 1940, the strength of the Royal Air Force was 512 Hurricanes and 285 Sptifire - 65 extra Hurricanes and 13 fewer Spitfires. There had been problems with establishing a Spitfire production line in Castle Bromich which is why Spitfire production had not met demand.

Over the course of the Battle, Luftwaffe losses were 591 Bf-109, 261 Bf-110, 747 bombers and 71 Stukas. There were also 155 Bf-109s damaged, 70 Bf-110s, 303 bombers and 30 Stukas. These losses were harder for the Luftwaffe to replace because they had not built there reserves up at the same rate as their front line forces. The average German fighter production for the period was 200 fighters a month (I’ve not been able to find exact figures - I’ll do some more research after work). Considering their losses were 852 fighters lost plus 225 damaged - even if they repaired every aircraft that was damaged (probably not possible), they still had 52 fewer fighters than when they had started, whereas the British were now stronger than at the start of the Battle (plus the majority of RAF pilots were now experienced, whereas in July most had been without any combat experience at all).

Figures taken from here and from the book The Most Dangerous Enemy by Steven Bungay (ISBN 1 85410 721 6), which I have found to be almost 100% accurate in the past.

[system]

Hobart also inventede the bobbin, designed to counter the blue clay on teh beeches by laying a roadway of hessian and steel poles, from a reel mounted on the front of the tank.

He had flamethrower with a rrange of 200 yards mounted on one of his tanks but was possibly vulnerable to everything as it also towed a 400 gallon trailer!

He also provided an early version of the NEgineer bridgin units and pioneer footbridges,
the ARC armoured ramp carrier - a turretless tank with ramps front nad rear for bridging gaps or sea defences
the ZGirder box section, up to30 feet long for infantry use

(from memory cant provide more detal but google of hobarts funnies etc)