Things Hitler could have done to win WWII

An excellent and obvious point, which didn’t commend itself to me when watching Captain Mainwaring and Corporal Jones ('The Huns don’t like the cold steel up ‘em, they do not like it.’) in Dad’s Army.

However, given that the age spread for the Home Guard was 17 to 65 years of age, I wonder if ‘the overwhelming majority’ of those in the Home Guard at the time of the threatened German invasion would have been in the British Army in 1914-18 rather than too young, too old or unfit for service or otherwise not serving in WWI for the same reasons they weren’t in the Army in WWII, regardless of age?

I wonder also whether the Home Guard had the weapons the Army was armed with in 1918? My understanding was that the Home Guard was meant to perform primarily semi-police and ‘observe and report’ roles for the military forces and was not well-equipped with issued rifles or anything else, regardless of what the members wanted to do in the event of an invasion.

I guess many of them would’ve died if the Germans would have reached land.
But the Germans would be unsuccesful.
Conquering the east first in order to hit Britain, how unrealistic as it seems, was the most realistic attempt.

Or maybe a bit younger: http://www.irish-guards.co.uk/_New_Site/New_Pages/Ivor/homeguard.htm

The Home Guard is an interesting topic which could be hived off from this one if there is an enough interest.

Are you saying that Germany had to defeat the USSR before being able to defeat Britain?

yes and no.
I don’t think Germany would never have been able to defeat Britain without defeating the USSR first, no.
But, given the wanted specific benefits of defeating Britain first (“quickly” assuring some “rest in the west”), I doubt the succes of it. It would be a very long campaign. Therefor, getting Hitler to defeat Britain, would need the defeat of the USSR. Let us not forget Barbarossa failed. It was meant to be a quick and easy victory. In all his lunacy, Hitler was correct in considering speed as the key to succes. Not by engines, but in concieving plans and campaigns. If Barbarossa would have succeeded ( I’m thinking of the seizure of Moscow) perhaps by bypassing the Balkan campaign, Britain would be alone in a fight against a monster of a war machine with massive resources. It would have been begging for a peace treaty. And Hitler would have said yes.

If Hitler had devoted to the defeat of Britain the forces he applied to the USSR in mid 1941 and subsequently, I think he would have done rather well. For a start, the Japanese quite probably would not have been encouraged by Hitler’s early victories in the USSR to start their own war which brought America into the war, which Hitler stupidly and unnecessarily compounded by declaring war on America, as if he didn’t have enough trouble with the fights he had already started with Britain and the USSR.

Hitler’s primary problems in conquering Britain by invasion were the lack of suitable troop and logistics transport and sufficient air cover to neutralise the RN, regardless of the Kreigsmarine’s actions. He probably could have overcome those problems if he had used differently the resources, starting with allocation of raw materials to manufacturing, applied to invading the USSR.

Any chance Hitler had of defeating the USSR depended upon defeating Britain first and keeping America out of the war, so that he could use second and third rate occupation troops in Britain to release to the Eastern assault the first rate troops and related air and naval resources and logistics which actually fought the British in North Africa, Greece and Crete and which delayed the start of Barbarossa.

But Hitler did none of these things because, among other things, he failed to grasp that modern wars are won as much or more by logistics as by arms and that he was hopelessly deficient in the logistics area as, for example, the chief strategist of the only army in the European conflict which was heavily dependent upon horse transport.

Capturing Moscow would have had a significant symbolic effect, but as Hitler approached Moscow the Soviets were moving their war manufacturing capacity eastwards and already had plenty outside German range and, given Stalin’s will to survive, could easily have drawn out the German lines of communication into the Soviet east and more Russian winter(s) where the result would have been the same as it really was, albeit a year or two later.

The effect on Britain’s capacity to fight would have been positive rather than negative as the extended lines of communication in the USSR would have reduced Germany’s capacity to fight in the west. For example, the aviation fuel (and the fuel and vehicles etc required to get it to the planes) required to fight the Soviets as they retreated eastwards compared with that required to reach Britain from German bases in France would have represented the loss of a vast amount of German airpower facing Britain.

I can’t see any way that Germany was better off attacking and defeating the USSR before and as a necessary pre-condition to attacking and defeating Britain. The reverse makes a lot more sense to me.

I thought the question was what could have changed Hitler’s mind.
The fact that your statements are completely true is not questioned ;).
Hitler was impatient.

To the newer folks here, it is a great help to all posters if when reponding to a particular member you will reference them by username. It helps keep the thread flowing, and reduces confusion. :wink:

To quote the old military adage ‘Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics’.

My perspective on Op Sealion is that it was always an non-starter. The RN was too strong in home waters, the German naval transport was far from adequate for the task and if they’d ever made it to the beaches they would have had to beaten the local defences. (Home guard, sea and land emplacements, the auxiliary units as well as a few hundred thousand soldiers garrisoned in mainland UK).

I think Hitler’s big mistake in dealing with UK was not fully embracing the concept of siege warfare, in this case the UK mainland. More resources should have been spent on U-Boats and bombing raids. By prioritising the Ostfront it seems to me as if Hitler almost ignored the problem of the UK. By crippling convoys and bombing industry the Germans would have removed the UK’s ability to prosecute the war. However, it would have probably have taken a bloody long time, but then if you were Hitler that’s got to be a better option than the 8th Guard’s army kicking your front door down. Luckily for us Hitler was a proper fruit loop.

Sergeant Wilson’s Character was a Captain or Sergeant (referrred to as both in different episodes) in WW1, fighting at Mons and Gallipoli. Corporal Jones also wears WW1 medals, Frazer was a CPO in the RN in WW1 and Godfrey was a Conciencious Objector who served as a Stretcher Bearer, winning the Military Medal.

The way the demographics work out the men of the British Army of 1914-18 would have been too old for any but senior NCO/Commissioned roles in 1940. Those would only go to men who hadn’t left the army after the war, leaving the majority in civilian employment. These would have been the prime recruiting candidates for the Home Guard, along with the Sick/Lame/Lazy. From this it follows that a very high proportion would have been WW1 veterans.

The Home Guard was initially something of an improvisation, armed with whatever they could get their hands on. By the time invasion was a threat, however, they were mostly armed with what good weapons were available - surplus British and US WW1 stocks. By about 1942 their equipment was every bit as good as the regular British Army, and in many ways it was used as a training ground for those too young to be conscripted.

There was a program here in the U.S. where the citizenry donated personal firearms to the British people should Germany invade. There was some mention of “operation home front” but I’m not certain that was the name of it. Just me guessing, but some of these weapons may have been given to the home guard folks, at least early on. The intention IIRC was to arm as many households as could be to provide some defense for those who had no weapons. The gaggle of guns in all different calibers may have been difficult to get ammo for.

The funny thing about all this is that decades ago when we first discussed these topics, no one ever took the British home guard seriously and thought they would not have had any real chance against some of the best German units and field commanders. Saying otherwise is just fantasizing. It takes years to build up a competent unit. I guess historical perspective blurs with time. My parents who were in Britain at the time, believed their soldiers would have fought well, but were never a real match for the Germans. They never really believed either the RAF or the RN would be able to stop the Germans and these facts are borne out by closer examination.

These discussions always evolve around opinions and POV. Each side will always see their chances better than they actually were, which is why statistics are needed to remove personnel bias from the equation. The RAF averaged only 1 enemy vessel sunk for every 150 sortie through out the whole war and the RAF demonstrated during the summer of 1940, they were unable to prevent German attacks on RN/Convoy/Port targets, which closed down Dover force the RN to flee. German Stuka and JU-88 slant bombers demonstrated a remarkable ability to damage RN vessels by near misses that historically put many warships out of operation for weeks at a time. If the tempo of battle was steady these losses could be mitigated against, but ‘if push came to shove’ the percentage of RN warships out of commission quickly spiraled out of control. One need only read Peter Smiths work on the Narrow Sea to understand the impact and dangerous potential of this.

As I already mentioned before, for the entire war, on average each attacking naval vessels sank on average 1 enemy vessel per sortie . Generalizing from specific events doesn’t work, it must be done the other way around . After reading a number of O’Hara’s studies on surface combat several things are striking. It takes hundreds to thousands of shells to sink a vessel in real war. Often the opening action of any naval clash determines its outcome. Spotting the enemy is the single most important tactical advantage. Combat at night without radar is a real gamble, no matter how good the Intel and the forces you have. But most importantly, the out come of most naval battles is determined by command ability. A force can be out number and out gunned many to one and still prevail in battle. It really striking how impotent most naval vessels and attacks were and how shocked each side was at its own losses.

Having said this an impartial examination of naval forces available is striking. In Jan 1940 the RN could count on about 1250-1300 vessels including allied warships, while the Germans had amassed ~580 vessel. So the RN out numbered the Germans 2:1. This advantage is somewhat watered down since the RN was forced to divert significant portion of its fleet to convoy duties, however the gun power of the fleet in general made up for this short fall.

The Germans had enough mines to link up multiple minefields into a barrier. These historically inflicted 1/3 kills on penetrating vessels, when backed up by coastal artillery and Stuka patrols. They had enough mines for what they planned. Had the German magnetic mines been stockpiled instead of used through out 1940, about 5000 would have been available. Historically through out the war German mines sank one enemy vessel for every 250 mines deployed. This figure was reduced to 1/10th if the mines were magnetic [initially]. These figure would be further reduced to 1/6th, if the mining was done on enemy ports. Combined that could add up to over 300 vessels sunk to mines , statistically speaking.

Each German division would land with weeks of ammo and supplies and were far better at improvising than the ‘green’ British troops would have been. The average travel distance was 40-50miles and the average barge fleet speed was about 3-4 knots timed to ride the currents…meaning average crossing times would be 12-16 hours. Each first wave also included tanks Nebelwerfer and 105mm Howitzer and 150mm infantry guns. Follow on second wave included the rest of the divisional artillery and Korps troops etc.

Peter Schenk has confirmed these facts and stated that by the middle of Sept 1940, the Germans had assembled enough modified barges and shipping to ensure transportation of the invasion force. He is recognized as the foremost authority on this topic. German records show only 65 vessels out of several thousand vessels assembled were destroyed and that’s only 3%.

The German reference for ‘motor boats’, actually refer to fishing vessel ranging from small Drifters to large whalers. They were all able to cross the channel. Schenk reports that 1/3 of the barges were motorized and would have dominated the first wave [1/2 of the 1250 barges were motorized]. With every passing month this percentage would increased. Every wave after this required only 400 motorized barges, since the bulk of the towed barges were mostly in reserve or deployed on either side of the channel, to speed up loading and unloading over the shore. Each barge was equipped with multiple tow lines to cover breakage and attacks.

The Germans navy invaded Norway and Denmark with 150 vessels and lost 28 or less than 1/5 of the force, hardly ‘gutted’. Considering the KM command thought they would lose 1/2 of the force, they did rather well. The maximum invasion distance was Narvik at 2000 km , while the average distance from German to southern Norway was more like 400-500 km. The Germans sent supplies from months afterwards and the allies could do nothing to interdict this. The RAF experience fighting the Germans was so traumatic, bomber command was forced switch to night bombing for the rest of the war.

The more you objectively study this, the more you realize only a miracle could have saved the British and that’s exactly what they got. Hitler believed they were part of his Aryan Race and hoped he could convince them to step aside and let him get on with his racial agenda.

Two things have changed over time. A wider spectrum of people have actually looked at who was in the Home Guard rather than just blindly taking the “Look, Duck and Vanish”/Dad’s Army stereotypes seriously, and they have realised that the Germans were incapable of shipping their best units across in combat shape. This isn’t a new realisation however - the RN for instance in 1940 were reasonably confident that they could stop any invasion. In the early 1970s the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst carried out a set of war games using participants from both sides at the time as umpires, using the available forces on both sides (from the archives - which weren’t available in 1940) and the actual Admiralty weather reports. The Germans got about 100,000 men ashore but very little in the way of armour, artillery or logistics and within a few weeks about 90% of the force was compelled to surrender. The overwhelming majority of fictional scenarios dealing with this - or at least those not relying on Alien Space Bat intervention - come to the same conclusion. The British beach defences were weaker than those faced in Normandy in 1944, but their Navy and Air Force were incomparably stronger and their inland defences arguably better. This means the Germans would have had to replicate Overlord, possibly even on a larger scale to succeed. This was never in prospect.

That’s a classical case of “the other side of the hill”. What your parents knew was what the UK’s capabilities were on land (at the time, mediocre) and that the Germans had won a series of stunning victories in Poland and France. From that they inferred that the Germans could do the same after a cross-channel invasion of the UK. In reality the Germans were slightly better than the UK (mostly down to the German concept of the job of an officer versus the British one - it should be noted here that postwar the British largely adopted the German way of doing things) and had a much better concept for the employment of tanks. What they didn’t have - at all - was any concept of Amphibious Warfare (they treated the invasion of the UK like a river crossing!) or any of the required equipment. I would certainly take issue with your claim that these facts are borne out by closer examination - no serious historian would agree that a German invasion was militarily capable of succeeding. The one - arguable - chance they had was shocking the UK into an armistice around the time of Dunkirk. Even that is rather thin given the British national character and the ongoing fighting in France at the time.

Interesting how you quote statistics for the RAF and merely cite a “remarkable ability” on the part of the Luftwaffe. Since neither side was specifically trained for anti-shipping work at the time (indeed, the only air force in the world with a significant ability was the Japanese - which is why it was such a shock when Prince of Wales and Repulse were sunk: nobody had believed it possible.
In any case, we have good historical evidence that the RN didn’t consider the Luftwaffe to be an excessive threat - the evacuations of Dunkirk and Crete were largely carried out by RN Destroyers with a few light cruisers, within range of the Luftwaffe and with patchy friendly air cover. Exactly the best-case scenario for a German invasion of the UK. They took losses (a handful of destroyers) and accomplished the mission. There is no reason to suppose that with the stakes far higher - the very survival of the UK - they would be significantly more risk-averse.

Wait, you’re citing command ability as a reason the RN would lose to the Kriegsmarine? This would be the same Kriegsmarine that scuttled more of it’s own Battleships than were sunk by the RN, right? The KM had nowhere near the level of leadership of the RN, and spent most of the war too afraid to go to sea (not afraid of dying per se, but afraid of what Hitler would say if some of their ships were sunk). This is a force which renamed the Deutschland because they were afraid of the propaganda value of her being sunk - against one who had battleships named after both the present and previous King, with the latter being sunk.

Number of hulls is an irrelevant metric. Combat power is what you should be counting. The Germans had what, 20 ships of destroyer size or larger available at the time? The vast majority of German hulls were the likes of converted trawlers with a gun strapped to the front. These are little but targets to a proper warship.

Which is a good case of “how to lie with statistics”. The German plan wasn’t to mine the Home Fleet ports (they didn’t have the ability) but to create a mine barrier which would be used to keep the RN out. Overall kill rates (your numbers) are 1 in 250 mines in total, dropping to 1 in 6 mines in front of an enemy port. This will skew the overall distribution (since we know the Germans were unable to mine the Home Fleet ports to any significant extent) - so that’s more like 1 in 500. Since it is impossible to hide a minefield of that size, this gives the British two possible countermeasures:
- Minesweeping
- Going through the minefield in line astern, with the least valuable ships at the front

Doing this, then even the one in 500 number starts to look large. That’s what, 5 ships out of the Home Fleet of ~150 destroyers, ~20 cruisers and ~5 Battleships? Barely enough to notice.

Handwavium. Each German division would leave port with barges containing that quantity of supplies due to arrive at the same invasion beach. They had next to no ability to move those supplies about inland and frankly not much of a clue about getting it off the beach. The British on the other hand were never going to be more than a few miles from a railway network and were operating in friendly territory - the need for improvisation would be massively lower.

The second wave was timed for what, a week later? By then it would most likely be displaced by other urgent needs (ammunition and petrol, mainly).

The literal, classical meaning of “Decimation” is to kill one member in 10 of your force. It is usually considered about the limit of what a military force can sustain, operation after operation (true for both Bomber Command and the U-boat forces - when losses hit this they were withdrawn to safer operations until technology allowed them to return). With loss rates double this (and given that the losses in heavy units were more severe, I suspect the losses in personnell went beyond 20%) the Kriegsmarine only had a few more operations in it before it had to be withdrawn for a substantial period of time. Had it participated in Seelowe, then that would probably have been the end of everything except the U-boats for the rest of the war.

See above - the attrition rate went above 10%, so they were withdrawn. Same thing happened later with the Battle of Berlin.

Boll*cks. A series of miracles were required for the invasion to succeed (starting with getting air superiority over the southern UK), and none of them happened. Compare the professionalism of the RAF to that of the Luftwaffe, and it’s eye-opening. It suits the British national mythos to pretend that we were under serious threat from the Germans and were saved by a miracle - it gives us the feeling we’re special - but there is no basis for it in reality.

Originally Posted by ubc
The Germans had enough mines to link up multiple minefields into a barrier. These historically inflicted 1/3 kills on penetrating vessels, when backed up by coastal artillery and Stuka patrols. They had enough mines for what they planned. Had the German magnetic mines been stockpiled instead of used through out 1940, about 5000 would have been available. Historically through out the war German mines sank one enemy vessel for every 250 mines deployed. This figure was reduced to 1/10th if the mines were magnetic [initially]. These figure would be further reduced to 1/6th, if the mining was done on enemy ports. Combined that could add up to over 300 vessels sunk to mines , statistically speaking.

The Germans had 6000 live mines and 800 dummys available to construct the mine barrages. Them and the minesweeping gear to clear the British minefields (which the Germans had located a barrier of 1 1/4 miles offshore as well as several other deepwater fields) were not assembled for use in the ports requiring them until mid Sept 1940.
Taking figures for the whole war skews the results for losses, only figures for losses around August to October 1940 around the British Isles should be used to explain how effective they may have been.

Originally Posted by ubc
Having said this an impartial examination of naval forces available is striking. In Jan 1940 the RN could count on about 1250-1300 vessels including allied warships, while the Germans had amassed ~580 vessel. So the RN out numbered the Germans 2:1. This advantage is somewhat watered down since the RN was forced to divert significant portion of its fleet to convoy duties, however the gun power of the fleet in general made up for this short fall.

As well as having a lack of shipping the KM could not man all the vessals for the invasion to get near the number of crew they required meant that all training units were drafted into the mix and ships were stripped to the bare bones for operation.

Originally Posted by ubc
The German reference for ‘motor boats’, actually refer to fishing vessel ranging from small Drifters to large whalers. They were all able to cross the channel. Schenk reports that 1/3 of the barges were motorized and would have dominated the first wave [1/2 of the 1250 barges were motorized]. With every passing month this percentage would increased. Every wave after this required only 400 motorized barges, since the bulk of the towed barges were mostly in reserve or deployed on either side of the channel, to speed up loading and unloading over the shore. Each barge was equipped with multiple tow lines to cover breakage and attacks.

Motor boats referred to all boats with a motor, it included fishing boats, river craft and still water boats.
The tugs were all the Germans could get over 250hp supplemented with trawlers due to the lack of tugs.
The barges were to be towed across by the tugs and trawlers with 2 or three barges per tug. The motor boats were then supposed to assist the powered and un powered barges onto the beaches. No mention was made of getting them back off. (the only report I have read so far about the part of the tide they were going to go for was when it was going out so they could unload the barges as they were not conducive to rapid unloading and the ramps for stores and heavy equipment having to be constructed after beaching).
The technique for doing the landing was to tow the barges in a line then sail parrallel to the coast and turn together towards the coast and land, did they ever practice this, bear in mind they had limited if any experience of this type of seamanship.
A large number of the KM ‘armed ships or artillery ships’ were trawlers or motor boats with a field gun strapped to the deck with only the traverse offered by the actual gun mounting of any available, so pretty much having to aim the whole ship at the target.

All this neglects the first part of the Furher directive anyway which stated the the Luftwaffe had to have air superiority before the start of the invasion (8 to 10 days before the troops were sent to land) . The Luftwaffe lost the battle of attrition and the crews and aircraft were suffering from extreme fatigue by mid Sept. (The RAF Fighter Command by this time was larger than it had been at the start).

It also neglects the massive disruption to German transportation system, food production, industrial output that the diversion of over 2000 barges, the tugs, 100 merchant ships had, which also slowed up the build up.

Comprehensive analysis of Sealion here: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA421637

There used to be a very good site on Sealion and why it couldn’t work at a tactical / logistical level but I can’t find it.

The Luftwaffe failed against the RAF. Regardless of the reasons, they simply failed. I actually don’t understand the discussion if the Luftwaffe wasn’t able to fly freely.
Combine this with slow crossing of the channel, making prevention with countermoves much more easier.
Even all things necessary for the German tactical succeses were not available.

One needs to understand that the heart of a nation under attack can suffer more than 10% losses, because there is no alternative. The attacking side has more limits.

Don’t know how accurate this is (or how accurate my aged memory is), but I seem to recall that the German invasion fleet had something like 50,000 to 60,000 horses to be landed.

If so, it represents some sound reasons why German logisitics and invasion readiness were in serious trouble.

First, I don’t fancy being on a flat bottomed river barge on the ocean with horses used to land being thrown around in even a mild sea, with the consequences being injured horses at best and injured men and horses and or men overboard at worst. Assuming that plunging, panicking horses don’t sink the barges.

Second, the ratio of horses is roughly 1:5 to proposed invasion troops. Regardless of the spread of coast involved, that’s a lot of horses to get up beaches relative to fighting and other men. Horses take up a lot more space and do a lot more damage to ground per horse than per man, and are less manageable than motorised vehicles even when one wants them to be stationary and more so under fire.

Third, horses need a fairly large volume and or weight of food relative to their mass to keep them operational compared with internal combustion engined vehicles, which puts a strain on the supply line right back to where their feed comes from.

Fourth, horses need support such as farriers etc which, unlike spare tyres on mechanised vehicles, are not carried on each horse but have to go back to some base point for work.

All of which goes back to my earlier comment that Hitler was the chief strategist of the only army in the European conflict which was heavily dependent upon horse transport.

I doubt that an army heavily dependent upon horse transport and getting their horses to England without appropriate vessels was in the best position to invade England in an era where the Germans had already demonstrated the superiority of mechanised vehicles in land warfare in France etc.

Excellent point.
And it shows the specific nature of the keen - but fragile - forced tactical superiority the Germans had on the continent, based on well chosen concentration of sparse spearheads. The horses did all by all very well as logistical compromise … [b]on land/b as a stretched gear of the train network.
As I said, it all fits in the system of little pieces that make the fragile succes. A system that falls away when thinking about invasion over sea, destroying the mask of invincable military power at the time.