What's new

When Hitler "refused" to defeat Britain

There is a difference in ground attack or close air support and precision bombing.
Both are DIFFERENT and require DIFFERENT aircraft, weapons and tactics. A 1100lb bomb delivered via stuka dive bomber is meant to be used against strong points, bunkers, fortifications, buildings, command and control centres, ships, aircraft carriers, factories, bridges and ammo dumps WHILE a ground attack aircraft like IL-2 sturmovik equiped with rockets is best used against armour or convoys and against ground troops.
Yes, that is the point. The Ju 87 outran its use by 43 as air sup of Luftwaffe was gone. They required fighter cover that the later (and more multipurpose) Fock Wolfe GW aircraft did not.

Ace Hans Urich Rudel blew up more than 500 tanks with those...Stalin had put a huge bounty on him.
The bugger remained a convinced Nazi to the end of his life. :D
 
.
Invasion of England proper would have been impossible for the German armed forces, simply because their landing craft would never have got to the English coast in sufficient numbers.

Says who?

Luftwaffe plan was to smash RAF before moving in. The german U-boats were far superior subs to anything the royal navy had. Rest is all allied propaganda.

They would be shot to pieces with the formidable British Navy, even at the cost of heavy losses to themselves.

british navy was not formidable in second world war, it was a myth. The IJP and the USN ruled the seas. Without US involvement the english would have been confined to their little island.

The only chance Hitler had against Britain was a sharp rapid surprise attack that would take a few ports/and/or airports for a fast delivery of soldiers into the Britisches heartland. Else, it was always bound to fail.

propaganda and nothing else.

BK-37 37mm guns....
Ace Hans Urich Rudel blew up more than 500 tanks with those...Stalin had put a huge bounty on him.

I stand corrected, 37 mm guns.

Search for Hartmann, he was the best air ace in WW2.

The bugger remained a convinced Nazi to the end of his life.

And how is being nazi worse than being a communist?
 
.
What a idiot

not an idiot bro,rather a sound decision,but with wrong consequences.

German Armour strength were around 50%(Dwindling you may say) and the line was stretched.So,Those two Field Marshals decided to halt the operation for 3 days,redeploy their lines and armour before another Assault.Siege of Lille too delayed this deployment.But Germany never expected that Britain would mount an operation so large that they'd evacuate 3,38000 soldiers in 8 days.Its massive.
 
.
But wasn't the American public opinion strongly against joining any European war at that time? Even after Pearl Harbor, it took Hitler's declaration of war on America for America to directly get involved in the European theater. So what would have been the legitimate reason for justifying America's entry into war on behalf of Britain in the eyes of the American people?

Well, then you need to ask yourselves this question

What justified the US to go to war against Germany first time around in WW1?


The situation in 1940 is much alike, but more in favour of Britain then US had done in WW1. We see the US have actively engaging the German in Battle of the Atlantic and the Japanese Front via the nationalist.

The Question is not whether or not America have any justification to go to war with German, the question should be directly, would US go to war against Germany. As it may seem, if British got pushed into a corner like last time around, there is always a chance the US will step in, again, like last time around, and this is a risk that Germany not willing to take.

Look at it this way. Now Germany is facing a decision based on

-British got routed and virtually eliminated as a fighting force at least for a while. (left majority of their heavy equipment)
-British after the defeat in Dunkirk are pretty much secluded in their own Island
-Paris is waiting
-Armoured Force have limited number

If you are facing this situation in 1940, would you be risking it all, just to take out 400,000 BEF which almost irreverent to the fight to piss America off?

I would not blame the German on this, as this is actually quite the sane thing to do, I don't agrees with Hitler in a lot of thing, but for one, not pursuing the BEF is the right call, under the circumstance.
 
.
The german U-boats were far superior subs to anything the royal navy had.
This is a false statement.
In those days, submarines weren't as much of a threat to warships as they are today. After the introduction of ASDIC detection system and enigma code breaking ability, the fate of Uboats was sealed. The Germans did not produce that much number of warships only because of the treaty of Versailles. The Uboats mostly sunk merchant ships, not warships.

Yes, that is the point. The Ju 87 outran its use by 43 as air sup of Luftwaffe was gone. They required fighter cover that the later (and more multipurpose) Fock Wolfe GW aircraft did not.
The Russians had a very decent ground attack aircraft which could take hell of a beating and still keep on flying and fighters themselves feared getting shot down by it's tail gunner while they pumped lead from it's six o clock.
latest
 
.
not an idiot bro,rather a sound decision,but with wrong consequences.

German Armour strength were around 50%(Dwindling you may say) and the line was stretched.So,Those two Field Marshals decided to halt the operation for 3 days,redeploy their lines and armour before another Assault.Siege of Lille too delayed this deployment.But Germany never expected that Britain would mount an operation so large that they'd evacuate 3,38000 soldiers in 8 days.Its massive.

nobody expected the Brits to pull this out of their arse to be honest. At least not the US nor even the United Kingdom themselves

Joe Kennedy (JFK Father, whom was the ambassador to UK) said the brits was virtually finished and oppose to war with Germany. Nobody could foresee this could have been done in 10 days (The RN came back for 2 more days to pick up the French resistance)

Luftwaffe could have easily, and I repeat EASILY, won the battle of britain. Many english and allied historians put the battle of britain as the ultimate show of english resilience and a truckload of such bull ..... The reality was different.

The Luftwaffe in early years of the war was led by able generals and the german pilots were second to none, it also helped that german engineering (till end of the war) was second to none. The Luftwaffe made planned raids on all english airbases. The bombers would bomb the living daylights out of english airbases and their fighters would ambush returning RAF fighters low on fuel and ammunition.

It was after the great losses suffered that the dastardly RAF decided to go for psychological warfare. RAF had one advantage and it was in long range heavy bombers. The 2 engine heinkel was not a match for 4 engine RAF bombers. Berlin and other civilian cities were repeatedly targeted by the RAF. This infuriated Hitler who then ordered revenge strikes and that was the blunder committed by that buffoon.

The RAF had radar and could predict german air strikes on civilian targets. If Luftwaffe had stuck to attacking RAF bases then even at the cost of significant losses the radars could have been busted and RAF neutralised. But Hitler was a special category of idiot. Not only did he jeopardise the battle of britain but he abandoned it after a minor failure and invaded USSR.

If hitler had just pulled back, took ab reather and attacked england again with a proper plan england would have been crushed.

P.S. - The Ju87 was the BEST dive bomber of WW2.



nobody called those thieving robbers as good guys. In real world, unfortunately the good guy does not always win the fight.



In the later stages of the war the germans fixed 40 mm cannon underneath the wings, one cannon per wing, for tank sniping.

Actually, Most historian agrees even if Luftwaffe stick to the original plan and keep bombing RAF bases in the south, the Germans will still succumbed to the attrition game played by the British

First reason is simple, British is fighting on home ground, while they can recover down pilot and reuse them almost immediately had they not killed in the crash. German pilot is permanently lost once they got shot down, disregarding whether or not they survive the crash.

Judging from the fact RAF lost 126 air crew a month on average, Luftwaffe lost 140 air crew in general, if RAF can recover 50% of the down pilot, you are looking at 61 pilot permanently lost with Britain to 140 pilot permanently lost with Germany that's almost 3 times as much, and Luftwaffe is not 3 times as big as the RAF, assuming the pilot training time, aircraft building time is the same between the UK and Germany, German will ran out of pilot/aircraft before the RAF, hence they will lose the attrition game.

Second reason is, as you said, Germany lacking 4 engine long range bomber, effectively, any airfield above London is basically untouched. That mean whatever Germany can do, they can only do so in lower London and South of united Kingdom, bear in mind the British Industrial Heartland is north near Glasgow near Scotland, where they can never be bombed (as Luftwaffe only able to bomb South England) that would not touch the industrial input of the UK, hence beside losing a few airfield and a few pilot that goes with their plane, not much of an impact to British warfighting ability.

Third Reason is the distant. Fighter launch from the UK take half the time to intercept then the German took to fly over the channel, Time to launch 1 German Luftwaffe sortie would allow 2 sorties of RAF launches, that does not favour the German. Couple to the fact that multiple airbases can launch sortie of their own, you are looking at 1 German sortie against multiple RAF sorties (4 or maybe 5), Luftwaffe is at the underhand there
 
Last edited:
.
enigma code breaking ability

actually,Krigsmarine's Enigma was extra tricky(they added some extra spindle to secured the code further) than Others.Nobody could break it until late of the WW-II,when some successful operations mounted by USN to capture german submarines.
 
.
This is a false statement.
In those days, submarines weren't as much of a threat to warships as they are today. After the introduction of ASDIC detection system and enigma code breaking ability, the fate of Uboats was sealed. The Germans did not produce that much number of warships only because of the treaty of Versailles. The Uboats mostly sunk merchant ships, not warships.


The Russians had a very decent ground attack aircraft which could take hell of a beating and still keep on flying and fighters themselves feared getting shot down by it's tail gunner while they pumped lead from it's six o clock.
latest
Yes, most Russian machines were(are) built that way. :tup:

Says who?

Luftwaffe plan was to smash RAF before moving in. The german U-boats were far superior subs to anything the royal navy had. Rest is all allied propaganda.
Nope. German submarines followed pack attacks against least protected targets and not the Royal Navy.

british navy was not formidable in second world war, it was a myth. The IJP and the USN ruled the seas. Without US involvement the english would have been confined to their little island.
It was more than enough when compared to the Kreigsmarine multiplied by a factor of 3. :D

And how is being nazi worse than being a communist?
It is not. :D Just that the commies won the war. (but lost the peace)
 
.
Technically, a ground attack aircraft is of a different class. You can't compare a ground attack aircraft to a dive bomber BUT the Germans used stukas in ground attack role as well ( desperation on the Eastern front)
Yes, they are of two different classes however as you yourself said the Stuka's were also used for this role with the modification of adding two 37mm AT Bordkanone. However this modification could only take the Stuka so far in terms of versatility and the aircraft was already outclassed by Allied and Soviet aircraft for this purpose.

Ground attack aircraft proved more versatile than dive bombers throughout the war (which is why Allies and Soviets adopted them) and Stuka was designed as a dive bomber thus limiting it in performance for other purposes.
 
.
After the declaration of war there was a period called the phoney war during which only naval skirmish took place in the south atlantic between the allies and the germans

Actual fighting started when the British landed at Narvik, Norway
Not counting combat between German and Norwegion gorund forces around Dombås, 14–19 April 1940.

On the last day of the battle, the Norwegians were joined by some of the first British forces to see action on land in Norway when a howitzer manned by Royal Marines joined the fighting.

Battle of Dombås - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_World_War_II_(1940)

On 16 July 1940, following Germany's swift and successful occupation of France and the Low Countries and growing impatient with Britain's outright rejection of his recent peace overtures, Hitler issued Führer Directive No. 16, setting in motion preparations for a landing in Britain. He prefaced the order by stating: "As England, in spite of her hopeless military situation, still shows no signs of willingness to come to terms, I have decided to prepare, and if necessary to carry out, a landing operation against her. The aim of this operation is to eliminate the English Motherland as a base from which the war against Germany can be continued, and, if necessary, to occupy the country completely."[7]
Hitler's directive set four conditions for the invasion to occur:[8]
  • The RAF was to be "beaten down in its morale and in fact, that it can no longer display any appreciable aggressive force in opposition to the German crossing".
  • The English Channel was to be swept of British mines at the crossing points, and the Strait of Dover must be blocked at both ends by German mines.
  • The coastal zone between occupied France and England must be dominated by heavy artillery.
  • The Royal Navy must be sufficiently engaged in the North Sea and the Mediterranean so that it could not intervene in the crossing. British home squadrons must be damaged or destroyed by air and torpedo attacks.
This ultimately placed responsibility for Sea Lion‍ 's success squarely on the shoulders of Raeder and Göring, neither of whom had the slightest enthusiasm for the venture and, in fact, did little to hide their opposition to it.[9] Nor did Directive 16 provide for a combined operational headquarters under which all three service branches (Army, Navy, Air Force) could work together under a single umbrella organisation to plan, coordinate and execute such a complex undertaking (similar to the Allies' creation of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF) for the later Normandy landings).[10]

...
In 1940 the German Navy was ill-prepared for mounting an amphibious assault the size of Operation Sea Lion. Lacking purpose-built landing craft and both doctrinal and practical experience with amphibious warfare, the Kriegsmarine was largely starting from scratch. Some efforts had been made during the inter-war years to investigate landing military forces by sea, but inadequate funding severely limited any useful progress
...
Given barely two months to assemble a large seagoing invasion fleet, the Kriegsmarine opted to convert inland river barges into makeshift landing craft. Approximately 2,400 barges were collected from throughout Europe (860 from Germany, 1,200 from the Netherlands and Belgium and 350 from France). Of these, only about 800 were powered (some insufficiently); the rest had to be towed by tugs.
...
Cancellation

Both the British and the Americans believed during the summer of 1940 that a German invasion was imminent, and studied the forthcoming high tides of 5–9 August, 2–7 September, 1–6 October, and 30 October-4 November as likely dates.[67] The Germans were confident enough to film it in advance. A crew turned up at the Belgian port of Antwerp in early September 1940. For two days they filmed tanks and troops landing from barges on a nearby beach under simulated fire. It was explained that as the invasion would happen at night, Hitler wanted the German people to see all the details.[68]
On 17 September 1940, however, Hitler held a meeting with Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring and Generalfeldmarschall Gerd von Rundstedt during which he became convinced the operation was not viable. Control of the skies was still lacking, and coordination among three branches of the armed forces was out of the question. Later that day, Hitler ordered the postponement of the operation. He ordered the dispersal of the invasion fleet in order to avert further damage by British air and naval attacks.[69]
...
After the London Blitz, Hitler turned his attention to the Soviet Union, and Seelöwe lapsed, never to be resumed.
...
The great majority of military historians believe Operation Sea Lion had little chance of success.
...
Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, believed the invasion could not succeed and doubted whether the German air force would be able to win control of the skies; nevertheless he hoped that an early victory in the Battle of Britain would force the UK government to negotiate, without any need for an invasion.[75] Adolf Galland, commander of Luftwaffe fighters at the time, claimed invasion plans were not serious and that there was a palpable sense of relief in the Wehrmacht when it was finally called off. Generalfeldmarschall Gerd von Rundstedt also took this view and thought that Hitler never seriously intended to invade Britain and the whole thing was a bluff to put pressure on the British government to come to terms following the Fall of France.[76] He observed that Napoleon had failed to invade and the difficulties that confounded him did not appear to have been solved by the Sea Lion planners. In fact, in November 1939, the German naval staff produced a study on the possibility of an invasion of Britain and concluded that it required two preconditions, air and naval superiority, neither of which Germany ever had.[77] Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz believed air superiority was not enough and admitted, "We possessed neither control of the air or the sea; nor were we in any position to gain it."[78] Grand Admiral Erich Raeder thought it would be impossible for Germany to successfully invade the UK; he instead called for Malta and the Suez Canal to be overrun so German forces could link up with Japanese forces in the Indian Ocean to bring about the collapse of the British Empire in the Far East, and prevent the Americans from being able to use British bases if the United States entered the war.[79]
As early as 14 August 1940, Hitler had told his generals that he would not attempt to invade Britain if the task seemed too dangerous, before adding that there were other ways of defeating the UK than invading
Operation Sea Lion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No landings, no victory over Britain via combat/occupation.

Bundesarchiv_Bild_101II-MN-1369-10A%2C_Wilhelmshaven%2C_Prahme_f%C3%BCr_%22Unternehmen_Seel%C3%B6we%22.jpg

Invasion barges ....

german-siebel-ferry-500-25.jpg


BoulogneBarges1940.jpg

German invasion barges waiting at Boulogne Harbour, France during the Battle of Britain

bombing-of-german-barges-of-hitlers-invasion-fleet-in-dunkirk-taken-BW58KK.jpg

Bombing of German Barges of Hitler's Invasion Fleet in Dunkirk taken some time after the evacuation of British Forces

ALSO, during the paralandings in Holland, the Lufwaffe had lost about half its fleet of air transports (Ju-52 etc) and a singificant portion of its elite paratroopers. These losses still hampered the Germans during their invasion of Crete. In 1940, an air assault on Britain would have been out of the question.

The Luftwaffe lost about 525 airplanes during the campaign in Holland. Of those 525 about half could be recovered, repaired or used for reassembly of other damaged planes within six months after the Dutch capitulation. The figures about airplanes considered total losses vary between 225 and 275.

The vast majority of this quite staggering loss was composed from the transport fleet. The German researcher Werner Haupt stated that by the end of the first day about 250 Ju-52 planes had been put out of action (in all degrees). Indeed the massive airlanding operation had demanded an extremely high toll of the German transportfleet, particularly during the first day when they found themselves jammed on the captured airfields in the West of Holland. Many of the sitting ducks were damaged or destroyed from subsequent artillery barrages, aerial bombardments or other means of destruction. After the May War the transportfleet appeared to have been decimated and had also lost numerous precious pilots and instructors, many of which had either been killed or transported to the UK as POW's.

, the losses in the transport fleet had been painfull. It was first felt during the initial phase of the air-war over the United Kingdom and the Channel only a few months later in 1940 and again a year after when the Sovjet Union was invaded. When Germany invaded Crete [May 1941] by means of yet another large scale airborne operation, the recently compensated losses in the transport fleet were yet again lost. Those losses would afterwards never be overcome again. The Stalingrad air-bridge would show how much the transport fleet - that had enjoyed no priority in production anymore - had suffered in the first three years of the war and had ever since only received replacements rather than (substantial) expansion.
One could say that the only true losses the Germans suffered during their campaign in the Netherlands, were those related to the transportfleet and its skilled core of very seasoned air-men.
Balance [War over Holland - May 1940: the Dutch struggle]

Battle for The Hague - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
. . . .
This is a false statement.
In those days, submarines weren't as much of a threat to warships as they are today. After the introduction of ASDIC detection system and enigma code breaking ability, the fate of Uboats was sealed. The Germans did not produce that much number of warships only because of the treaty of Versailles. The Uboats mostly sunk merchant ships, not warships.

This is not a flase statement. German submarines were the best. In fact the Germans were the first to design the blueprint for a new submarine which will later go on to become the design for nuclear subs.

Submarines were not the threat and surface vessels did not have the ASW helicopters and modern sonars either.

Actually, Most historian agrees even if Luftwaffe stick to the original plan and keep bombing RAF bases in the south, the Germans will still succumbed to the attrition game played by the British

As they say, winners write the history.
 
.
As they say, winners write the history.

This is not history, as History does not happened that way. Hitler decided to hit Civilian Population, that's is the history.

What I said was according to physical limit and from common sense, if you have anything to challenge what I said, please do go ahead, blame it on Winner writes history is in another word, means you are simply doing a loser talk.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom