What If Germany Won World War 2?

[Chruiken]

Or, essentially a continuation of the same war, which is the view which needs to be taken for the phrase "Interim peace", to actually make sense.

The Winter War and the Continuation War were two different wars, no matter what the Finnish government said it was. They were fought for completely different reasons at different times and the sides didn't even have the same forces. The Winter War was because the USSR wanted more land as a buffer for Leningrad. The Continuation War was because Finland had allied with Nazi Germany, who had just invaded the USSR. These two reasons ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT and the wars had nothing to do with each other, other than being so close together in time and having USSR and Finland fighting in Finnish territory.

[Panzerjaeger]

Or, essentially a continuation of the same war, which is the view which needs to be taken for the phrase "Interim peace", to actually make sense.

The Winter War and the Continuation War were two different wars, no matter what the Finnish government said it was. They were fought for completely different reasons at different times and the sides didn't even have the same forces. The Winter War was because the USSR wanted more land as a buffer for Leningrad. The Continuation War was because Finland had allied with Nazi Germany, who had just invaded the USSR. These two reasons ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT and the wars had nothing to do with each other, other than being so close together in time and having USSR and Finland fighting in Finnish territory.

The Finns allied with Germany in order to regain their territory from the Winter War.

[South Norwega]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

They don't source "Interim Peace". That website doesn't mention "interim".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interim_Peace

Primary source:

http://www.winterwar.com/War%27sEnd.htm

It doesn't say interim.

Or, essentially a continuation of the same war,

No... this is exactly why they are called by different names. This was the first of two distinct wars between fought between Finland and the Soviet Union during World War II, indeed their reasons for going to war also separate.

Then stop using Interim peace. The phrase is essentially from the Finnish side, which viewed the wars as the same. The Finns maintained a State of War between the Winter and Continuation Wars. Hence the name Continuation War. If you're saying what you're saying, then the phrase interim peace is practically meaningless. If you view the wars as completely separate, the Winter War was a Soviet Debacle, but a Victory, in a way. If you use the phrase interim Peace, it means the wars are interlocked, inexorably, which they in fact, are. The Continuation War came about entirely because of the Winter War.

which is the view which needs to be taken for the phrase "Interim peace", to actually make sense.

The term is used for the time between the Winter War and the Continuation War, lasting a little over a year (between 1940 and 1941), during which the hostilities between Finland and the Soviet Union temporarily ceased.

It was not one single war, they were two separate wars. That is why they do not just merge them altogether as one under the title "the Winter War". Peace was declared that ended the Winter War. Nobody won that. A year later, the Soviets and Finns started fighting one another when Finland joined the Axis, this time with Germany helping the Finns, in the Continuation War. The Soviets won that war.

The bolded is an implication that the hostilities were linked, which means the underlined is not entirely correct. The Soviets won the Winter War, but they were pushed back from those gains in the early stages of the Continuation War. The Soviets won the Winter War, but the Finns didn't view that peace as permanent, so they got in bed with Nazi Germany and hopped on the Operation Barbarossa Bandwagon.

I've explained why it doesn't say victory, it's because of the Continuation War.

And I've explained HOW THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE WARS.

THEN STOP USING THE FUCKING TERM INTERIM PEACE. It onyl makes sense if the Continuation War is viewed as a response to or more correctly, a Continuation of, the Winter War.

The Winter War was fought exclusively between the Finns and Soviet Union. Nobody won it; peace was declared between both sides. The Continuation War is the war between Finland and the Soviet Union with Germany helping the Finns after they joined the Axis.

The peace was advantageous to the Soviets. The Soviets gained territory, the Finns lost territory. The Finns lost the Winter War, the Soviets therefore WON the Winter War.

It certainly wasn't a great Soviet Victory, it was a Pyrrhic Victory, at best, but it was some form of victory.

Yes, the Continuation War wasn't a great Soviet victory, certainly a Pyrrhic Victory.

Oh no it wasn't.

A Pyrrhic victory (pronounced /ˈpɪrɪk/) is a victory with devastating cost to the victor; it carries the implication that another such will ultimately cause defeat.

The Continuation War was not a Pyrrhic Victory.

[Novus Niciae]

I have read that novel.

Personally I think that if Operation Overlord had failed the alternative plan of invading via Italy would of been used, it would of taken longer and had higher casualties but the end result would of been the same.

A German victory would of only been possible if Hitler had of remained an ally or at least neutral towards Soviet Russia while they defeated the UK, USA & France, then after they had obtained victory in the west they could turn their attention east and conquer Russia without interference from the west.

The root cause of Nazi Germany's defeat was that they broke one of the cardinal rules of warfare, they divided their forces, and as a result they did not have enough strength on either front to continue the blitzkrieg that had brought them victory in the early stages of the war.

But assuming that they won the war, then there would be a lot less Jews in the world, and a cover story of what happened that nobody really believed but were not game to publicly contradict, The few who knew the truth would have high government positions by now or would of been "dealt with" if they threatened to go public. For the privileged few, life in the Reich would be very good indeed, there would be plenty of everything. But for the majority there would be minimum wage jobs in factories and farms and a subsistence existence to support the luxurious lifestyles of the elite. The Slavs would be a underclass with little to no education beyond what is needed to operate a machine in a factory or drive a tractor on a farm, their potential for social advancement would be next to non-existent, but government propaganda would claim otherwise and a few token Slavs would occasionally be paraded in front of the media to "prove" this.

There would also be a cold war situation with the Axis on one side and the USA and their allies (mostly consisting of former British colonies and dominions) on the other. There would be an arms race with both sides gathering nuclear weapons at a frighting rate (like the USA/USSR arms race).

[El Nuevo Mexico]

In my opinon, if the Generals had control of the Eastern front and not Hitler and his cronies, I think the war would have gone to Germany. If people like Von Manstein, Paulus, von Kleist, von Rundstedt, all of them, would have the central say in the East, then most of the huge mistakes at Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad wouldn't have happened and those cities would have been taken, leading to a German victory, my prediction by at leasat 1943 or 1944. With that, Rommel would have the oil to push on to Egypt and take the lightly guarded and oil-rich middle east, D-Day would have probably been carried out and failed, either on the beaches themselves or they would have been pushed back during the Normandy breakout, leading to Op. Sealion happening and probably being successful with the wolfpacks and no way to be re-enforced it would have been only a matter of time before Germany won and created a British Puppet state with Edward VIII as its leader, and if the allies made an attack on Morocco and Algeria, then after those things it would have been easily countered, meaing German domination of Africa. And who knows what would have happened then. Pro-German Argentina taking South America, Japans would probably recover and re-take its lost territory, the US would be sent into panic, Mexico, Cuba and other Latin American countries might be tempted to side with the German Empire.
Ultimatly, I belive everything was lost on the Eastern front. Howevever, no Holocaust might have been good too.
If the Holocaust never happened, Hitler would have been widely more popular, lets say 1 million of the 10+ million people joined the German army and her allies, plus another 10+ million tax payers, and workers etc. There wouldn't be as much anti-German resistance, and so much more.
So, if Germany never did the Holocaust, and Hitler shut his mouth on the Eastern front, then Germany would have won the war.

[Panzerjaeger]

In my opinon, if the Generals had control of the Eastern front and not Hitler and his cronies, I think the war would have gone to Germany. If people like Von Manstein, Paulus, von Kleist, von Rundstedt, all of them, would have the central say in the East, then most of the huge mistakes at Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad wouldn't have happened and those cities would have been taken, leading to a German victory, my prediction by at leasat 1943 or 1944. With that, Rommel would have the oil to push on to Egypt and take the lightly guarded and oil-rich middle east, D-Day would have probably been carried out and failed, either on the beaches themselves or they would have been pushed back during the Normandy breakout, leading to Op. Sealion happening and probably being successful with the wolfpacks and no way to be re-enforced it would have been only a matter of time before Germany won and created a British Puppet state with Edward VIII as its leader, and if the allies made an attack on Morocco and Algeria, then after those things it would have been easily countered, meaing German domination of Africa. And who knows what would have happened then. Pro-German Argentina taking South America, Japans would probably recover and re-take its lost territory, the US would be sent into panic, Mexico, Cuba and other Latin American countries might be tempted to side with the German Empire.
Ultimatly, I belive everything was lost on the Eastern front. Howevever, no Holocaust might have been good too.
If the Holocaust never happened, Hitler would have been widely more popular, lets say 1 million of the 10+ million people joined the German army and her allies, plus another 10+ million tax payers, and workers etc. There wouldn't be as much anti-German resistance, and so much more.
So, if Germany never did the Holocaust, and Hitler shut his mouth on the Eastern front, then Germany would have won the war.

Paulus was a horrible general why did you include him? von Manstein considered him a completely incompetent buffoon.

[Divair]

In my opinon, if the Generals had control of the Eastern front and not Hitler and his cronies, I think the war would have gone to Germany. If people like Von Manstein, Paulus, von Kleist, von Rundstedt, all of them, would have the central say in the East, then most of the huge mistakes at Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad wouldn't have happened and those cities would have been taken, leading to a German victory, my prediction by at leasat 1943 or 1944. With that, Rommel would have the oil to push on to Egypt and take the lightly guarded and oil-rich middle east, D-Day would have probably been carried out and failed, either on the beaches themselves or they would have been pushed back during the Normandy breakout, leading to Op. Sealion happening and probably being successful with the wolfpacks and no way to be re-enforced it would have been only a matter of time before Germany won and created a British Puppet state with Edward VIII as its leader, and if the allies made an attack on Morocco and Algeria, then after those things it would have been easily countered, meaing German domination of Africa. And who knows what would have happened then. Pro-German Argentina taking South America, Japans would probably recover and re-take its lost territory, the US would be sent into panic, Mexico, Cuba and other Latin American countries might be tempted to side with the German Empire.
Ultimatly, I belive everything was lost on the Eastern front. Howevever, no Holocaust might have been good too.
If the Holocaust never happened, Hitler would have been widely more popular, lets say 1 million of the 10+ million people joined the German army and her allies, plus another 10+ million tax payers, and workers etc. There wouldn't be as much anti-German resistance, and so much more.
So, if Germany never did the Holocaust, and Hitler shut his mouth on the Eastern front, then Germany would have won the war.

Paulus was a horrible general why did you include him? von Manstein considered him a completely incompetent buffoon.

No, he wasn't.

[Jusela]

I dont feel like writing an entire essay on my own, so i'll just copy and paste some parts of other people's essays. I greatly recommend that you read these essays.

http://web.archive.org/web/200705040342 ... /seal1.htm
http://www.alternatehistory.com/gateway ... alion.html
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/ww ... rlord.aspx

And even if the Luftwaffe managed to gain air supremacy, the RAF would have simply moved to airbases that were out of range for the German bombers.

How would they intend to do that? By day if they flew, they'd simply be attacked by escort fighters the bombers had, and, given that they would be in no position to engage them, having their capabilities crippled, be destroyed. Night flying was completely out of the question for moving them, as the missions were always seen as risky by the commanders. The only real option they'd have is to fold up the wings and move them by trucks to new airbases, which guarantees you no safety as your convoys are even more vulnerable to air attack (the Russians learned this in the Battle of Smolensk).

...what the RAF planned to do if it lost the Battle of Britain. Quite simply, they would withdraw all surviving fighter groups to the north of Britain, out of range of German fighters, where they would be essentially invulnerable to attack. They would wait there until the Germans launched an invasion attempt, whereupon they would immediately fly south en masse to attack, denying the Germans air superiority. So due to this quirk of geography and German fighter range, there is basically no way for the Germans to get air superiority over the invasion (without, say, multiplying the size of their air force by many times - which would, again, require great advance planning and mean taking resources from some other part of the war effort), because the British would withdraw enough aircraft to safety to cause serious problems for an invasion. Something often overlooked about the Battle of Britain is that the British had multiple fighter groups, several of which were based to the north, out of range of attack. These were used as places where the pilots could rest, aircraft could be repaired, et cetera. They were at fairly high strength during the Battle, and thus even total annihlation of the aircraft actually in the fight would leave the RAF with plenty of aircraft in reserve for Sealion.

So Germany having total air superiority during Sealion is a impossibility. Even if the British lost the BOB, the RAF would still be there to interfere with Luftwaffe operations during an attempted invasion.
Also you describe it such as the Luftwaffe dotting the skies of Britain black, covering every road in the country while bombing the cities at the same time. Even if they had won the BOB, such an event is doubtful. Im quite certain that in reality, the RAF could have retreated north if the battle was lost.

The British were losing more planes and pilots than they could make up for, in addition to having to suffer their industrial centers being bombed day and night by the Germans.

...but bombing was never decisive in the war even when the Allies launched thousand-bomber raids against poorly defended targets in 1944. In 1940 the Luftwaffe bombers, flying unopposed, would cause a good bit of damage and be very annoying, but they would not seriously impair Britain's ability to carry on the war, or to build up its defenses against German invasion. As such, if the bombing campaign continued unopposed before an invasion, it still would not be sufficient to weaken Britain's defenses (or, actually, prevent them from strengthening) to any great extent. Unopposed bombing would thus be of little to no help in preparing the way for a German invasion.

Also the British were producing aircraft twice as quickly as the Germans. They could make up for the aircrafts that they lost. Pilots however, something i dont have a source on, so i can neither agree nor disagree with your statement.
http://cz-raf.hyperlink.cz/BoB/stat.html

How lol? If they're crippled, they have no tactical capabilities. IF they were foolhardy enough to try to interfere with the invasion, they'd simply by shot down either by the flak batteries on board the assisting ships or by the Luftwaffe, providing cover and support for the invasion. Furthermore, they had no effective weapons for attacking ships or personnel on the ground. It would have been like the Luftwaffe calling in for support on Overlord: they would have strafed some and then flown away, not hampering the invasion at all.

Shot down by what damn ships? Heck, what damn navy would be a better choice of words. No source on the amount of ships the KM had in early September 1940, but this little piece of info should be sufficient.

...the Kriegsmarine entered the war with 2 new battleships, 2 old battleships, 3 pocket battleships, 1 heavy cruiser, 5 light cruisers, 17 destroyers and, fortunately for the Allies, only 56 submarines.

Yeah, i can really imagine that miniscule fleet in the Channel, with invasion river barges next to them (that are meant for rivers and shallow water), ripping down those poor RAF pilots.
Besides, the whole point of throwing the RAF into the battle incase of a invasion was to PREVENT the Luftwaffe from conducting their operations decently. Brits again win on this one.

For a navy with literally hundreds of ships, the losses were barely severe, especially considering that they still had battleships Bismarck, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, the Schleswig-Holstein, Schlesien, cruisers Lutzow, Scheer, Hipper, Prinz Eugen, Emden, Konigsberg, Karlsruhe, Koln, Leipzig, Numberg, and dozens more destroyers.

RN was literally ten times as large as the German surface fleet. *nod nod*.

Thank god for uboats, which the Germans had a lot of (as I previously mentioned, stationed at such places in France as La Rochelle, St. Nazaire, Lorient, Brest, and in Germany at Kiel and Bremen, and in Norway at Trondheim.

...most of the German navy was composed of U-boats. Great for commerce raiding, lousy for attacking well defended convoys, especially in 1940. Even lousier for attacking entire fleets of warships. Not to mention the fact that in the English Channel, in an area packed with destroyers and with very little room to manouver, using U-boats would be nothing short of suicide because they would have nowhere to hide.
The German surface navy, at its height, never consisted of more than one battleship, a few battlecruisers and "pocket battleships", and ten to twenty lighter vessels. Thus, the Kreigsmarine at the height of its power was outnumbered between 5 to 1 and 10 to 1 by the Home Fleet. Not good odds if you have to not just fight a force of ships, but prevent them from so much as surviving for a day or two in the middle of the English Channel to sink your barges.

With the RN pinned in the channel between packs of uboats, the surface fleet, and the Luftwaffe flying overhead, there would have been no way to escape. The submarines, especially, would be deadly towards their ships.

Again you overestimate those subs. Subs aren't made for attacking massed fleets of armed ships. They are meant for sneak attacks.
Second, dont even TRY to think of the KM sinking the RN. The reverse is the one that would have happened.
Third, the Luftwaffe wouldn't have done any meaningfull damage on the RN.

... aircraft - also not enough to stop the Royal Navy. The main problem is that they don't have the range to reach Scapa Flow, so they can't actually attack the British ships until they are already well on their way to where they will do the most harm. The Germans didn't have much capability to attack ships, anyway. They had no dedicated naval attack aircraft, no torpedo bombers, and their pilots lacked both training and experience in naval attacks. This was demonstrated in the Norway campaign, when they achieved a very low success rate against outnumbered, unarmed ships. In contrast, a battleship task force with a full screen of cruisers and destroyers has a tremendous number of antiaircraft batteries with all-around coverage, and can deal tremendous punishment to enemy aircraft. In the Pacific war, even when both sides had extensive antiship capabilities, air battles between American and Japanese fleets often lasted for many attacks over a period of days, with hundreds of aircraft being able to sink many major vessels in a task force, but virtually always leaving many survivors. Even a Royal Navy force with no air support at all could survive for the required few days in the channel under attack by an air force much better against ships than the Luftwaffe.

In fact, the Luftwaffe would have been quite bad against ships. Virtually all of its bombers were level bombers, which drop bombs from high altitude against stationary targets to good effect. Ships, however, can manouver so as to make themselves harder to hit - and level bombers thus become poor choices to use against ships even in the hands of expert pilots (only the Japanese had any real success with them in the war). Dive bombers and torpedo bombers are generally more effective. As mentioned previously, Germany had no torpedo bombers and its only dive bomber was the Stuka. The Stuka was the terror of the skies in the 30s, but by 1940 it was considered slow, vulnerable, and short ranged. Stukas would have suffered horrendous loss rates against the intense air defense of capital ship groups with concentrated destroyer screens. It's also worthy to note that, due to their range and speed, they could only make an absolute maximum of three attacks on Royal Navy elements sailing from Scapa Flow before they reached the channel. Realistically, only one or two. Thus the British fleet elements sailing south to stop the invasion would not experience significant air attack until they were already
within range of the invasion fleet and its supply lines.

The British plan incase of invasion was to rush all of the Home Fleet into the channel.

Which would, of course, have them pinned in there by the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe naval bombers.

Luftwaffe naval bombers lol wut?
Also, KM + RN + In Channel + 1/2 days = Plenty of new German decorations on the seabed.

Besides, by doing diversionary attacks in the North Sea

Actually a complete interception of the Royal Navy before they could even reach the channel, not a diversion.

With WHAT? The Home Fleet would rip the KM to shreds before continuing on to the Channel to intercept the invasion.

(diversionary attacks in the Mediterranean doesn't make any sense.

Which is exactly why they weren't planning a diversionary attack, rather the interception of the RN's ships docked in Malta, Egypt, and Crete.

Again, with what? The RN outclassed the RM in the Mediterranean, and the Germans didn't have any meaningful naval resources in the Med.

the KM would leave their troop transport even more vulnerable.

No, actually. Asides from being covered by the Kriegsmarine, the Luftwaffe's naval bombers were also to provide support and protection to the landing crafts and tug barges that had been assembled for the job.

So the KM is supposed to both cover the invasion and intercept the RN before it reaches the Channel? Wow. One hell of a multitasking for a fleet that is OUTNUMBERED TEN TO ONE.
Also, there were no such thing as Luftwaffe "naval bombers" at that point. The Germans didn't even use torpedoes at this stage of the war.
Second, the Germans would have used river barges to transport troops during invasion, and these barges were VERY prone to sinking.

...most of the barges were designed for river traffic and would sink in anything greater than sea state two. On D-Day men and equipment loaded in open barges were to steam in column until ten miles from the landing site, then turn sequentially and steer parallel to the coast. Upon signal all vessels were to execute a flank turn and proceed in line abreast to the beach.

And this would have been executed at night...

...controlled and coordinated by loud hailer!

Truly an excellent invasion plan! I really wonder why the Allied never thought of it when conducting Overlord...
------
To sum things up, Sealion would have been a disaster. It would have gone this way:

1. The Germans manage to land and gain a small beachhead.
2. The British immedietly rush and engage the landing zone, all of RAF gets thrown into the air to engage the Luftwaffe, the RN starts sailing towards the Channel. Also the British gas the entire landing beach.
3. RN reaches the Channel, sinks the German surface fleet and destroys the subs attacking the fleet.
4. RN sinks/runs over the river barges carrying supplies.
5. Germans have failed to break out of the areas surrounding the landing zone, with supplies and ammunition running out, they surrender. Even if they'd manage to break out, the RN would have sunk their supply line anyway.

The biggest obstacle to a successful Sealion is simply that big bunch of floating metal chunks called the Royal Navy, and the fact that the Germans lack the ability to transport sufficent supplies over the Channel. Supplying the planned 9 divisions would have been a HUGE task. Compare that to Overlord where the Allies had to supply 5 divisions, and that was hard enough.

If you want Sealion to be successful, you'd have to pick up a magic wand and blow the RN away while giving the KM one hell of a boost.
Even if the Germans manage to land and supply their divisions, they still have to face the entire British Army on their hometurf.

Now it's time for some fresh air... uh-huh.

[Panzerjaeger]

In my opinon, if the Generals had control of the Eastern front and not Hitler and his cronies, I think the war would have gone to Germany. If people like Von Manstein, Paulus, von Kleist, von Rundstedt, all of them, would have the central say in the East, then most of the huge mistakes at Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad wouldn't have happened and those cities would have been taken, leading to a German victory, my prediction by at leasat 1943 or 1944. With that, Rommel would have the oil to push on to Egypt and take the lightly guarded and oil-rich middle east, D-Day would have probably been carried out and failed, either on the beaches themselves or they would have been pushed back during the Normandy breakout, leading to Op. Sealion happening and probably being successful with the wolfpacks and no way to be re-enforced it would have been only a matter of time before Germany won and created a British Puppet state with Edward VIII as its leader, and if the allies made an attack on Morocco and Algeria, then after those things it would have been easily countered, meaing German domination of Africa. And who knows what would have happened then. Pro-German Argentina taking South America, Japans would probably recover and re-take its lost territory, the US would be sent into panic, Mexico, Cuba and other Latin American countries might be tempted to side with the German Empire.
Ultimatly, I belive everything was lost on the Eastern front. Howevever, no Holocaust might have been good too.
If the Holocaust never happened, Hitler would have been widely more popular, lets say 1 million of the 10+ million people joined the German army and her allies, plus another 10+ million tax payers, and workers etc. There wouldn't be as much anti-German resistance, and so much more.
So, if Germany never did the Holocaust, and Hitler shut his mouth on the Eastern front, then Germany would have won the war.

Paulus was a horrible general why did you include him? von Manstein considered him a completely incompetent buffoon.

No, he wasn't.

Uh yes he was. Not only did he refuse to pull out of Stalingrad when von Manstein issued the memo he ignored von Manstein when he told him to keep his panzers out of Stalingrad and along the outskirts and flanks of the city in order to stop something like Operation Uranus from happening in the first place. von Manstein wanted to relieve Paulus but felt it could possibly damage morale for the soldiers besieged in the city a decision he latter regretted when Paulus surrendered to the Soviets in order to become an NKVD propaganda tool while leaving his men to die. So please tell me how a general who had no clue how to use tanks and couldn't even manage a proper defense of his flanks was a good commander?

[Divair]

In my opinon, if the Generals had control of the Eastern front and not Hitler and his cronies, I think the war would have gone to Germany. If people like Von Manstein, Paulus, von Kleist, von Rundstedt, all of them, would have the central say in the East, then most of the huge mistakes at Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad wouldn't have happened and those cities would have been taken, leading to a German victory, my prediction by at leasat 1943 or 1944. With that, Rommel would have the oil to push on to Egypt and take the lightly guarded and oil-rich middle east, D-Day would have probably been carried out and failed, either on the beaches themselves or they would have been pushed back during the Normandy breakout, leading to Op. Sealion happening and probably being successful with the wolfpacks and no way to be re-enforced it would have been only a matter of time before Germany won and created a British Puppet state with Edward VIII as its leader, and if the allies made an attack on Morocco and Algeria, then after those things it would have been easily countered, meaing German domination of Africa. And who knows what would have happened then. Pro-German Argentina taking South America, Japans would probably recover and re-take its lost territory, the US would be sent into panic, Mexico, Cuba and other Latin American countries might be tempted to side with the German Empire.
Ultimatly, I belive everything was lost on the Eastern front. Howevever, no Holocaust might have been good too.
If the Holocaust never happened, Hitler would have been widely more popular, lets say 1 million of the 10+ million people joined the German army and her allies, plus another 10+ million tax payers, and workers etc. There wouldn't be as much anti-German resistance, and so much more.
So, if Germany never did the Holocaust, and Hitler shut his mouth on the Eastern front, then Germany would have won the war.

Paulus was a horrible general why did you include him? von Manstein considered him a completely incompetent buffoon.

No, he wasn't.

Uh yes he was. Not only did he refuse to pull out of Stalingrad when von Manstein issued the memo he ignored von Manstein when he told him to keep his panzers out of Stalingrad and along the outskirts and flanks of the city in order to stop something like Operation Uranus from happening in the first place. von Manstein wanted to relieve Paulus but felt it could possibly damage morale for the soldiers besieged in the city a decision he latter regretted when Paulus surrendered to the Soviets in order to become an NKVD propaganda tool while leaving his men to die. So please tell me how a general who had no clue how to use tanks and couldn't even manage a proper defense of his flanks was a good commander?

And your proof is.. where, exactly?


I am by no means a WW2 expert, but last I recall Hitler didn't ALLOW a retreat out of Stalingrad until the very last second, and it was too late by then.

[Panzerjaeger]

In my opinon, if the Generals had control of the Eastern front and not Hitler and his cronies, I think the war would have gone to Germany. If people like Von Manstein, Paulus, von Kleist, von Rundstedt, all of them, would have the central say in the East, then most of the huge mistakes at Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad wouldn't have happened and those cities would have been taken, leading to a German victory, my prediction by at leasat 1943 or 1944. With that, Rommel would have the oil to push on to Egypt and take the lightly guarded and oil-rich middle east, D-Day would have probably been carried out and failed, either on the beaches themselves or they would have been pushed back during the Normandy breakout, leading to Op. Sealion happening and probably being successful with the wolfpacks and no way to be re-enforced it would have been only a matter of time before Germany won and created a British Puppet state with Edward VIII as its leader, and if the allies made an attack on Morocco and Algeria, then after those things it would have been easily countered, meaing German domination of Africa. And who knows what would have happened then. Pro-German Argentina taking South America, Japans would probably recover and re-take its lost territory, the US would be sent into panic, Mexico, Cuba and other Latin American countries might be tempted to side with the German Empire.
Ultimatly, I belive everything was lost on the Eastern front. Howevever, no Holocaust might have been good too.
If the Holocaust never happened, Hitler would have been widely more popular, lets say 1 million of the 10+ million people joined the German army and her allies, plus another 10+ million tax payers, and workers etc. There wouldn't be as much anti-German resistance, and so much more.
So, if Germany never did the Holocaust, and Hitler shut his mouth on the Eastern front, then Germany would have won the war.

Paulus was a horrible general why did you include him? von Manstein considered him a completely incompetent buffoon.

No, he wasn't.

Uh yes he was. Not only did he refuse to pull out of Stalingrad when von Manstein issued the memo he ignored von Manstein when he told him to keep his panzers out of Stalingrad and along the outskirts and flanks of the city in order to stop something like Operation Uranus from happening in the first place. von Manstein wanted to relieve Paulus but felt it could possibly damage morale for the soldiers besieged in the city a decision he latter regretted when Paulus surrendered to the Soviets in order to become an NKVD propaganda tool while leaving his men to die. So please tell me how a general who had no clue how to use tanks and couldn't even manage a proper defense of his flanks was a good commander?

And your proof is.. where, exactly?


I am by no means a WW2 expert, but last I recall Hitler didn't ALLOW a retreat out of Stalingrad until the very last second, and it was too late by then.

It is a well known fact but if you really need reading material on it I would suggest Antony Beevor's Stalingrad as he goes on a very long and detailed explanation of what led up to Operation Uranus. Hitler had given tons of orders that were ignored or outright defied I don't get why Paulus suddenly gets off the hook for following orders. Rommel and Guderian both violated orders to hold during the Lowlands Invasion. Model violated orders all the time and even flew into the Wolf's Lair to tell Hitler to shove it. Again Hitler was a push over when confronted by his commanders it is just too many of them worried about their careers or their own necks more then they did about fighting the war.

[Wolffbaden]

So Germany having total air superiority during Sealion is a impossibility. Even if the British lost the BOB, the RAF would still be there to interfere with Luftwaffe operations during an attempted invasion.

You did not answer my question. I pointed out why trying to move the planes out of their range would not be a feasible plan of action, and why it would fail during the day, why they would not even attempt it during the night, and what would happen if they tried moving them using trucks- as well as what kind of shitty fuel situation they'd be facing. I ask again, what is, if you even have one now, your proposed solution?

Also you describe it such as the Luftwaffe dotting the skies of Britain black, covering every road in the country while bombing the cities at the same time.

Actually, the first person to put it that way in this thread has been you, not me.

Even if they had won the BOB, such an event is doubtful.

Even though this was one of the main purposes of the Battle of Britain being started in the first place lol.

Im quite certain that in reality, the RAF could have retreated north if the battle was lost.

How? Fly there, you waste petrol, are probably going to be intercepted by a bomber squadron with fighter escorts, and be shot down as you are in no position to carry out a dogfight. At night, you waste petrol and run the very high risk of navigationally miscalculating your location and crashing. During the day, on a slow convoy, you waste fuel and run the risk of being of not being able to make it to your point of destination, and being intercepted and strafed or bombed by fighters/light bombers. During the night, you waste fuel and run the risk of not being able to make it to your point of destination.

In 1940 the Luftwaffe bombers, flying unopposed, would cause a good bit of damage and be very annoying, but they would not seriously impair Britain's ability to carry on the war, or to build up its defenses against German invasion.

How'd they figure that? Britain's ability to carry on the war relied, as an island nation, entirely on its ability to obtain supplies and maintain a working industrial sector. With the uboats choking the life out of convoys in the Atlantic and Irish Seas, long before they could even reach the English Channel, and at the same time the Luftwaffe destroying numerous "ghost factories" on the mainland that the British were trying to get to produce actual usable war goods, Britain WAS already impaired.

D. Supply Situation At present the British aircraft industry produces about 180 to 200 fighters and 40 bombers a month. In view of the present conditions relating to production (the appearance of raw material difficulties, the disruption or breakdown of production at factories owing to air attacks, the increased vulnerability to air attack owing to the fundamental reorganization of the aircraft industry now in progress), it is believed that for the time being output will decrease rather than increase should the combat continue.

In the event of an intensification of air warfare it is expected that the present strength of the RAF will fall, and this decline will be aggravated by the continued decrease in production. -Col. "Beppo" Schmid

Sourced by:

Klee, Karl. Operation "Sea Lion" and the Role for the Luftwaffe. Maxwell AFB, Ala.: USAF Historical Division, 1955.

Lee, Asher. The German Air Force. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1946.

As such, if the bombing campaign continued unopposed before an invasion, it still would not be sufficient to weaken Britain's defenses (or, actually, prevent them from strengthening) to any great extent. Unopposed bombing would thus be of little to no help in preparing the way for a German invasion.

This is completely illogical. If the bombers remained unopposed, they could strike whatever they wished as many times as they wished when they wished. It's really very simple. This WOULD inevitably weaken the defenses of the British as well as destroy their infrastructure and bring the industrial capacity almost to a standstill. Furthermore, the kinds of morale-impacting events like the terror bombing campaign would affect not so much the defenses as much it would the resolve of the soldiers.

Also the British were producing aircraft twice as quickly as the Germans.

As pointed out, this was before the war and before the Battle of Britain, not during the war nor the Battle of Britain.

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay ... n/AP22.htm

They could make up for the aircrafts that they lost.

Which, even assuming in some alternate history scenario this had been the case, would amount for nothing, because they still had a shortage of pilots.

Pilots however, something i dont have a source on, so i can neither agree nor disagree with your statement.

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/misc/myths1.htm

"The Battle of Britain was virtually unwinable for the Luftwaffe." - Recently is has become fashionable for revisionist historians to say that the RAF couldn't have lost the Battle of Britain, or that the Luftwaffe had almost no chance of winning. They argue that, overall, the Luftwaffe had fewer fighters than the RAF in the Battle, and therefore the RAF wasn't really outnumbered. Since Operation 'Sealion' (the German invasion of Britain) depended on the defeat of the RAF to succeed, they argue that the invasion threat was never serious. In fact, as RAF pilots were only too aware, the Luftwaffe could easily achieve local air superiority over their targets in southern England, and the RAF shortage was in pilots not aircraft. Had the Luftwaffe used better offensive tactics - as demanded by the aircrews themselves - such as allowing the escort fighters to roam more freely from the bombers, then German losses could have been lower and attacks more effective. Knocking out British RDF (radar) stations and systematically destroying RAF fighter bases would have severely limited RAF Fighter Command's ability to effectively defend Southern and Eastern England. If the sudden change in Luftwaffe tactics to area bombing of cities hadn't been made, (in reprisal for small scale RAF raids on Berlin), the RAF would have been forced to progressively retreat north and west, with an increasingly serious pilot shortage. In this case, peace talks with Germany would be highly likely, and Churchill wouldn't have remained Prime Minister for very long.

How lol? If they're crippled, they have no tactical capabilities. IF they were foolhardy enough to try to interfere with the invasion, they'd simply by shot down either by the flak batteries on board the assisting ships or by the Luftwaffe, providing cover and support for the invasion. Furthermore, they had no effective weapons for attacking ships or personnel on the ground. It would have been like the Luftwaffe calling in for support on Overlord: they would have strafed some and then flown away, not hampering the invasion at all.

Shot down by what damn ships?

You really know absolutely nothing about the weapons nor the vehicles of the World War II era... the pettiest escort destroyer in the Kriegsmarine was armed well enough to take down a plane...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yii8WlUs7y4&NR=1

Heck, what damn navy would be a better choice of words.

http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/index.html

Must have missed that part of the navy...

No source on the amount of ships the KM had in early September 1940,

http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ ... index.html

but this little piece of info should be sufficient.

...the Kriegsmarine entered the war with 2 new battleships, 2 old battleships, 3 pocket battleships, 1 heavy cruiser, 5 light cruisers, 17 destroyers and, fortunately for the Allies, only 56 submarines.

Not really. At the start of the war, the Kriegsmarine consisted of 11 capital ships, with 7 nearing commissioning, as well as 21 torpedoboats and destroyers, and 57 U-boats supporting the fleet.

http://www.acepilots.com/ships/germany.html

By 1940, the ubootwaffe had grown nearly an additional 350 submarines. They're in chronological order:

http://www.ubootwaffe.net/ops/allboats.html

Yeah, i can really imagine that miniscule fleet in the Channel, with invasion river barges next to them (that are meant for rivers and shallow water), ripping down those poor RAF pilots.

Tell that to the dumb bastards who decided they'd try attacking that supply convoy. 5 Blenheims downed in one sitting.

Besides, the whole point of throwing the RAF into the battle incase of a invasion was to PREVENT the Luftwaffe from conducting their operations decently.

Yet they would still be able to land safely on shore. Again, the RAF would have done nothing more than provided good fodder from the Luftwaffe and flak gunners on board the ships. They were turning to shit as it was by August 1940.

Brits again win on this one.

In fantasy land. This is nothing more than a myth that's come to fruition over the years. The RAF could and indeed was losing the Battle of Britain.

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/misc/myths1.htm

RN was literally ten times as large as the German surface fleet. *nod nod*.

Actually, 3 times, mostly due to the overhaul in production of corvettes, auxiliary destroyers, and minelayers they'd had just before the war began.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... Royal-Navy

most of the German navy was composed of U-boats.

Over 1500 by the end of the war.

Great for commerce raiding, lousy for attacking well defended convoys, especially in 1940.

This is an outright lie. Uboats were exceptionally adept hunters of both merchant ships and warships, especially when they operated in wolfpacks. Torpedoes are just as deadly to one type of ship as they are another on the sea. In 1940, they destroyed some of the largest ships on record in the history of submarine warfare. This list consists of both warships and merchants. I will list some of the more famous warship sinkings of 1940 in the top largest list.

http://www.uboat.net/allies/merchants/largest.html

HMS Transylvania, HMS Dunvegan Castle, HMS Forfar, HMS Scotstoun, HMS Laurentic, HMS Carinthia.

Even lousier for attacking entire fleets of warships.

Another outrageous lie, refuted by the information posted above. Assuming you didn't read it, I'll copypaste and post here an incomplete list of a list of warships sank by uboats from 1939 and 1940, the early war.

Date Vessel Type Class
3 Sep 1939 ORP General Haller (H) Gunboat General Haller
3 Sep 1939 ORP Gryf Minelayer Gryf
3 Sep 1939 ORP Wicher Destroyer Wicher
8 Sep 1939 HNMS Willem van Ewijck (I) Minesweeper Jan van Amstel
10 Sep 1939 HMS Oxley (55 P) Submarine O
13 Sep 1939 FR Pluton Light cruiser Pluton
14 Sep 1939 ORP Czapla (CP) Minesweeper Jaskolka
14 Sep 1939 ORP Jaskolka (J) Minesweeper Jaskolka
17 Sep 1939 HMS Courageous (50) Aircraft Carrier Courageous
14 Oct 1939 HMS Royal Oak (08) Battleship Royal Sovereign
13 Nov 1939 HMS Blanche (H 47) Destroyer B
20 Nov 1939 HMS Mastiff (T 10) ASW Trawler Dog
21 Nov 1939 HMS Gipsy (H 63) Destroyer G
22 Nov 1939 HMS Aragonite MS Trawler
23 Nov 1939 HMS Rawalpindi Armed Merchant Cruiser
12 Dec 1939 HMS Duchess (H 64) Destroyer D
13 Dec 1939 HMS William Hallett (FY 554) MS Trawler
14 Dec 1939 HMS James Ludford (T 16) MS Trawler Mersey
16 Dec 1939 HMS Sedgefly (FY 122) ASW Trawler
20 Dec 1939 HMS Napia Tug
21 Dec 1939 HMS Bayonet (Z 05) Boom defence vessel Net
22 Dec 1939 HMS Dromio MS Trawler
25 Dec 1939 HMS Loch Doon ASW Trawler
5 Jan 1940 HMS Kingston Cornelian (FY 121) ASW Trawler
7 Jan 1940 HMS Seahorse (96 S) Submarine S
7 Jan 1940 HMS Undine (i) (N 48) Submarine U
9 Jan 1940 HMS Starfish (19 S) Submarine S
19 Jan 1940 HMS Grenville (i) (H 03) Destroyer G
21 Jan 1940 HMS Exmouth (H 02) Destroyer E
3 Feb 1940 HMS Sphinx (J 69) Minesweeper Halcyon
9 Feb 1940 HMS Fort Royal (FY 771) MS Trawler
9 Feb 1940 HMS Robert Bowen MS Trawler
18 Feb 1940 HMS Daring (H 16) Destroyer D
20 Feb 1940 HMS Fifeshire ASW Trawler
23 Feb 1940 HMS Benvolio (FY 710) MS Trawler
2 Mar 1940 HMS Fairplay II Rescue Tug
15 Mar 1940 HMS Peridot (FY 198) ASW Trawler
24 Mar 1940 FR La Railleuse Destroyer L'Adroit
8 Apr 1940 HMS Glowworm (H 92) Destroyer G
9 Apr 1940 HNoMS Aeger Destroyer Sleipner
9 Apr 1940 HNoMS Eidsvold Coastal defence ship Eidsvold
9 Apr 1940 HMS Gurkha (i) (F 20) Destroyer Tribal
9 Apr 1940 HNoMS Norge Coastal defence ship Eidsvold
10 Apr 1940 HMS Hardy (i) (H 87) Destroyer H
10 Apr 1940 HMS Hunter (H 35) Destroyer H
10 Apr 1940 HMS Tarpon (N 17) Submarine T
10 Apr 1940 HMS Thistle (N 24) Submarine T
15 Apr 1940 HNoMS A-3 Submarine A
15 Apr 1940 HNoMS A-4 Submarine A
18 Apr 1940 HMS Sterlet (N 22) Submarine S
20 Apr 1940 HMS Rutlandshire ASW Trawler
25 Apr 1940 HMS Bradman (FY 189) ASW Trawler
25 Apr 1940 HMS Hammond (FY 149) ASW Trawler
25 Apr 1940 HMS Larwood (FY 172) ASW Trawler
29 Apr 1940 HMS Cape Chelyuskin (FY 119) ASW Trawler
29 Apr 1940 HMS Cape Siretoko (FY 263) ASW Trawler
29 Apr 1940 HMS Unity (N 66) Submarine U
30 Apr 1940 HMS Bittern (L 07) Sloop Bittern
30 Apr 1940 HMS Dunoon (J 52) Minesweeper Hunt
30 Apr 1940 HMS Jardine (FY 169) ASW Trawler
30 Apr 1940 FR Maille Breze Large destroyer Vauquelin
30 Apr 1940 HMS Warwickshire (FY 113) ASW Trawler
1 May 1940 HMS St. Goran ASW Trawler
3 May 1940 HMS Afridi (F 07) Destroyer Tribal
3 May 1940 HMS Aston Villa (FY 261) ASW Trawler
3 May 1940 FR Bison Large destroyer Guepard
3 May 1940 HMS Gaul ASW Trawler
4 May 1940 ORP Grom (H 71) Destroyer Grom
5 May 1940 HMS Seal (37 M) Submarine Porpoise
6 May 1940 HMS Loch Naver MS Trawler
9 May 1940 FR Doris Submarine Circé
10 May 1940 HNMS Van Galen (i) (VG) Destroyer Admiralen
12 May 1940 HNMS Friso (i) Gunboat Gruno
13 May 1940 HNMS M 2 Minesweeper M
14 May 1940 HNMS Abraham van der Hulst Minesweeper Jan van Amstel
14 May 1940 HNMS Brinio Gunboat Gruno
14 May 1940 HNMS G 16 Torpedo boat G 13
14 May 1940 HNMS Johan Maurits van Nassau (i) Sloop Johan Maurits van Nassau
14 May 1940 HNMS M 1 Minesweeper M
14 May 1940 HNMS M 3 Minesweeper M
14 May 1940 HNMS M 4 Minesweeper M
14 May 1940 HNMS O 11 Submarine O 9
14 May 1940 HNMS O 12 Submarine O 12
14 May 1940 HNMS O 8 Submarine O 8
14 May 1940 HNMS Pieter Florisz Minesweeper Jan van Amstel
14 May 1940 HNMS Z 3 Torpedo boat Z 1
15 May 1940 HNMS Hydra Minelayer Hydra
15 May 1940 HMS Valentine (i) (L 69) Destroyer Admiralty V & W
18 May 1940 HMS Effingham (D 98) Light cruiser Cavendish
19 May 1940 HMS Whitley (L 23) Destroyer Admiralty V & W
20 May 1940 HMS Rifsnes MS Trawler
21 May 1940 HMS Cape Passaro (FY 270) ASW Trawler
21 May 1940 FR L'Adroit Destroyer L'Adroit
22 May 1940 HMS Melbourne ASW Trawler
23 May 1940 FR Jaguar Large destroyer Chacal
23 May 1940 FR Orage Destroyer Bourrasque
24 May 1940 FR Chacal Large destroyer Chacal
24 May 1940 HMS Wessex (i) (D 43) Destroyer Admiralty V & W
25 May 1940 HMS Charles Boyes MS Trawler
26 May 1940 HMS Curlew (D 42) Light cruiser Ceres
28 May 1940 HMS Thomas Bartlett (FY 553) MS Trawler
28 May 1940 HMS Thuringia (FY 106) ASW Trawler
29 May 1940 HMS Calvi MS Trawler
29 May 1940 HMS Grafton (H 89) Destroyer G
29 May 1940 HMS Grenade (H 86) Destroyer G
29 May 1940 HMS Polly Johnson MS Trawler
29 May 1940 HMS Wakeful (i) (H 88) Destroyer Admiralty V & W
30 May 1940 FR Bourrasque Destroyer Bourrasque
31 May 1940 FR Sirocco Destroyer Bourrasque
31 May 1940 HMS St. Achilleus (FY 152) ASW Trawler
1 Jun 1940 HMS Argyllshire ASW Trawler
1 Jun 1940 HMS Basilisk (H 11) Destroyer B
1 Jun 1940 FR Foudroyant Destroyer L'Adroit
1 Jun 1940 HMS Havant (H 32) Destroyer Havant
1 Jun 1940 HMS Keith (D 06) Destroyer B
1 Jun 1940 HMS Skipjack (J 38) Minesweeper Halcyon
1 Jun 1940 HMS St. Abbs (W 02) Rescue Tug Saint
1 Jun 1940 HMS St. Fagan (W 74) Rescue Tug Saint
1 Jun 1940 HMS Stella Dorado (FY 131) ASW Trawler
2 Jun 1940 HMS Blackburn Rovers (FY 116) ASW Trawler
2 Jun 1940 HMS Westella (FY 161) ASW Trawler
6 Jun 1940 HMS Carinthia Armed Merchant Cruiser
8 Jun 1940 HMS Acasta (H 09) Destroyer A
8 Jun 1940 HMS Ardent (H 41) Destroyer A
8 Jun 1940 HMS Glorious (77) Aircraft Carrier Courageous
8 Jun 1940 HMS Juniper (T 123) MS Trawler Tree
8 Jun 1940 ORP Orzel (85 A) Submarine Orzel
9 Jun 1940 HNoMS B-3 Submarine B
12 Jun 1940 HMS Calypso (D 61) Light cruiser Caledon
12 Jun 1940 HMS Sisapon MS Trawler
12 Jun 1940 HMS Twente Tug
13 Jun 1940 HMS Scotstoun Armed Merchant Cruiser
14 Jun 1940 HMS Myrtle (T 91) MS Trawler
14 Jun 1940 HMS Odin (N 84) Submarine O
16 Jun 1940 HMS Andania Armed Merchant Cruiser
16 Jun 1940 HMS Grampus (N 56) Submarine Porpoise
16 Jun 1940 FR Morse Submarine Requin
18 Jun 1940 FR Achille Submarine Redoutable
18 Jun 1940 FR Agosta Submarine Agosta
18 Jun 1940 FR Cyclone Destroyer Bourrasque
18 Jun 1940 FR Enseigne Henry Gunboat Dubourdieu
18 Jun 1940 FR Etourdi Gunboat Ardent
18 Jun 1940 FR Ouessant Submarine Agosta
18 Jun 1940 FR Pasteur Submarine Redoutable
18 Jun 1940 FR Vauquois Gunboat Arras
19 Jun 1940 HMS Orpheus (N 46) Submarine O
22 Jun 1940 FR La Bastiaise Corvette Flower
23 Jun 1940 HMS Coringa Rescue Tug
23 Jun 1940 HMS Khartoum (F 45) Destroyer K
23 Jun 1940 HMIS Pathan Patrol craft PC
25 Jun 1940 HMCS Fraser (H 48) Destroyer C
25 Jun 1940 HNMS O 13 Submarine O 12
3 Jul 1940 FR Bretagne Battleship Bretagne
4 Jul 1940 HMS Foylebank Anti-Aircraft ship
4 Jul 1940 FR Rigault de Genouilly Colonial sloop Bougainville
5 Jul 1940 HMS Whirlwind (i) (D 30) Destroyer Admiralty V & W
6 Jul 1940 HMS Shark (i) (N 54) Submarine S
8 Jul 1940 HMS Cayton Wyke (FY 191) ASW Trawler
11 Jul 1940 HMS Escort (H 66) Destroyer E
16 Jul 1940 HMS Imogen (D 44) Destroyer I
16 Jul 1940 HMS Phoenix (N 96) Submarine P
16 Jul 1940 HMS Salmon (N 65) Submarine S
17 Jul 1940 HMS Steady Mooring vessel Trinculo
19 Jul 1940 HMS Crestflower (FY 367) MS Trawler
20 Jul 1940 HMS Brazen (H 80) Destroyer B
23 Jul 1940 HMS Narwhal (N 45) Submarine Porpoise
24 Jul 1940 HMS Fleming MS Trawler
24 Jul 1940 HMS Kingston Galena (FY 145) ASW Trawler
24 Jul 1940 HMS Rodino (FY 840) MS Trawler
27 Jul 1940 HMS Codrington (D 65) Destroyer A
27 Jul 1940 HMS Wren (i) (D 88) Destroyer Admiralty Modified W
30 Jul 1940 HMS Delight (H 38) Destroyer D
1 Aug 1940 HMS Oswald (N 58) Submarine O
1 Aug 1940 HMS Spearfish (N 69) Submarine S
2 Aug 1940 HMS Cape Finisterre ASW Trawler
3 Aug 1940 HMS Thames (N 71) Submarine River
4 Aug 1940 HMS Drummer MS Trawler
4 Aug 1940 HMS Marsona (FY 714) MS Trawler
5 Aug 1940 HMS River Clyde MS Trawler
10 Aug 1940 HMS Transylvania (F 56) Armed Merchant Cruiser
12 Aug 1940 HMS Pyrope MS Trawler
12 Aug 1940 HMS Tamarisk (FY 97) MS Trawler
13 Aug 1940 HMS Elizabeth Angela (FY 767) MS Trawler
15 Aug 1940 RHS Helli Minelaying cruiser Helli
15 Aug 1940 HMS Moorstone Mooring vessel Moor
20 Aug 1940 HMS Resparko (FY 822) MS Trawler
23 Aug 1940 HMS Hostile (H 55) Destroyer H
24 Aug 1940 HMS Penzance (L 28) Sloop Folkestone
27 Aug 1940 HMS Dunvegan Castle Armed Merchant Cruiser
31 Aug 1940 HMS Esk (H 15) Destroyer E
1 Sep 1940 HMS Ivanhoe (D 16) Destroyer I
1 Sep 1940 HMS Royalo (FY 714) MS Trawler
4 Sep 1940 HMS Saucy (i) Rescue Tug
6 Sep 1940 HMS Godetia (i) (K 72) Corvette Flower
12 Sep 1940 HMS Salvage King Rescue Tug
15 Sep 1940 HMS Dundee (L 84) Sloop Falmouth
23 Sep 1940 FR Persée Submarine Redoutable
24 Sep 1940 FR Ajax Submarine Redoutable
25 Sep 1940 HMS Stella Sirius ASW Trawler
28 Sep 1940 HMS Recoil ASW Trawler
30 Sep 1940 HMS Comet MS Trawler
4 Oct 1940 HMS Rainbow (N 16) Submarine R
9 Oct 1940 HMS Sea King MS Trawler
12 Oct 1940 HMS Warwick Deeping (FY 182) ASW Trawler
13 Oct 1940 HMS Danube III Rescue Tug
13 Oct 1940 HMS Resolvo (FY 821) MS Trawler
14 Oct 1940 HMS Lord Stamp ASW Trawler
15 Oct 1940 HMS Triad (N 53) Submarine T
17 Oct 1940 HMS Dundalk (J 60) Minesweeper Hunt
18 Oct 1940 HMS H 49 (N 49) Submarine H
18 Oct 1940 HMS Kingston Cairngorm ASW Trawler
19 Oct 1940 HMCS Bras d'Or Minesweeper
19 Oct 1940 HMS Venetia (D 53) Destroyer Admiralty V & W
21 Oct 1940 HMS Waveflower (FY 703) MS Trawler
22 Oct 1940 HMS Hickory (T 116) MS Trawler Tree
22 Oct 1940 HMS Joseph Button MS Trawler
22 Oct 1940 HMCS Margaree (H 49) Destroyer D
30 Oct 1940 HMS Sturdy (i) (H 28) Destroyer Admiralty S
1 Nov 1940 HMS Tilbury Ness MS Trawler
2 Nov 1940 HMS Rinovia MS Trawler
3 Nov 1940 HMS Laurentic (F 51) Armed Merchant Cruiser
4 Nov 1940 HMS Patroclus Armed Merchant Cruiser
5 Nov 1940 HMS Jervis Bay (F 40) Armed Merchant Cruiser
6 Nov 1940 HMS Sevra (FY 1652) MS Whaler
7 Nov 1940 FR Poncelet Submarine Redoutable
7 Nov 1940 HMS Swordfish (N 61) Submarine S
7 Nov 1940 HMS William Wesney MS Trawler
8 Nov 1940 HMS Muria Tug
8 Nov 1940 HMS Muria Rescue Tug
9 Nov 1940 FR Bougainville Colonial sloop Bougainville
10 Nov 1940 HMS Kingston Alalite (FY 136) ASW Trawler
11 Nov 1940 HMS Stella Orion MS Trawler
15 Nov 1940 HMS Guardsman Tug
16 Nov 1940 HMS Arsenal (FY 140) ASW Trawler
19 Nov 1940 HMS Fontenoy MS Trawler
19 Nov 1940 HNMS O 22 (P 22) Submarine O 21
24 Nov 1940 HMS Amethyst (T 12) ASW Trawler
25 Nov 1940 HMS Conquistador MS Trawler
25 Nov 1940 HMS Kennymore (FY 857) MS Trawler
28 Nov 1940 HMS Manx Prince MS Trawler
29 Nov 1940 HMS Calverton (FY 775) MS Trawler
30 Nov 1940 HMS Chestnut (T 110) MS Trawler Tree
2 Dec 1940 HMS Forfar (F 30) Armed Merchant Cruiser
6 Dec 1940 HMS Regulus (i) (N 88) Submarine R
7 Dec 1940 HMS Capricornus MS Trawler
7 Dec 1940 HMS Cortina MS Trawler
14 Dec 1940 FR Branlebas Torpedo boat La Melpomène
15 Dec 1940 FFL Narval (i) Submarine Requin
17 Dec 1940 HMS Acheron (i) (H 45) Destroyer A
18 Dec 1940 HMS Refundo (FY 830) MS Trawler
18 Dec 1940 HMS Triton (N 15) Submarine T
19 Dec 1940 FR Sfax Submarine Agosta
21 Dec 1940 HMS Sun IX Tug
22 Dec 1940 HMS Hyperion (H 97) Destroyer H
24 Dec 1940 HMS Pelton MS Trawler
29 Dec 1940 RHS Proteus (Y 3) Submarine Proteus
30 Dec 1940 HMS Bandolero (FY 778) ASW Trawler

http://www.uboat.net/allies/warships/war_losses.html

Not to mention the fact that in the English Channel, in an area packed with destroyers and with very little room to manouver, using U-boats would be nothing short of suicide because they would have nowhere to hide.

That did not actually happen until 1943. In 1940, the Germans dominated the English Channel, evidenced by the list above's clarification below on the number of ships SUNK in the channel, nevermind the North Sea, Irish Sea, and Atlantic.

The German surface navy, at its height, never consisted of more than one battleship,

Wrong. At it's height, there were six: Tirpitz, Bismarck, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Schleswig-Holstein, and Schlesien.

a few battlecruisers

Lutzow, Graf Spee, Scheer, Hipper, Blucher, Prinz Eugen.

and "pocket battleships",

Schleswig-Holstein and Schlesien, after 1942.

and ten to twenty lighter vessels.

What? What happened to all the destroyers they had then lol?

* Z1 Leberecht Maas 1937
* Z2 Georg Thiele 1937
* Z3 Max Schultz 1937
* Z4 Richard Beitzen 1937
* Z5 Paul Jacobi
* Z6 Theodor Riedel
* Z7 Hermann Schoemann
* Z8 Bruno Heinemann
* Z9 Wolfgang Zenker
* Z10 Hans Lody
* Z11 Bernd von Arnim
* Z12 Erich Giese
* Z13 Erich Koellner
* Z14 Friedrich Ihn
* Z15 Erich Steinbrinck
* Z16 Friedrich Eckoldt
* Z17 Diether von Roeder
* Z18 Hans Lüdemann
* Z19 Hermann Künne
* Z20 Karl Galster
* Z21 Wilhelm Heidkamp
* Z22 Anton Schmitt
* Z23 through Z30
* Z31 through Z34
* Z37 through Z39
* Z35 through Z36
* Z43 through Z45

Torpedo boats?

* Möwe
* Falke
* Greif
* Kondor
* Albatros
* Seeadler
* Wolf
* Iltis
* Jaguar
* Leopard
* Luchs
* Tiger
* T1 through T12
* T13 through T21
* T22 through T36

Their cruisers?

* Orion
* Atlantis
* Widder
* Thor
* Pinguin
* Stier
* Komet
* Kormoran
* Michel
* Coronel
* Hansa
* Emden
* Königsberg
* Karlsruhe
* Köln
* Leipzig
* Nürnberg

All their mining ships?

* Tannenberg 1935 (5,500 tons, 3 x 150mm guns, 460 mines)
* Brandenburg 1936 (3,900 tons, 3 x 105mm guns, 250 mines)
* Lothringen 1941 (2,000 tons, 2 x 88mm guns, 200 mines)
* Niedersachsen 1934 (1,800 tons, 2 x 105mm guns, 260 mines
* Drache 1924 (1,800 tons, 2 x 88mm guns, 120 mines)
* Brummer 1940 (3 × 10.5 cm guns, 2 × 3.7 cm anti-aircraft guns, 10 × 2 cm anti-aircraft guns, 4 × 46 cm torpedo tubes, 280 mines)
* Oldenburg 1934 (1,200 tons, 2 x 88mm guns, 145 mines
* Kamerun 1939 (370 tons, 2 x 88mm guns, 100 mines)
* Togo 1939 (370 tons, 2 x 88mm guns, 100 mines)
* Kiebitz 1943

Pathmakers/Sperrbrecher

* Sperrbrecher 1 - Sperrbrecher 100 (5,000 tons, 2 x 88mm guns)

Minesweepers/Minensuchboot

* M1935 class (875 tons, 2 x 105mm guns)
o M1 - M69
* M1940 class (775 tons, 1 x 105mm gun)
o M70 - M196
* M1943 class (825 tons, 2 x 105mm guns)
o M197 - M214

R Boats/Räumboote

* R1 class 1929 (60 tons, 1 x 37mm gun, 6 mines
o R1 - R16
* R17 class 1934 (115 tons, 1 x 37mm gun, 12 mines)
o R17 - R24
* R25 class 1938 (110 tons, 1 x 37mm gun, 12 mines)
o R25 - R40
* R41 class 1939 (125 tons, 1 x 37mm gun, 12 mines)
o R41 - R129
* R130 class 1940 (150 tons, 1 x 37mm gun, 12 mines)
o R130 - R150
* R151 class 1940 (125 tons, 1 x 37mm gun, 12 mines)
o R151 - R217
* R218 class 1942 (140 tons, 1 x 37mm gun, 16 mines)
o R218 - R300
* R301 class 1942 (160 tons, 1 x 88mm gun, 16 mines, 2 torpedo tubes)
o R301 - R312

Mine-hunters/Küstenminenleger

* KM1 - KM36

Small craft
E Boats/Schnellboot

* S-1 class (50 tons, 1 x 20mm gun, 2 torpedo tubes)
o S1 - S25
* S-26 class (75 tons, 1 x 20mm gun, 2 torpedo tubes)
o S26 - S29
* S-30 class (80 tons, 1 x 20mm gun, 2 torpedo tubes)
o S30 - S37
* S-38 class (80 tons, 1 x 20mm gun, 2 torpedo tubes)
o S38 - S60
* S-38b class (90 tons, 2 x 20mm guns, 2 torpedo tubes)
o S61 - S99
* S-100 class (100 tons, 1 x 37mm gun, 2 torpedo tubes)
o S100 - S150
* S-151 class (100 tons, 1 x 37mm gun, 2 torpedo tubes)
o S151 - S205

THE ENTIRE UBOOTWAFFE?

Thus, the Kreigsmarine at the height of its power was outnumbered between 5 to 1 and 10 to 1 by the Home Fleet.

It's actually just a solid 3 to 1, Royal Navy on Kriegsmarine.

Not good odds if you have to not just fight a force of ships,

Considering that the Germans had ships that were more modern, more technologically advanced, and more well armed than the British ships (the primary reason why the sinking of the HMS Hood turned into the new Queen Mary of Jutland), considering that they had more air support, considering that their submarine fleet was larger than the British one, the odds are in their favor.

Again you overestimate those subs.

This, again, showing you know nothing about the uboats of World War II... you foolishly underestimate them, as did the Allies (much to their chagrin).

Subs aren't made for attacking massed fleets of armed ships. They are meant for sneak attacks.

Let me put this to you not as a World War II enthusiast but as a sailor: SUBMARINES ARE MEANT TO DO ONE THING: SINK SHIPS. They are armed to sink ships. Torpedoes are just as deadly to a warship as they are to a merchant. The list of ships I posted above that were only warships sunk by uboats during 1939/1940 proves that they were more than capable of being a destructive force, nevermind the 30,000 dead Allied sailors that were killed by them during the Battle of the Atlantic alone. DERP DEE DERPY DURR.

Second, dont even TRY to think of the KM sinking the RN. The reverse is the one that would have happened.

Explain the number of destroyed warships by the ubootwaffe alone then. They would have destroyed the RN. It's a simple fact of number ratios, technology, tactics, and the location they were fighting over. The RN would be boxed into the channel, with the Kriegsmarine swarming them from both the west and east entrances. They would not be able to see nor detect with sonar the uboats in the area, and I explained why in my previous post. The Luftwaffe would be flying overhead, not only to intercept with fighters the RAF by also to bomb with their naval bombers the RN ships in the area. The Hochseeflotte of the Kriegsmarine would be steaming right in there with the Luftwaffe and ubootwaffe. It would be a simple disaster for the Royal Navy. They would be pinned in, no line of retreat, using ships that were mainly constructed during the early 1920s, some of which had even seen action in World War I, planes that were not even fueled properly, suffering from a shortage of pilots, and were based off designs from the mid-1930s, based of the late '30s designs the Germans were using (save for their Heinkels, Stukas, and Dorniers).

Third, the Luftwaffe wouldn't have done any meaningfull damage on the RN.

Unsupported by historical fact. The Luftwaffe sank plenty of warships, including HMS Greyhound, HMS Mashona, HMS Fiji, HMS Hereward, HMS Gloucester, HMS Kelly . . . shall I go on?

... aircraft - also not enough to stop the Royal Navy. The main problem is that they don't have the range to reach Scapa Flow, so they can't actually attack the British ships until they are already well on their way to where they will do the most harm. The Germans didn't have much capability to attack ships, anyway. They had no dedicated naval attack aircraft, no torpedo bombers, and their pilots lacked both training and experience in naval attacks. This was demonstrated in the Norway campaign, when they achieved a very low success rate against outnumbered, unarmed ships. In contrast, a battleship task force with a full screen of cruisers and destroyers has a tremendous number of antiaircraft batteries with all-around coverage, and can deal tremendous punishment to enemy aircraft. In the Pacific war, even when both sides had extensive antiship capabilities, air battles between American and Japanese fleets often lasted for many attacks over a period of days, with hundreds of aircraft being able to sink many major vessels in a task force, but virtually always leaving many survivors. Even a Royal Navy force with no air support at all could survive for the required few days in the channel under attack by an air force much better against ships than the Luftwaffe.

In fact, the Luftwaffe would have been quite bad against ships. Virtually all of its bombers were level bombers, which drop bombs from high altitude against stationary targets to good effect. Ships, however, can manouver so as to make themselves harder to hit - and level bombers thus become poor choices to use against ships even in the hands of expert pilots (only the Japanese had any real success with them in the war). Dive bombers and torpedo bombers are generally more effective. As mentioned previously, Germany had no torpedo bombers and its only dive bomber was the Stuka. The Stuka was the terror of the skies in the 30s, but by 1940 it was considered slow, vulnerable, and short ranged. Stukas would have suffered horrendous loss rates against the intense air defense of capital ship groups with concentrated destroyer screens. It's also worthy to note that, due to their range and speed, they could only make an absolute maximum of three attacks on Royal Navy elements sailing from Scapa Flow before they reached the channel. Realistically, only one or two. Thus the British fleet elements sailing south to stop the invasion would not experience significant air attack until they were already
within range of the invasion fleet and its supply lines.

The track record of the Luftwaffe attacking ships shows the opposite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...ld_War_II#Navy

The Hellenic Royal Navy suffered enormous casualties during the German invasion, losing over 20 ships, mostly to German air attacks, within a few days in April 1941. Its chief, Vice Admiral Alexandros Sakellariou, managed to save some of its ships, including the cruiser Averof, six destroyers, five submarines and several support ships, by evacuating them to Alexandria.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_Navy#World_War_II

But when Nazi Germany attacked Greece, the RHN was literally decimated by the Luftwaffe, suffering the loss of 25 ships within a few days in April 1941. It was then decided to shift the remaining fleet (one cruiser -the famous Averof-, three destroyers and five submarines) to Alexandria in Egypt.

More importantly, their actions in Norway against the invading British shows they were more than capable of taking them on.

http://www.luftwaffe.no/

Furthermore, there's their operations on the Western Front. Starting in March.

17th - Heavy cruiser "Suffolk" bombards installations at Stavanger,
but on her return is badly damaged by Ju-88 bombers and barely makes
Scapa Flow with her stern awash.

24th - After four days continuous AA duty off Andalsnes, cruiser
"Curacoa" is badly damaged by bombs.

30th - Sloop "BITTERN" is sunk by Ju-87 dive-bombers off Namsos."

3rd - Retiring northwest from Namsos, destroyers "AFRIDI" and the
French "BISON" are sunk by Ju-87 Stuka dive-bombers."

4th - As preparations continue in northern Norway for the attack on
Narvik, Polish destroyer "GROM" is bombed and sunk.

5th - Submarine "SEAL" successfully lays mines in the southern
Kattegat on the 4th before being damaged by a German mine. Trying to
make for neutral Sweden on the surface, she is attacked and captured
off The Skaw by German air and sea patrols.

26th - During the attack on Narvik, AA cruiser "CURLEW" is bombed and
sunk in nearby Lavang Fjord.

15th - Destroyers continue to support Allied land forces off the Dutch
and Belgian coasts. Under heavy air attack, two are bombed and beached
over the next two days, starting with "VALENTINE" in the Scheldt
Estuary

19th - The second destroyer supporting Allied land forces, "WHITLEY"
is beached near Nieuport on the Belgian coast with bomb damage.

20th - German tanks reach the English Channel near Abbeville, shortly
turning right and advancing north on the ports of Boulogne, Calais and
Dunkirk. Destroyers carry Allied troops to Boulogne and Calais and
remain in support. Over the next four days, five Allied destroyers are
lost and others damaged in the area.

21st - French destroyer "L'ADROIT" is bombed and sunk off Dunkirk
24th - A fourth French destroyer, "CHACAL" is bombed off Boulogne. The
British "WESSEX" is also bombed and sunk supporting the defenders of
Calais.

26th May-4th June - Dunkirk Evacuation (Operation 'Dynamo') - Initial
plans are to lift off 45,000 men of the British Expeditionary Force
over a two-day period under the direction of Vice-Adm B. H. Ramsey. In
the next five days, 8,000 men on the 27th May, 18,000 on the 28th,
47,000 on the 29th, 54,000 on the 30th and 68,000 on the 31st are
carried to Britain - a total of 195,000, both British and French.

Every phase of the operation is subject to heavy air, sea and land
attack. Forty British, six French and a Polish destroyer take part,
together with 800 other vessels, large and small. Losses are
considerable.[/i]

Ark Royal is a perfect example of their naval bombing abilities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=Jsfxn5r ... re=related

Luftwaffe naval bombers lol wut?

Have you been living under a rock? You do know the Luftwaffe had a naval bombing force of aircraft... right? I hope you do. Otherwise, you really have no purpose even being here to argue this anymore, seeing how ignorant you are of the vehicles that would have to carry out this operation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_%26_Voss_Ha_140
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_18
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fieseler_Fi_167

They also had naval fighters and recon planes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arado_Ar_95
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arado_Ar_197
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arado_Ar_231
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_%26_Voss_BV_138
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_%26_Voss_BV_238
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_16
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_62
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_200
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_60

Also, KM + RN + In Channel + 1/2 days = Plenty of new German decorations on the seabed.

Like the 3,675 Allied ships they left from the Battle of the Atlantic lol?

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/annemariepurnell/can3.html

Lot's of dead Brits down there, kind of like the Barham!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V8O_7olz7I

With WHAT? The Home Fleet would rip the KM to shreds before continuing on to the Channel to intercept the invasion.

Tirpitz, Bismarck, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Schleswig-Holstein, and Schlesien, Lutzow, Graf Spee, Scheer, Hipper, Blucher, Prinz Eugen, as well as destroyers:

* Z1 Leberecht Maas 1937
* Z2 Georg Thiele 1937
* Z3 Max Schultz 1937
* Z4 Richard Beitzen 1937
* Z5 Paul Jacobi
* Z6 Theodor Riedel
* Z7 Hermann Schoemann
* Z8 Bruno Heinemann
* Z9 Wolfgang Zenker
* Z10 Hans Lody
* Z11 Bernd von Arnim
* Z12 Erich Giese
* Z13 Erich Koellner
* Z14 Friedrich Ihn
* Z15 Erich Steinbrinck
* Z16 Friedrich Eckoldt
* Z17 Diether von Roeder
* Z18 Hans Lüdemann
* Z19 Hermann Künne
* Z20 Karl Galster
* Z21 Wilhelm Heidkamp
* Z22 Anton Schmitt
* Z23 through Z30
* Z31 through Z34
* Z37 through Z39
* Z35 through Z36
* Z43 through Z45

Torpedo boats

* Möwe
* Falke
* Greif
* Kondor
* Albatros
* Seeadler
* Wolf
* Iltis
* Jaguar
* Leopard
* Luchs
* Tiger
* T1 through T12
* T13 through T21
* T22 through T36

Their cruisers

* Orion
* Atlantis
* Widder
* Thor
* Pinguin
* Stier
* Komet
* Kormoran
* Michel
* Coronel
* Hansa
* Emden
* Königsberg
* Karlsruhe
* Köln
* Leipzig
* Nürnberg

All their mining ships

* Tannenberg 1935 (5,500 tons, 3 x 150mm guns, 460 mines)
* Brandenburg 1936 (3,900 tons, 3 x 105mm guns, 250 mines)
* Lothringen 1941 (2,000 tons, 2 x 88mm guns, 200 mines)
* Niedersachsen 1934 (1,800 tons, 2 x 105mm guns, 260 mines
* Drache 1924 (1,800 tons, 2 x 88mm guns, 120 mines)
* Brummer 1940 (3 × 10.5 cm guns, 2 × 3.7 cm anti-aircraft guns, 10 × 2 cm anti-aircraft guns, 4 × 46 cm torpedo tubes, 280 mines)
* Oldenburg 1934 (1,200 tons, 2 x 88mm guns, 145 mines
* Kamerun 1939 (370 tons, 2 x 88mm guns, 100 mines)
* Togo 1939 (370 tons, 2 x 88mm guns, 100 mines)
* Kiebitz 1943

Pathmakers/Sperrbrecher

* Sperrbrecher 1 - Sperrbrecher 100 (5,000 tons, 2 x 88mm guns)

Minesweepers/Minensuchboot

* M1935 class (875 tons, 2 x 105mm guns)
o M1 - M69
* M1940 class (775 tons, 1 x 105mm gun)
o M70 - M196
* M1943 class (825 tons, 2 x 105mm guns)
o M197 - M214

R Boats/Räumboote

* R1 class 1929 (60 tons, 1 x 37mm gun, 6 mines
o R1 - R16
* R17 class 1934 (115 tons, 1 x 37mm gun, 12 mines)
o R17 - R24
* R25 class 1938 (110 tons, 1 x 37mm gun, 12 mines)
o R25 - R40
* R41 class 1939 (125 tons, 1 x 37mm gun, 12 mines)
o R41 - R129
* R130 class 1940 (150 tons, 1 x 37mm gun, 12 mines)
o R130 - R150
* R151 class 1940 (125 tons, 1 x 37mm gun, 12 mines)
o R151 - R217
* R218 class 1942 (140 tons, 1 x 37mm gun, 16 mines)
o R218 - R300
* R301 class 1942 (160 tons, 1 x 88mm gun, 16 mines, 2 torpedo tubes)
o R301 - R312

Mine-hunters/Küstenminenleger

* KM1 - KM36

Small craft
E Boats/Schnellboot

* S-1 class (50 tons, 1 x 20mm gun, 2 torpedo tubes)
o S1 - S25
* S-26 class (75 tons, 1 x 20mm gun, 2 torpedo tubes)
o S26 - S29
* S-30 class (80 tons, 1 x 20mm gun, 2 torpedo tubes)
o S30 - S37
* S-38 class (80 tons, 1 x 20mm gun, 2 torpedo tubes)
o S38 - S60
* S-38b class (90 tons, 2 x 20mm guns, 2 torpedo tubes)
o S61 - S99
* S-100 class (100 tons, 1 x 37mm gun, 2 torpedo tubes)
o S100 - S150
* S-151 class (100 tons, 1 x 37mm gun, 2 torpedo tubes)
o S151 - S205

THE ENTIRE UBOOTWAFFE.

http://www.ubootwaffe.net/ops/allboats.html

Where the fuck have you been? Under your rock, I guess.

Again, with what?

The Italian Navy, the Kriegsmarine ships that were already, the Luftwaffe. As I pointed out, after they'd taken Crete, they bombed and destroyed HMS Gloucester, Fiji, and Kelly, Greyhound, Kashmir, Hereward, Imperial, and Juno. Seven other ships were severely damaged, including the battleships HMS Warspite and Valiant and the light cruiser HMS Orion. Close to 2,000 British sailors died, man... They got their asses kicked. BY THE LUFTWAFFE. LOL!

The RN outclassed the RM in the Mediterranean, and the Germans didn't have any meaningful naval resources in the Med.

Odd then that they were able to destroy EIGHT Royal Navy ships after Crete using only the Luftwaffe and severely damage seven others.

So the KM is supposed to both cover the invasion and intercept the RN before it reaches the Channel?

Not hard to do, especially with the Luftwaffe helping. You do know that each separate unit has it's own commander to tactically make decisions about their flotilla, right? It's not like it would all come down to Grand Admiral Raeder to decide where to move or what to do. After the battle starts, it's all up to the leaders out in the field to decide where to move, what type of ammunition to fire, etc. I doubt you even understand what I'm conveying to you, however.

Wow. One hell of a multitasking for a fleet that is OUTNUMBERED TEN TO ONE.

Where the fuck are you getting the 10 to 1 statistic? I refuted you earlier on that nonsense, pointing out it was 3 to 1 for the fleet, but that their submarine advantages were huge compared to that of the RN. You should (by apparently are not) be intelligent enough to figure out how the order of battle in the operation would be conducted... when it battle starts, it's not up to the Minister of the Navy to tell what ship to move where. All they do is outline the plan, finalize it, and them give the ships and planes their orders. Their commanders, the guys who are actually doing the fighting, take charge and decide where to move their own ships, that sort of information. This is not complex.

Also, there were no such thing as Luftwaffe "naval bombers" at that point. The Germans didn't even use torpedoes at this stage of the war.

You could not be more wrong if you tried.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_%26_Voss_Ha_140
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_18
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fieseler_Fi_167

They also had naval fighters and recon planes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arado_Ar_95
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arado_Ar_197
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arado_Ar_231
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_%26_Voss_BV_138
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_%26_Voss_BV_238
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_16
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_62
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_200
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_60

Second, the Germans would have used river barges to transport troops during invasion, and these barges were VERY prone to sinking.

Very prone to sinking? Not at all true. They converted the inland river barges to the task of crossing the channel. Towards that end, the Kriegsmarine collected approximately 2,400 barges from throughout Europe (860 from Germany, 1,200 from the Netherlands and Belgium and 350 from France). Wikipedia points this out. So did the book I cited earlier:

http://www.amazon.com/Hitler-Doorstep-O ... 1557503907

...most of the barges were designed for river traffic and would sink in anything greater than sea state two.

Which is exactly why they had been converted to be used in the open channel.

Truly an excellent invasion plan! I really wonder why the Allied never thought of it when conducting Overlord...

Because it was a plan that the Germans were using which they had no real knowledge on, as no documents outlining the order of battle had been collected yet... hurr durr.

------
To sum things up, Sealion would have been a disaster. It would have gone this way:

1. The Germans manage to land and gain a small beachhead.

From Lyme Regis to Ramsgate? That's hardly a small beachhead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ ... _of_Battle

2. The British immedietly rush and engage the landing zone,

Only to be slaughtered by the Germans as they abandon their poorly made defensive positions. Von Rundstedt's 16th and 9th Armies move on Dover, Brighton, Bexhill, Folkstone, and Ramsgate hours after the beachhead is finally established, capturing the cities, providing good defensive positions. Despite some partisan resistance, the assailants are quickly put down. Von Leeb's Group C and 6th Army leave from Le Havre, and Cherbourg, landing at Lyme Regis and Ventnor. Leeb's Group C meets with Rundstedt's 9th Army at Portsmouth, pushing on Southampton, making a solid line of defense on the mainland.

all of RAF gets thrown into the air to engage the Luftwaffe,

Running off dated planes, low amounts of petrol, and insufficient pilot numbers- nevermind with a good majority being inexperienced combat fliers, what planes do manage to make it off the ground and fly far enough to intercept the Luftwaffe and not crash shoot down some bombers, but are shot down in droves by the escort fighters to the bombers, carrying more fuel, more ammunition, and being flown by more well-rested pilots.

the RN starts sailing towards the Channel.

The Kriegsmarine tracks the RN's movements by mapping out their radio chat patterns in the North Sea, and waits for them to come close to entering the channel with ships and submarines before leaving to intercept and engage and squash them with no route of escape in between the West and East sides of it, stationing aside units of the Luftwaffe to engage and intercept the ships in support of the Kriegsmarine.

Also the British gas the entire landing beach.

The Germans put on their standard-issue VM-40 gas masks, the British run out of gas shells. Remaining British forces who stormed the beachhead earlier suffer a fair amount of losses due to friendly fire from the gas.

sinks the German surface fleet and destroys the subs attacking the fleet.

Is blocked in with no line of retreat by the surface fleet and ubootwaffe, being fired upon with salvos of torpedoes and schiffe shells, inflicting only medium amounts of damage on the surface fleet before in turn suffering crippling losses to the torpedo strikes, with the Luftwaffe coming in to mop up the damage. Broken and demoralized, the remaining fleet either surrenders or attempts (futilely) to keep on fighting trying to take down the invasion force and cut off the flow of supplies an men to the beachhead. If the surface fleet doesn't destroy what's left of them, indeed, if the uboats should not either, the Luftwaffe will simply do what it was supposed to do: return to base, rearm, and head out again to strike the remaining ships.

4. RN sinks/runs over the river barges carrying supplies.

The RN fails to stop the invasion, suffering huge losses, destroying some barges and some German ships and submarines earlier, before surrendering or scuttling their remaining ships (in a last act of defiance).

5. Germans have failed to break out of the areas surrounding the landing zone, with supplies and ammunition running out, they surrender.

Supply lines remain unaltered despite suffering some losses to their force of barges (numbering over 2,400). With the new line of defense already established by Leeb and Rundstedt, Leeb's forces at Lyme Regis push to Bristol and Gloucester with some forces used to take Southampton. Rundstedt splits to reinforce Group A at Reigate, the other half pushing through Reading and Oxford. Troops garrisoned in Portsmouth move to Reigate, where the forces there aid them in assaulting London, along with Group B forces at Bexhill, Folkstone, Dover, and Ramsgate- who have already taken Rochester. As more and more territory falls, air bases previously used by the RAF are used for the Luftwaffe. Operation Green, the invasion of Ireland, is launched by forces from Group B dug in at Gloucester. A third of 16th Army pushes along the Eastern Coast to Maldon. Churchill is pressed to resign as Prime Minister as the Germans approach London. Inevitably, von Rundstedt's bulk forces take the capitol, causing the country to descend into chaos.

The biggest obstacle to a successful Sealion is simply that big bunch of floating metal chunks called the Royal Navy,

Floating rustbuckets as old as the '20s, some even having seen action during World War I. Still able to float and fire? Yes. Good fodder for the uboats? Certainly. For the Luftwaffe? Yes. Bismarck and Tirpitz could easily destroy any destroyers and cruisers they threw at them. Look at Hood. It took an entire fleet to destroy Bismarck in her final battle (when it was just her all alone). Even then, she didn't sink on her own; the Germans scuttled her.

and the fact that the Germans lack the ability to transport sufficent supplies over the Channel. Supplying the planned 9 divisions would have been a HUGE task.

The Germans had over 2,400 barges to use, not just little LSTs like the Allies had on Overlord.

Compare that to Overlord where the Allies had to supply 5 divisions, and that was hard enough.

Because the weather was absolute shit. Swells on the channel were large, the Germans had positioned mines around the beach (this was not what the British were doing to prepare for Sea Lion, which would have been a fatal mistake), all they had to transport their supplies in were small LSTs compared to full-sized barges converted for use on the channel that the Germans would have for Sea Lion.

If you want Sealion to be successful, you'd have to pick up a magic wand and blow the RN away while giving the KM one hell of a boost.

Not at all true. The Kriegsmarine was more than capable of handling the Royal Navy. They were using more modern, technologically advanced ships than the British were, who were still using ones leftover from World War I and the 1920s, they were using lots of submarines, something the British did not have the ability to detect easily until 1942/1943, and they had the Luftwaffe available to call in for support.

Even if the Germans manage to land and supply their divisions, they still have to face the entire British Army on their hometurf.

Not too hard of a thing to accomplish, given that they already had a beachhead set up and were free to pour as many troops as necessary onto the mainland. Germany had not yet declared war on Russia. Hitler by this time would have realized the importance of taking Britain before dealing with Russia. Barbarossa wasn't scheduled until June 1941.

It doesn't say interim.

The very article is entitled "Interim Peace". Why the fuck are you still trying to argue this?

Then stop using Interim peace.

No, because peace was declared. The Winter War was brought to an end. This refers to their declaration of peace, and the period of peace that followed.

The phrase is essentially from the Finnish side,

I see your attempt at using weasel words here. "Essentially"? Not going to fly. Peace was declared. The Winter War was brought to an end in 1940. It was not a Soviet Victory, it was not a Finnish Victory. Nobody won...

which viewed the wars as the same.

Citation that the Finns view the Winter War and Continuation War as one, exact same war? They don't, but that's not going to stop me having a little fun with you.

The Finns maintained a State of War between the Winter and Continuation Wars.

No, they did not. War was not happening between them and the Soviet Union after the Moscow Treaty was signed. They were at peace. The Winter Was was brought to an end after peace was finalized on March 13, 1940. Nobody won it. That's how simple it is.

Hence the name Continuation War.

Again, we're not talking about the Continuation War. We're talking about the Winter War. You claimed the Soviets won the Winter War. You were wrong. I pointed out why you were wrong.

If you're saying what you're saying, then the phrase interim peace is practically meaningless.

The phrase "Interim Peace" means nothing more than the peace between the Winter War and the Continuation War, lasting a little over a year, during which the Finns and Soviets were not fighting each other, after the Winter War had been brought to an end by the Moscow Peace Treaty.

If you view the wars as completely separate, the Winter War was a Soviet Debacle, but a Victory, in a way.

The Soviets did not win the Winter War. I will say it again, peace was declared under the Moscow Peace Treaty. The Finns did not surrender, the Soviets did not destroy Finland. You were incorrect in claiming the Soviets won the Winter War. I corrected you, now you're trying to make it look like you were not wrong.

If you use the phrase interim Peace, it means the wars are interlocked, inexorably, which they in fact, are.

The phrase "Interim Peace" means nothing more than the peace between the Winter War and the Continuation War, lasting a little over a year, during which the Finns and Soviets were not fighting each other, after the Winter War had been brought to an end by the Moscow Peace Treaty.

The Continuation War came about entirely because of the Winter War.

The Continuation War began not because of the Winter War, but because the Finns allied with the Axis powers, and because they were around Germany's operating location of Norway. Notice it began just after the Germans declared war on the Russians in June 1941...

The bolded is an implication that the hostilities were linked, which means the underlined is not entirely correct.

Allow me to quote from the Continuation War on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuati ... Winter_war

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in 1939 enabled the Soviet Union to threaten to invade Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland without German interference. The three Baltic countries soon were annexed to the Soviet Union. Demands were then made to Finland to cede territory north of Leningrad, lease Hanko peninsula and to give transit rights to Soviet troops in exchange for Soviet land from East Karelia. Finnish counter-proposal would have doubled the distance between Leningrad and Finnish border, but it was not enough for the Soviets. As Soviet part demanded to the end breach of the Mannerheim Line, Hanko and the transit rights, Finland refused and as a result, on 30 November 1939, the Soviet Union attacked. Condemnation by the League of Nations and by countries all over the world had no effect on Soviet policy. International help to Finland was planned, but very little actual help materialized.

The Moscow Peace Treaty, which was signed on 12 March 1940, ended the Winter War.


Peace was declared. The war ended. Nobody won. They were two separate conflicts over separate issues in separate periods of time. And that's how simple it is.

The Soviets won the Winter War,

Again, peace was declared between both sides in the Moscow Peace Treaty. Hostilities were brought to an end. Nobody won the Winter War (1939-1940).

[Wolffbaden]

but they were pushed back from those gains in the early stages of the Continuation War.

Which they later retook. The only war the Soviets won with the Finns here was the Continuation War. The Winter War was not won by anyone as both sides agreed to peace.

The Soviets won the Winter War,

No, they didn't. You were wrong to claim they did, and that's that.

THEN STOP USING THE FUCKING TERM INTERIM PEACE. It onyl makes sense if the Continuation War is viewed as a response to or more correctly, a Continuation of, the Winter War.

Interim peace describes the period of peace between the two after the Moscow Peace Treaty was signed by the Russians and Finns, ending the Winter War. This is not hard to understand. You were wrong to claim that the Russians won, when they did not. They agreed to peace with the Finns... and that's how simple it is.

The peace was advantageous to the Soviets. The Soviets gained territory, the Finns lost territory.

The Soviets also lost over 200,000 men, the Finns lost

The Finns lost the Winter War, the Soviets therefore WON the Winter War.

The Finns did not lose the goddamn Winter War. They and the Soviets declared peace at the Moscow Peace Treaty, ending all hostilities and the war. This is why Wikipedia does not claim anywhere on its page that it was a Soviet Victory. Do you see them say this on there? No, you don't. Ctrl+F "Soviet Victory". Nothing. The Continuation War? Yes, you do. Not the Winter War. They are two separate conflicts, peace was declared after the first one, it lasted until June 1941 when the Germans launched Operation Barbarossa after the Finns had joined the Axis, this began the Continuation War. They are known by different names and have different outcomes listed because they are two separate wars.

The Continuation War was not a Pyrrhic Victory.

Finns:

63,204 dead or missing
158,000 wounded
939 civilians in air raids
190 civilians by Soviet partisans
2,377–3,500 captured

Germans:
14,000 dead or missing
37,000 wounded

Soviets:

200,000 dead or missing
385,000 wounded
190,000 hospitalized due to sickness
64,000 captured
4,000–7,000 civilian deaths

200,000 dead is hardly short of being "at a great cost to the victor", especially if you consider the Winter War, incorrectly, where the Soviets incurred even fewer casualties (126,000) to be pyrrhic victory for them, as you did in your previous post which I commented on this.

[Wolffbaden]

A more interesting altnernative history may be, what if Tsar Nicholas faced Hitler's Germany.

That would be interesting.

Well I've spoken my points. Not going to do much here now. If you ever want to open a thread on that, Nick, I'd be interested in getting in on it.

[Jusela]

Wolffbaden,
For the moment, i dont feel spending another hour writing another post to counter your arguments, so please just read the essays, especially this one:

http://web.archive.org/web/200705040342 ... /seal1.htm
and this one http://www.alternatehistory.com/gateway ... alion.html. Heck, read them all instead. READ THEM.
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/ww ... rlord.aspx

STOP overestimating those uboats. Sure, against convoys, even armed ones, they do good. But in the Channel, with warships swarming all over the place, with no place to hide, it's quite probable that some RN ships get sunk by uboat torpedoes, but it would be the uboats that would be taking the biggest losses.

Luftwaffe naval bombers lol wut?

Have you been living under a rock? You do know the Luftwaffe had a naval bombing force of aircraft... right? I hope you do. Otherwise, you really have no purpose even being here to argue this anymore, seeing how ignorant you are of the vehicles that would have to carry out this operation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_%26_Voss_Ha_140 (3 produced)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_22 (30 produced, all sold/exported)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_18 (170 produced, but they were obsolute by the time the war started, not to mention that they weren't even armed with torpedoes. It isn't even a naval bomber at all. More of a flying boat, mostly used for recon missions.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fieseler_Fi_167 (Less than 15 were ever produced, all of them prototypes.)

So no, by early September 1940, the Luftwaffe DIDN'T have a dedicated naval bombing force. Have you been living under a rock? Either way, please read the essays and enlighten yourself.

I will write a more detailed post on why Sealion is totally unfeasible when i have the time to.

[Tungookska]

europe would be better

then nuclear ww3 with germany and usa vs soviets

[Osthia]

Europe would be better...at least if you weren't jewish, gay, opposed to the party, menatally and phsically disabled, Slav, communist, or non-Aryan. Besides that, yeah Europe would be awesome!

[Osthia]

A more interesting altnernative history may be, what if Tsar Nicholas faced Hitler's Germany.

That would be interesting.

Well I've spoken my points. Not going to do much here now. If you ever want to open a thread on that, Nick, I'd be interested in getting in on it.

He would get his ass kicked. Nicholas was...not good when it came to military experience (The Russo-Japanese War and WWI are proof of that), and plus, his policies were very bad.

[Wolffbaden]

:palm:

Wolffbaden,
For the moment, i dont feel spending another hour writing another post to counter your arguments, so please just read the essays, especially this one:

http://web.archive.org/web/200705040342 ... /seal1.htm

Read through part of it. Already finding a lot of errors.

At the time, the balance of naval forces in the region were as follows:

The Royal Navy and Kriegsmarine had far more ships than they are listing off. Again, by September 1940, the Germans had Tirpitz, Bismarck, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Schleswig-Holstein, Schlesien, Hipper, Scheer, Blucher, Prinz Eugen, not counting their cruisers:

* Orion
* Atlantis
* Widder
* Thor
* Pinguin
* Stier
* Komet
* Kormoran
* Michel
* Coronel
* Hansa
* Emden
* Königsberg
* Karlsruhe
* Köln
* Leipzig
* Nürnberg

However, the Luftwaffe of the period had a pathetic record against warships.

Not true. Again, see their actions in the aftermath of Crete and against the RN when they tried to push at Norway (nevermind the Kriegsmarine's track record there). I pointed out already what they did to the Royal Oak, Fiji, Hereward, Kelly, etc. (listed the others off; redundant listing them all again). They incorrectly state also that they only ever beforehand destroyed 4 destroyers. Again, not true. They had 7 destroyers, 4 battlecruisers, and 2 battleships to their credit against the British, not counting their bombing campaign against the Greek Navy before Crete.


One single main exercise was carried out, just off Boulogne. Fifty vessels were used, and to enable the observers to actually observe, the exercise was carried out in broad daylight. (The real thing was due to take place at night/dawn, remember).

The vessels marshalled about a mile out to sea, and cruised parallel to the coast. The aramada turned towards the coast (one barge capsizing, and another losing its tow) and approached and landed. The barges opened, and soldiers swarmed ashore.

However, it was noted that the masters of the boats let the intervals between the vessels become wider and wider, because they were scared of collisions. Half the barges failed to get their troops ashore within an hour of the first troops, and over 10% failed to reach the shore at all.

The troops in the barges managed to impede the sailors in a remarkable manner - in one case, a barge overturned because the troops rushed to one side when another barge "came too close".

Several barges grounded broadside on, preventing the ramp from being lowered.

In this exercise, carried out in good visibility, with no enemy, in good weather, after travelling only a short distance, with no navigation hazards or beach defences, less than half the troops were got ashore where they could have done what they were supposed to do.

The exercise was officially judged to have been a "great success".

This actually never happened. Where they got their "source" for this information is... beyond me. The Germans knew ahead of time that the barges needed to be modified before taking them out on the sea. They ran no exercises like this claimed, except on two prototype landing craft vessels they'd expected they might use.

Firstly, the Kriegsmarine is weaker, as a result of unrepaired battle damage from the Norway campaign.

Actually all ships by the time they'd stormed and taken Norway had been repaired. Most of the ones which suffered damage were their submarines.

Their main problem is trying to later compare D-Day to Sea Lion, even though they are completely different from one another. They have gotten a lot of information wrong otherwise, and it really is a good thing this site has died and fallen away into the web archives.

http://www.alternatehistory.com/gateway/essays/Sealion.html

Cites absolutely no sources whatsoever. This website is comparable to flin.demon page you pulled out. Focuses too much on trying to compare the operation to D-Day. Flipping through other pages he has on this site, the author does little more than write his own version of history rather than examine it from an empirical perspective, particularly with his "Unification Timeline".

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/sealionvsoverlord.aspx

The problem with this one is, again, trying to compare Overlord to Sea Lion. Again, the two operations were completely different from one another. While Mr. Parker gets some areas of it correct, others he is wrong on or completely omits information.

The Luftwaffe proved inadequate against surfaces ships at Dunkirk sinking only thirteen destroyers and damaging another nineteen in a confined area as they loaded troops.

"Only" 13 destroyers? Britain had far more corvettes than they did destroyers. 13, in one sitting, is no subtle loss that they could just shake off. Which he, again, forgets their actions off Norway and Crete against the Greek and British navies.

The order to begin planning was not given until 02 July 1940, allowing only 84 days prior to the proposed invasion date.

Direct No. 16 was not issued by Hitler until July 16th, but the Germans had been planning an assault of England since December 1939.

The parallels between Sea Lion and Operation Merkur are striking. The invasion of Crete also suffered from a very short planning period and relied on commandeered caciques (small two masted fishing boats with an auxiliary engine) assembled at Piraeus for reinforcement and supply. British destroyers annihilated the first flotilla. No second attempt at sea borne landings or supply was made. Although they prevailed the resulting shortage of heavy equipment, transportation and supplies cost the air and glider borne troops dearly.

Directive No. 28 was issued clear back in November 1940 after the Italians had started pushing more and more for German action in the Mediterranean. Furthermore, Sturm 1, 3, and 7 loaded into the seaborne convoys were not "annihilated". During the night action of May 21st-22nd, they were dispersed by the British, and returned home. They were later used to secure Kastelli after the Fallschirmjagers moved to Palaiokhora.

The Luftwaffe proved equally incapable against the RAF during the Battle of Britain losing 1887 aircraft of all types in exchange for 1547 fighters. Clearly the Luftwaffe could not stop the RAF or the RN much less both.

Destroying over 900 in the process, reducing their numbers to only roughly 415 working aircraft with even less pilots to operate them. The Germans still had another 1,300 aircraft on hand. The British, by that time, were running low on petrol and dated plane designs. They could easily have lost the Battle of Britain, as pointed out by the WWII myth article I cited earlier, particularly if Jagdgruppe 11 was moved up from Marseilles (they had over 600 aircraft on hand and were made up of veterans from the Condor Legion from the Spanish Civil War).

STOP overestimating those uboats.

When you stop underestimating them.

Sure, against convoys, even armed ones, they do good.

They did great. Look at the amount they sank in the early war alone.

3 Sep 1939 ORP General Haller (H) Gunboat General Haller
3 Sep 1939 ORP Gryf Minelayer Gryf
3 Sep 1939 ORP Wicher Destroyer Wicher
8 Sep 1939 HNMS Willem van Ewijck (I) Minesweeper Jan van Amstel
10 Sep 1939 HMS Oxley (55 P) Submarine O
13 Sep 1939 FR Pluton Light cruiser Pluton
14 Sep 1939 ORP Czapla (CP) Minesweeper Jaskolka
14 Sep 1939 ORP Jaskolka (J) Minesweeper Jaskolka
17 Sep 1939 HMS Courageous (50) Aircraft Carrier Courageous
14 Oct 1939 HMS Royal Oak (08) Battleship Royal Sovereign
13 Nov 1939 HMS Blanche (H 47) Destroyer B
20 Nov 1939 HMS Mastiff (T 10) ASW Trawler Dog
21 Nov 1939 HMS Gipsy (H 63) Destroyer G
22 Nov 1939 HMS Aragonite MS Trawler
23 Nov 1939 HMS Rawalpindi Armed Merchant Cruiser
12 Dec 1939 HMS Duchess (H 64) Destroyer D
13 Dec 1939 HMS William Hallett (FY 554) MS Trawler
14 Dec 1939 HMS James Ludford (T 16) MS Trawler Mersey
16 Dec 1939 HMS Sedgefly (FY 122) ASW Trawler
20 Dec 1939 HMS Napia Tug
21 Dec 1939 HMS Bayonet (Z 05) Boom defence vessel Net
22 Dec 1939 HMS Dromio MS Trawler
25 Dec 1939 HMS Loch Doon ASW Trawler
5 Jan 1940 HMS Kingston Cornelian (FY 121) ASW Trawler
7 Jan 1940 HMS Seahorse (96 S) Submarine S
7 Jan 1940 HMS Undine (i) (N 48) Submarine U
9 Jan 1940 HMS Starfish (19 S) Submarine S
19 Jan 1940 HMS Grenville (i) (H 03) Destroyer G
21 Jan 1940 HMS Exmouth (H 02) Destroyer E
3 Feb 1940 HMS Sphinx (J 69) Minesweeper Halcyon
9 Feb 1940 HMS Fort Royal (FY 771) MS Trawler
9 Feb 1940 HMS Robert Bowen MS Trawler
18 Feb 1940 HMS Daring (H 16) Destroyer D
20 Feb 1940 HMS Fifeshire ASW Trawler
23 Feb 1940 HMS Benvolio (FY 710) MS Trawler
2 Mar 1940 HMS Fairplay II Rescue Tug
15 Mar 1940 HMS Peridot (FY 198) ASW Trawler
24 Mar 1940 FR La Railleuse Destroyer L'Adroit
8 Apr 1940 HMS Glowworm (H 92) Destroyer G
9 Apr 1940 HNoMS Aeger Destroyer Sleipner
9 Apr 1940 HNoMS Eidsvold Coastal defence ship Eidsvold
9 Apr 1940 HMS Gurkha (i) (F 20) Destroyer Tribal
9 Apr 1940 HNoMS Norge Coastal defence ship Eidsvold
10 Apr 1940 HMS Hardy (i) (H 87) Destroyer H
10 Apr 1940 HMS Hunter (H 35) Destroyer H
10 Apr 1940 HMS Tarpon (N 17) Submarine T
10 Apr 1940 HMS Thistle (N 24) Submarine T
15 Apr 1940 HNoMS A-3 Submarine A
15 Apr 1940 HNoMS A-4 Submarine A
18 Apr 1940 HMS Sterlet (N 22) Submarine S
20 Apr 1940 HMS Rutlandshire ASW Trawler
25 Apr 1940 HMS Bradman (FY 189) ASW Trawler
25 Apr 1940 HMS Hammond (FY 149) ASW Trawler
25 Apr 1940 HMS Larwood (FY 172) ASW Trawler
29 Apr 1940 HMS Cape Chelyuskin (FY 119) ASW Trawler
29 Apr 1940 HMS Cape Siretoko (FY 263) ASW Trawler
29 Apr 1940 HMS Unity (N 66) Submarine U
30 Apr 1940 HMS Bittern (L 07) Sloop Bittern
30 Apr 1940 HMS Dunoon (J 52) Minesweeper Hunt
30 Apr 1940 HMS Jardine (FY 169) ASW Trawler
30 Apr 1940 FR Maille Breze Large destroyer Vauquelin
30 Apr 1940 HMS Warwickshire (FY 113) ASW Trawler
1 May 1940 HMS St. Goran ASW Trawler
3 May 1940 HMS Afridi (F 07) Destroyer Tribal
3 May 1940 HMS Aston Villa (FY 261) ASW Trawler
3 May 1940 FR Bison Large destroyer Guepard
3 May 1940 HMS Gaul ASW Trawler
4 May 1940 ORP Grom (H 71) Destroyer Grom
5 May 1940 HMS Seal (37 M) Submarine Porpoise
6 May 1940 HMS Loch Naver MS Trawler
9 May 1940 FR Doris Submarine Circé
10 May 1940 HNMS Van Galen (i) (VG) Destroyer Admiralen
12 May 1940 HNMS Friso (i) Gunboat Gruno
13 May 1940 HNMS M 2 Minesweeper M
14 May 1940 HNMS Abraham van der Hulst Minesweeper Jan van Amstel
14 May 1940 HNMS Brinio Gunboat Gruno
14 May 1940 HNMS G 16 Torpedo boat G 13
14 May 1940 HNMS Johan Maurits van Nassau (i) Sloop Johan Maurits van Nassau
14 May 1940 HNMS M 1 Minesweeper M
14 May 1940 HNMS M 3 Minesweeper M
14 May 1940 HNMS M 4 Minesweeper M
14 May 1940 HNMS O 11 Submarine O 9
14 May 1940 HNMS O 12 Submarine O 12
14 May 1940 HNMS O 8 Submarine O 8
14 May 1940 HNMS Pieter Florisz Minesweeper Jan van Amstel
14 May 1940 HNMS Z 3 Torpedo boat Z 1
15 May 1940 HNMS Hydra Minelayer Hydra
15 May 1940 HMS Valentine (i) (L 69) Destroyer Admiralty V & W
18 May 1940 HMS Effingham (D 98) Light cruiser Cavendish
19 May 1940 HMS Whitley (L 23) Destroyer Admiralty V & W
20 May 1940 HMS Rifsnes MS Trawler
21 May 1940 HMS Cape Passaro (FY 270) ASW Trawler
21 May 1940 FR L'Adroit Destroyer L'Adroit
22 May 1940 HMS Melbourne ASW Trawler
23 May 1940 FR Jaguar Large destroyer Chacal
23 May 1940 FR Orage Destroyer Bourrasque
24 May 1940 FR Chacal Large destroyer Chacal
24 May 1940 HMS Wessex (i) (D 43) Destroyer Admiralty V & W
25 May 1940 HMS Charles Boyes MS Trawler
26 May 1940 HMS Curlew (D 42) Light cruiser Ceres
28 May 1940 HMS Thomas Bartlett (FY 553) MS Trawler
28 May 1940 HMS Thuringia (FY 106) ASW Trawler
29 May 1940 HMS Calvi MS Trawler
29 May 1940 HMS Grafton (H 89) Destroyer G
29 May 1940 HMS Grenade (H 86) Destroyer G
29 May 1940 HMS Polly Johnson MS Trawler
29 May 1940 HMS Wakeful (i) (H 88) Destroyer Admiralty V & W
30 May 1940 FR Bourrasque Destroyer Bourrasque
31 May 1940 FR Sirocco Destroyer Bourrasque
31 May 1940 HMS St. Achilleus (FY 152) ASW Trawler
1 Jun 1940 HMS Argyllshire ASW Trawler
1 Jun 1940 HMS Basilisk (H 11) Destroyer B
1 Jun 1940 FR Foudroyant Destroyer L'Adroit
1 Jun 1940 HMS Havant (H 32) Destroyer Havant
1 Jun 1940 HMS Keith (D 06) Destroyer B
1 Jun 1940 HMS Skipjack (J 38) Minesweeper Halcyon
1 Jun 1940 HMS St. Abbs (W 02) Rescue Tug Saint
1 Jun 1940 HMS St. Fagan (W 74) Rescue Tug Saint
1 Jun 1940 HMS Stella Dorado (FY 131) ASW Trawler
2 Jun 1940 HMS Blackburn Rovers (FY 116) ASW Trawler
2 Jun 1940 HMS Westella (FY 161) ASW Trawler
6 Jun 1940 HMS Carinthia Armed Merchant Cruiser
8 Jun 1940 HMS Acasta (H 09) Destroyer A
8 Jun 1940 HMS Ardent (H 41) Destroyer A
8 Jun 1940 HMS Glorious (77) Aircraft Carrier Courageous
8 Jun 1940 HMS Juniper (T 123) MS Trawler Tree
8 Jun 1940 ORP Orzel (85 A) Submarine Orzel
9 Jun 1940 HNoMS B-3 Submarine B
12 Jun 1940 HMS Calypso (D 61) Light cruiser Caledon
12 Jun 1940 HMS Sisapon MS Trawler
12 Jun 1940 HMS Twente Tug
13 Jun 1940 HMS Scotstoun Armed Merchant Cruiser
14 Jun 1940 HMS Myrtle (T 91) MS Trawler
14 Jun 1940 HMS Odin (N 84) Submarine O
16 Jun 1940 HMS Andania Armed Merchant Cruiser
16 Jun 1940 HMS Grampus (N 56) Submarine Porpoise
16 Jun 1940 FR Morse Submarine Requin
18 Jun 1940 FR Achille Submarine Redoutable
18 Jun 1940 FR Agosta Submarine Agosta
18 Jun 1940 FR Cyclone Destroyer Bourrasque
18 Jun 1940 FR Enseigne Henry Gunboat Dubourdieu
18 Jun 1940 FR Etourdi Gunboat Ardent
18 Jun 1940 FR Ouessant Submarine Agosta
18 Jun 1940 FR Pasteur Submarine Redoutable
18 Jun 1940 FR Vauquois Gunboat Arras
19 Jun 1940 HMS Orpheus (N 46) Submarine O
22 Jun 1940 FR La Bastiaise Corvette Flower
23 Jun 1940 HMS Coringa Rescue Tug
23 Jun 1940 HMS Khartoum (F 45) Destroyer K
23 Jun 1940 HMIS Pathan Patrol craft PC
25 Jun 1940 HMCS Fraser (H 48) Destroyer C
25 Jun 1940 HNMS O 13 Submarine O 12
3 Jul 1940 FR Bretagne Battleship Bretagne
4 Jul 1940 HMS Foylebank Anti-Aircraft ship
4 Jul 1940 FR Rigault de Genouilly Colonial sloop Bougainville
5 Jul 1940 HMS Whirlwind (i) (D 30) Destroyer Admiralty V & W
6 Jul 1940 HMS Shark (i) (N 54) Submarine S
8 Jul 1940 HMS Cayton Wyke (FY 191) ASW Trawler
11 Jul 1940 HMS Escort (H 66) Destroyer E
16 Jul 1940 HMS Imogen (D 44) Destroyer I
16 Jul 1940 HMS Phoenix (N 96) Submarine P
16 Jul 1940 HMS Salmon (N 65) Submarine S
17 Jul 1940 HMS Steady Mooring vessel Trinculo
19 Jul 1940 HMS Crestflower (FY 367) MS Trawler
20 Jul 1940 HMS Brazen (H 80) Destroyer B
23 Jul 1940 HMS Narwhal (N 45) Submarine Porpoise
24 Jul 1940 HMS Fleming MS Trawler
24 Jul 1940 HMS Kingston Galena (FY 145) ASW Trawler
24 Jul 1940 HMS Rodino (FY 840) MS Trawler
27 Jul 1940 HMS Codrington (D 65) Destroyer A
27 Jul 1940 HMS Wren (i) (D 88) Destroyer Admiralty Modified W
30 Jul 1940 HMS Delight (H 38) Destroyer D
1 Aug 1940 HMS Oswald (N 58) Submarine O
1 Aug 1940 HMS Spearfish (N 69) Submarine S
2 Aug 1940 HMS Cape Finisterre ASW Trawler
3 Aug 1940 HMS Thames (N 71) Submarine River
4 Aug 1940 HMS Drummer MS Trawler
4 Aug 1940 HMS Marsona (FY 714) MS Trawler
5 Aug 1940 HMS River Clyde MS Trawler
10 Aug 1940 HMS Transylvania (F 56) Armed Merchant Cruiser
12 Aug 1940 HMS Pyrope MS Trawler
12 Aug 1940 HMS Tamarisk (FY 97) MS Trawler
13 Aug 1940 HMS Elizabeth Angela (FY 767) MS Trawler
15 Aug 1940 RHS Helli Minelaying cruiser Helli
15 Aug 1940 HMS Moorstone Mooring vessel Moor
20 Aug 1940 HMS Resparko (FY 822) MS Trawler
23 Aug 1940 HMS Hostile (H 55) Destroyer H
24 Aug 1940 HMS Penzance (L 28) Sloop Folkestone
27 Aug 1940 HMS Dunvegan Castle Armed Merchant Cruiser
31 Aug 1940 HMS Esk (H 15) Destroyer E
1 Sep 1940 HMS Ivanhoe (D 16) Destroyer I
1 Sep 1940 HMS Royalo (FY 714) MS Trawler
4 Sep 1940 HMS Saucy (i) Rescue Tug
6 Sep 1940 HMS Godetia (i) (K 72) Corvette Flower
12 Sep 1940 HMS Salvage King Rescue Tug
15 Sep 1940 HMS Dundee (L 84) Sloop Falmouth
23 Sep 1940 FR Persée Submarine Redoutable
24 Sep 1940 FR Ajax Submarine Redoutable
25 Sep 1940 HMS Stella Sirius ASW Trawler
28 Sep 1940 HMS Recoil ASW Trawler
30 Sep 1940 HMS Comet MS Trawler
4 Oct 1940 HMS Rainbow (N 16) Submarine R
9 Oct 1940 HMS Sea King MS Trawler
12 Oct 1940 HMS Warwick Deeping (FY 182) ASW Trawler
13 Oct 1940 HMS Danube III Rescue Tug
13 Oct 1940 HMS Resolvo (FY 821) MS Trawler
14 Oct 1940 HMS Lord Stamp ASW Trawler
15 Oct 1940 HMS Triad (N 53) Submarine T
17 Oct 1940 HMS Dundalk (J 60) Minesweeper Hunt
18 Oct 1940 HMS H 49 (N 49) Submarine H
18 Oct 1940 HMS Kingston Cairngorm ASW Trawler
19 Oct 1940 HMCS Bras d'Or Minesweeper
19 Oct 1940 HMS Venetia (D 53) Destroyer Admiralty V & W
21 Oct 1940 HMS Waveflower (FY 703) MS Trawler
22 Oct 1940 HMS Hickory (T 116) MS Trawler Tree
22 Oct 1940 HMS Joseph Button MS Trawler
22 Oct 1940 HMCS Margaree (H 49) Destroyer D
30 Oct 1940 HMS Sturdy (i) (H 28) Destroyer Admiralty S
1 Nov 1940 HMS Tilbury Ness MS Trawler
2 Nov 1940 HMS Rinovia MS Trawler
3 Nov 1940 HMS Laurentic (F 51) Armed Merchant Cruiser
4 Nov 1940 HMS Patroclus Armed Merchant Cruiser
5 Nov 1940 HMS Jervis Bay (F 40) Armed Merchant Cruiser
6 Nov 1940 HMS Sevra (FY 1652) MS Whaler
7 Nov 1940 FR Poncelet Submarine Redoutable
7 Nov 1940 HMS Swordfish (N 61) Submarine S
7 Nov 1940 HMS William Wesney MS Trawler
8 Nov 1940 HMS Muria Tug
8 Nov 1940 HMS Muria Rescue Tug
9 Nov 1940 FR Bougainville Colonial sloop Bougainville
10 Nov 1940 HMS Kingston Alalite (FY 136) ASW Trawler
11 Nov 1940 HMS Stella Orion MS Trawler
15 Nov 1940 HMS Guardsman Tug
16 Nov 1940 HMS Arsenal (FY 140) ASW Trawler
19 Nov 1940 HMS Fontenoy MS Trawler
19 Nov 1940 HNMS O 22 (P 22) Submarine O 21
24 Nov 1940 HMS Amethyst (T 12) ASW Trawler
25 Nov 1940 HMS Conquistador MS Trawler
25 Nov 1940 HMS Kennymore (FY 857) MS Trawler
28 Nov 1940 HMS Manx Prince MS Trawler
29 Nov 1940 HMS Calverton (FY 775) MS Trawler
30 Nov 1940 HMS Chestnut (T 110) MS Trawler Tree
2 Dec 1940 HMS Forfar (F 30) Armed Merchant Cruiser
6 Dec 1940 HMS Regulus (i) (N 88) Submarine R
7 Dec 1940 HMS Capricornus MS Trawler
7 Dec 1940 HMS Cortina MS Trawler
14 Dec 1940 FR Branlebas Torpedo boat La Melpomène
15 Dec 1940 FFL Narval (i) Submarine Requin
17 Dec 1940 HMS Acheron (i) (H 45) Destroyer A
18 Dec 1940 HMS Refundo (FY 830) MS Trawler
18 Dec 1940 HMS Triton (N 15) Submarine T
19 Dec 1940 FR Sfax Submarine Agosta
21 Dec 1940 HMS Sun IX Tug
22 Dec 1940 HMS Hyperion (H 97) Destroyer H
24 Dec 1940 HMS Pelton MS Trawler
29 Dec 1940 RHS Proteus (Y 3) Submarine Proteus
30 Dec 1940 HMS Bandolero (FY 778) ASW Trawler

But in the Channel, with warships swarming all over the place, with no place to hide,

Except 390 feet of water, having little worry over being detected as the British had no sonar yet.

it's quite probable that some RN ships get sunk by uboat torpedoes, but it would be the uboats that would be taking the biggest losses.

How lol? The uboats could see the British, but the British would be unable to see the uboats. Which makes... no sense really since the only means the British had of detecting the uboats was by spotting their periscopes in 1940.. or guesstimating where they were at and launching depth charges (rarely worked). That's a hard thing to do.

So no, by early September 1940, the Luftwaffe DIDN'T have a dedicated naval bombing force.

Must have missed that list there. Also, for a list of units in the early war.

http://www.feldgrau.com/luftsee.html

[Wolffbaden]

A more interesting altnernative history may be, what if Tsar Nicholas faced Hitler's Germany.

That would be interesting.

Well I've spoken my points. Not going to do much here now. If you ever want to open a thread on that, Nick, I'd be interested in getting in on it.

He would get his ass kicked. Nicholas was...not good when it came to military experience (The Russo-Japanese War and WWI are proof of that), and plus, his policies were very bad.

People weren't too crazy about him either.

[Flabberghastia]

WE all would be slaves

Except for those of us who are Jewish (me and my family). We would be deader than George W. Bush' political career. Sorry, bad analogy.

If Germany won, everyone everyone except a "perfect German" with blonde hair (not dirty blonde, PURE blonde) and blue eyes would be dead. Pretty much everyone else got sent off to the Death/Concentration camps. Jews, Gypsies, Protostants, Muslims, and more (yes, even Catholics, I know, over 60% of the world is Catholic).

[Flabberghastia]

Except for those of us who are Jewish (me and my family). We would be deader than George W. Bush' political career. Sorry, bad analogy.

If Germany won, everyone everyone except a "perfect German" with blonde hair (not dirty blonde, PURE blonde) and blue eyes would be dead. Pretty much everyone else got sent off to the Death/Concentration camps. Jews, Gypsies, Protostants, Muslims, and more (yes, even Catholics, I know, over 60% of the world is Catholic).

Then again there is also that theory that the world would be destroyed from that episode of Star Trek (I saw the episode many years ago, so I don't know what series or episode it was)

[Buurdland]

I recently watched a movie that had an alternate history of Germany winning World War 2.

The Allied invasion of Normandy was rebuffed. The United States never got a foothold in Fortress Europe and was unable to aide in the liberation of the countries occupied by Germany and instead concentrated their efforts against the Japanese Empire with a similar outcome as happened in real life. The movie takes place some twenty years later where the SS has evolved into a peace time police force and the death camps and Hitler's "Final Solution" were not known to the world. Hitler has mellowed with age and is attempting to put a friendlier face on the Nazi Empire.

The Nazi Empire is still fighting the Soviets in the East and now seeks an alliance with the United States against them.

My question is: Is this turn of events possible? What would Germany had to have done to actually win the War in Europe?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvR15G8yEhg First five minutes or so of the movie which is undoubtedly the most interesting part and the only reason I watched the movie.

If they had won the Western Front the U.S. would either have allied with them to destroy the Soviets or nuked them unless there was an equal nuclear threat from the Germans. Either way Hitler would have been killed by someone, most likely the Germans. The world would be saved from the spread of Communism as the Nazi's would have funded Chinese Nationalists after Japan surrendered, however Japan would survive much longer in the war due to the nukes going towards Germany instead of Japan. With the Communists defeated in China due to intervention and possibly even death at the hands of the Japanese due to the increase in the wars length, Communism would still exist however support for the rebels would be very limited. There would be no Vietnam Conflict. No Korean War. Most likely no Cuban Revolution. There would be peace in the Middle East. The Jews would most likely be exterminated in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. That is all I can guess at.

[Mike the Progressive]

We'd literally all be Berliners.