Why did Germany lose WW2?

[Topmaul]

After reading most of the posts on this topic I stick to my origanal post, the U-Boat Arm was not ready for the start of the war. Had Germany built U-Boat not battleships and other surface combatants Germany would have cut England off from the rest of the world and they would have had to request terms from Germany. Maybe then with most of the British Empire to run Germany might have forgotten all about Russia.

Face it, not a drop of fuel getting in, no planes getting off the ground, it would have been bad. The RAF would have been grounded. The battle of Britian would have tuned out very differently.

GAME SET AND MATCH to Germany.

 

[perseus]

Had Germany built U-Boat not battleships and other surface combatants Germany would have cut England off from the rest of the world and they would have had to request terms from Germany. quote]

Possibly, but if the steel that went into the battleships had gone into aircraft carriers together with suitable aircraft this would have posed a greater problem still. A combination of air and Uboat dominance over the Atlantic would have been devastating, since the British fleet would have been destroyed as well marking the way to a ground invasion of the UK. Ultimately the only way of knocking Britain out of the war especially with the US in the sidelines would have been an occupation. If Leningrad could survive surrounded for years until help arrived why not Britain? Even a Britain devoid of weapons posed a threat in its very being as a jump of post for American future might.

 

[MontyB]

I think it is unrealistic to believe that Germany had any chance of crossing the channel and to their credit they knew this.

The German navy reported on Operation Sealion that even if the Luftwaffe got control of the skies over Southern England they could not prevent the Royal Navy from breaking into the invasion lanes and the Luftwaffe reported that even if it could concentrate its forces in the channel area it couldn't guarantee that it could stop the Royal Navy either.

Now given the the proposed plan was going to take Germany 20-24 hours to cross the channel to the invasion beaches and an estimated 72 further hours to unload and land the invasion force and that the Royal Navy was less than 24 hours away and could deploy 10-15 times the ships that the Kriegsmarine had available it doesnt take a genius to figure out that Operation Sealion was going to be a bloodbath.

The simple reality is that while the RAF was an important contribution the UK's survival in WW2 was almost solely due to the strength of the Royal Navy and it would have taken Germany 10 years to build and train a fleet to compete in that arena.

 

[Doppleganger]

Ultimately the only way of knocking Britain out of the war especially with the US in the sidelines would have been an occupation.

Not necessarily. Just suppose that Hitler had done nothing further towards the UK after the Battle of Britain. Also suppose that he either a) did not proceed with Barbarossa or b) launched a successful offensive against the Soviet Union or c) did not attack the Soviet Union at all. Effectively, there would be no war in Europe and under those circumstances how long would Churchill have lasted with no war to fight? Not all that long possibly and there would be a reasonable chance that a more peace-minded individual like say Lord Halifax might have ascended to the top job. It's not entirely beyond the realms of possibility either that the UK might have aligned itself with Germany under those circumstances, much in the way Finland aligned itself with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Don't underestimate the influence of a powerful neighbour. Take a look a Mexico's relationship with the US as another modern example. Although it has taken a pro-western stance, the Ukraine is another country that is very vulnerable to the Russian influence coming from its eastern border.

 

[Del Boy]

I think it is unrealistic to believe that Germany had any chance of crossing the channel and to their credit they knew this.

.

The simple reality is that while the RAF was an important contribution the UK's survival in WW2 was almost solely due to the strength of the Royal Navy and it would have taken Germany 10 years to build and train a fleet to compete in that arena.

This is true. I know from personal contact at that time of the state of readiness that prevailed among the R.N. They were never going to allow the channel to be crossed by the German forces, whatever the cost.

 

[perseus]

I'm not sure what scenerio Monty and Del are referring to. I am suggesting that if Germany had invested in aircraft carriers with a half decent air arm, instead of big gun ships they could have knocked the Royal Navy out as easily as Japan did in the East.

With regards to Hitlers puppet governments what happened to them when the going got bad? Perhaps a puppet government then an invite to a German occupation would have stopped America, but things must have looked far more attractive over there.

 

[MontyB]

I'm not sure what scenerio Monty and Del are referring to. I am suggesting that if Germany had invested in aircraft carriers with a half decent air arm, instead of big gun ships they could have knocked the Royal Navy out as easily as Japan did in the East.

The I am referring to is based on two points:
- When the Luftwaffe says that even if they can control the skies over the landing beaches (which they believed they could) they could not prevent the Royal Navy from Breaking into the invasion lanes within 24 hours of the beginning of landings, which was based on the fact that they had not performed well preventing the evacuation from Dunkirk which was a much easier target for them.

- The Kriegsmarine report that it will take them the best part of 4 days to cross the channel and land 140,000 troops along with their armour and supplies and that the only surface protection forces available are 2 Cruisers, 10 Destroyers and about 40 E-Boats at a time when the Royal Navy can deploy 4 Battleships, 23 Cruisers, 80 Destroyers and countless other classes of fighting vessels under the protection of the RAF.

It is clear that Sealion was a no go to everyone including Hitler and to be blunt if that meglomaniacal SOB could figure it out then I am pretty certain that it was pretty obvious.

The Germans didnt need a Fleet Air Arm as the invasion beaches were within 30 minutes flying time of their French bases and to be fair most of the British ships sunk in the Pacific were also sunk by land based aircraft.

 

[perseus]

Still a bit confused here Monty. I am not suggesting they would fight in the Channel but against the Atlantic Convoys drawing out the Royal Navy's ships for destruction out there, only once Naval supremacy was attained would a Channel crossing be considered. Since aircraft carriers ruled the seas this would seem feasible if they had focused on these instead of big gun ships. Germany's two Battleships, battlecruisers, and pocket battleships contained enough steel for around ten 20 000 tonne carriers. These would have caused havoc in the North Atlantic operating from the French Ports.

Another possible route to local Naval supremacy could have been to simply build thousands of Eboats. Then wait until a late Autumn anticyclone drops with visibility less than one mile, what chance would big ships have against these in the channel? Problem was (for Germany) that the invasion of Britain was never part of Hitlers masterplan and they were not intent on finishing the job before starting on another.

 

[MontyB]

Still a bit confused here Monty. I am not suggesting they would fight in the Channel but against the Atlantic Convoys drawing out the Royal Navy's ships for destruction out there, only once Naval supremacy was attained would a Channel crossing be considered. Since aircraft carriers ruled the seas this would seem feasible if they had focused on these instead of big gun ships. Germany's two Battleships, battlecruisers, and pocket battleships contained enough steel for around ten 20 000 tonne carriers. These would have caused havoc in the North Atlantic operating from the French Ports.

Another possible route to local Naval supremacy could have been to simply build thousands of Eboats. Then wait until a late Autumn anticyclone drops with visibility less than one mile, what chance would big ships have against these in the channel? Problem was (for Germany) that the invasion of Britain was never part of Hitlers masterplan and they were not intent on finishing the job before starting on another.

I am not certain 10 carriers floating around the Atlantic unsupported and in weather that really would have made flight operations almost impossible would really have been that much of a threat.

I tend to think that until the development of an all weather capacity the North Atlantic was pretty much the last refuge of ship to ship combat.

In terms of Hitlers master plan you are right invading Britain was not on the list which is where I think he failed badly but it also indicates that perhaps he did not expect the war in the west as his primary focus nor did he see it unfolding as rapidly as it did.

I am convinced that the only chance of a successful invasion of Britain would have been for it to have been planned for the days if not hours after the fall of France (basically the invasion fleet needed to be sailing with the Dunkirk evacuation fleet) and given that I don't believe that Germany expected to be in the position it was in June 1940 so this would have been unlikely.

One thing I am certain of though is had Germany got ashore in Britain in significant numbers to get a secure foot hold during June or July 1940 there would have been little Britain could have stopped them with despite Winston's rhetoric .

 

[Del Boy]

Excellent rhetoric.

 

[Doppleganger]

The problem, if you like, is that Hitler fell into war; he did not really plan for it initially. Then, when he found he was at war, he tried to keep it as a limited war until after the defeat of France where his ambition finally got the better of him. Most of the German High Command were deeply surprised at the ease of their victory over France and the BEF, Hitler included.

If Germany had somehow reached a long-term agreement with the Soviet Union they would have both the time and the resources to build up both their surface and u-boot fleets under a modified Z-Plan, as well as beefing up the Luftwaffe. A long-term peace between the 2 dominant European powers would have spelled disaster for the UK. Just as well that it was as about as likely as the Catholic and Protestant churches reforming. In that scenario, if the will had been there, it would only have been a matter of time before Britain fell. But I do not believe that would ever have happened and the UK would probably have fallen into line at least to neutrality towards Nazi Germany.

It goes without saying that had the Wehrmacht managed to get a reasonable force landed on the English coast soon after Dunkirk it would have been all over bar the shouting. Especially because the BEF would have virtually no heavy equipment having left it all behind in Normandy.

 

[MontyB]

All of this surely indicates that Hitlers focus was never really on the West, it seems that his plans were to simply keep them at arms length while he headed East, however once he had finished with the Russians would that have been the end of it?

 

[Doppleganger]

Well, Mein Kampf pretty much summed up Hitler's intent. Had he conquered Russia, his plans for the region would have kept him, and Germany, busy for years. These plans would only have been possible I think if Hitler had stability on his Western Front, which meant some kind of arrangement with Britain.

Even the plans that Germany and the USSR had under their treaty were pretty radical. It involved dividing the planet into 2 spheres of influence; German and Soviet with the line basically down their border where Poland was. Britain, of course, would be in the German half.

 

[perseus]

I am not certain 10 carriers floating around the Atlantic unsupported and in weather that really would have made flight operations almost impossible would really have been that much of a threat.

Well the British carriers rendered the Bismark useless in the Atlantic with their antiquated Swordfishes so I expect the British Battleships would have been very suseptible to air attack. Yes some support would have been necessary but this was mainly to defend against air attack, the carriers themselves with half decent aircraft could have done this.

 

[MontyB]

Well the British carriers rendered the Bismark useless in the Atlantic with their antiquated Swordfishes so I expect the British Battleships would have been very suseptible to air attack. Yes some support would have been necessary but this was mainly to defend against air attack, the carriers themselves with half decent aircraft could have done this.

This is true however the British carriers had battleship, cruiser and destroyer escorts along with fleet supply ships they just didn't let carriers go sailing off on their own.
For Germany to field 10 Carriers they would have needed at least 100-200 support and escort ships.

They would have been better off concentrating on submarines and a long range heavy bomber.

 

[Doppleganger]

Submarines yes but I wouldn't see the point of a long-range heavy bomber capability for Germany for use against the UK. The distances involved would not make it worthwhile. Plus, unless you are using a WMD, strategic bombing in itself does not win wars. This has been proved time and time again.

If there had been a period of peace after the Battle of France, one option for Germany might have been to attempt a second Battle of Britain, after they had built up the Luftwaffe and made the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 the fighter mainstay.

 

[perseus]

I am not sure why you need a fleet of ships with the carriers, what are they going to be attacked by? Swordfish Biplanes? surely mincemeat for any fighter aircraft. The Germans already had a good supply of fuelling ships. Perhaps a mix of carriers and heavy cruisers may have been a better option. The aircraft would attack the large ships the heavy cruisers the destroyers and the Uboats the dispersed convoy.

A suitable time for invasion would have been summer 1942 especially if the USA could be kept out of the war. The FW 190 was superior to the Spitfire V as demonstrated over Dieppe and was available in suitable numbers. Of course this may have been academic since no convoys, no fuel, no ships, no aircraft.

 

[MontyB]

Submarines yes but I wouldn't see the point of a long-range heavy bomber capability for Germany for use against the UK. The distances involved would not make it worthwhile. Plus, unless you are using a WMD, strategic bombing in itself does not win wars. This has been proved time and time again.

If there had been a period of peace after the Battle of France, one option for Germany might have been to attempt a second Battle of Britain, after they had built up the Luftwaffe and made the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 the fighter mainstay.

I probably used the wrong term when I said long range but I am convinced Germany needed a heavy bomber.
I am also uncertain the FW-190 was ever going to become the mainstay of the Luftwaffe after all it never showed signs of filling the role after 1940 and given that they were still producing Me-109 variants in 1945 I think it safe to say that Me-109 was going to fill the role until jet fighters took their place.

In terms of the Fw-190 I was under the impression it was really only designed for Eastern Front operations and the need for an aircraft that was heavily armed and easily maintained in primitive conditions which really wasn't a requirement on the Western Front.

I am not sure why you need a fleet of ships with the carriers, what are they going to be attacked by? Swordfish Biplanes? surely mincemeat for any fighter aircraft. The Germans already had a good supply of fuelling ships. Perhaps a mix of carriers and heavy cruisers may have been a better option. The aircraft would attack the large ships the heavy cruisers the destroyers and the Uboats the dispersed convoy.

Personally if you look at the amount of resources the Tirpitz tied down just sitting in a Norwegian Fjord they may have been better off sticking a battleship in every fjord and tying up 80% of the Royal Navy and Bomber Command.

In terms of sailing a carrier around without support I would like to point out that the British has submarines and carriers were not strong on ASW during WW2 on top of this a carrier may sink 1 or 2 or 5 destroyers coming at it but I will guarantee that one of the opposing task forces battleships, cruisers or destroyers will still take it down.

 

[Doppleganger]

I probably used the wrong term when I said long range but I am convinced Germany needed a heavy bomber.
I am also uncertain the FW-190 was ever going to become the mainstay of the Luftwaffe after all it never showed signs of filling the role after 1940 and given that they were still producing Me-109 variants in 1945 I think it safe to say that Me-109 was going to fill the role until jet fighters took their place.

In terms of the Fw-190 I was under the impression it was really only designed for Eastern Front operations and the need for an aircraft that was heavily armed and easily maintained in primitive conditions which really wasn't a requirement on the Western Front.

Not sure why you think that Monty but it certainly was superior to the Me-109, Spitfire Mk V and P-51a. The only reason why it did not wholly replace the Me-109 was due to the fact that Germany was embroiled in a titanic struggle with the the USSR. If there was no war against Russia then I'm certain the Fw 190 would have fully replaced the Me-109 in Luftwaffe squadrons.

 

[chief_darkcloud]

Reason Germany lost

Hello everyone, this my first post but have been following this thread. I think many of the reasons stated are valid points which certainly contributed to their defeat. My opinion is logistics & lack of mobility for most of the German army is what prevented a German victory. While they were masters of Blitzkrieg tactics their army was mostly unmechanized or dependent on horses for transport.

There are many notable examples of panzer units having to stop and wait for infantry support and supply to catch up. This negated some of the tactical advantages of Blitzkrieg. Had the German army been fully mechanized army with equally mobile supply then outcome could have been much different. The added mobility would have yielded even greater encirclements and gotten them closer to Moscow much sooner.