Skip to content


When was German victory impossible?


Moderator: Edpow1


When was German victory impossible?

Postby Von_Schmidt » Tue Nov 18, 2003 2:12 pm

I'd say personnely around july 1942, if Paulus hadn't stalled then he could of taken Stalingard quickly and easily. He could also evacute troops from tunisia before its capture, this will save the axis around 1,400,000 men from death or capture.

Though its difficult to imagine where the Germans would go from there, or even if the Russians would fall. They would lose alot of they oil and enomancy supplies, but its easy to imagine the american lend-lease handing some over to the Soviets.

This was all providing the Germans were as good as the say, if they could keep the eastern front relatively quiet, building defenses, they could wait till they new panthers and tigers arrive.

Anyway, thats what I think.
Von_Schmidt
Volksturm
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu May 01, 2003 10:10 am
Location: United Kingdom


When was German victory impossible?

Postby Von_Schmidt » Tue Nov 18, 2003 2:12 pm

I'd say personnely around july 1942, if Paulus hadn't stalled then he could of taken Stalingard quickly and easily. He could also evacute troops from tunisia before its capture, this will save the axis around 1,400,000 men from death or capture.

Though its difficult to imagine where the Germans would go from there, or even if the Russians would fall. They would lose alot of they oil and enomancy supplies, but its easy to imagine the american lend-lease handing some over to the Soviets.

This was all providing the Germans were as good as the say, if they could keep the eastern front relatively quiet, building defenses, they could wait till they new panthers and tigers arrive.

Anyway, thats what I think.
Von_Schmidt
Volksturm
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu May 01, 2003 10:10 am
Location: United Kingdom


When was German victory impossible?

Postby Von_Schmidt » Tue Nov 18, 2003 2:12 pm

I'd say personnely around july 1942, if Paulus hadn't stalled then he could of taken Stalingard quickly and easily. He could also evacute troops from tunisia before its capture, this will save the axis around 1,400,000 men from death or capture.

Though its difficult to imagine where the Germans would go from there, or even if the Russians would fall. They would lose alot of they oil and enomancy supplies, but its easy to imagine the american lend-lease handing some over to the Soviets.

This was all providing the Germans were as good as the say, if they could keep the eastern front relatively quiet, building defenses, they could wait till they new panthers and tigers arrive.

Anyway, thats what I think.
Von_Schmidt
Volksturm
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu May 01, 2003 10:10 am
Location: United Kingdom


Postby Gapiro » Tue Nov 18, 2003 2:14 pm

I would agree about the bit about stalingrad, as they spent so many men and resources , and took so long, the ruskies got around to getting a counter attack ready.
User avatar
Gapiro
Herr General
 
Posts: 3152
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 4:01 pm
Location: United Kingdom


Postby Asmodain » Tue Nov 18, 2003 3:11 pm

So many factors involved, impossible to say. Though I'd say that putting Operation Sealion on hold was one of the major reasons.

United Kingdom were left freely to operate in Africa and british isles provided excellent bases for planes to operate from. Also I can't imagine the americans launching a strike as massive as Overlord all the way from the States.
The lack of support for Rommel and the hasty decisions to just run and grab some "living space" from Soviet Union proved to be as fatal.

Sure Germany adapted to the many situations(Italy, France, eastern front) it faced due to these mistakes, but not nearly as efficiently as they ever could of.

Make some sense out of that... :€
Asmodain
Herr Oberst
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 2:40 pm
Location: South Sandwich Islands


Postby doctor jeep » Tue Nov 18, 2003 5:37 pm

the german Heer was only able to operate for short run campaigns. As soon as they entered into long campaigns they lost.

take their notable victories: all possible because Hitler and Guderians etc tactical vision enabled the short run aquisition of major objectives.

Their strategies fell apart when they needed a long run solution: IE the Battle of Britain, the north africa campaign or the disastrous campaign in the east.
User avatar
doctor jeep
Ze Fuhrer
Ze Fuhrer
 
Posts: 1225
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2003 3:02 pm


Postby Von_Schmidt » Tue Nov 18, 2003 7:01 pm

Germans postpone the battle of britain? Hitler never ever planned to invade the country, he personnely admired the British and was willing to accept Britain's poisition. The german assault force had fewer men for Sealion, the Royal Navy outnumbered the Germans 20:1 (or something like that) and the RAF had more better planes and a closer supply vein. The german barges, which were simply french pleasure ships done over were no good, and the germans would need to seize a beachhead before they could make use of tanks. Impossible.

The allies later on needed 2 years of planning and overwhelming numbers and air power to take normandy, and it came quite close to a failure. Sealion would of been a disaster, the barges were built and placed only to decieve the Russians. Hitler took his eyes of the isle around september 1940, all he talked about was the Soviet Union.

Which seemed reasonable, the Germans had a better chance of taking Moscow then they did London.

The blitz of London was Hitler's hope that England would surrendar politically, nothing more.
Von_Schmidt
Volksturm
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu May 01, 2003 10:10 am
Location: United Kingdom


Postby Asmodain » Tue Nov 18, 2003 7:20 pm

I also believed that Germany could of taken Moscow, but would that of been enough? Soviet Union could of operated from other major cities, far behind the Urals. Soviet Union would of remained united even after Moscow and Hitler's Germany simply didn't have enough resources to drive all the way to Vladivostok.

Sure Hitler 'respected(not the right word)' the United Kingdom as a colonial power, but he was ready to take it out if necessary. Like I said, UK isles played a big role in Operation Normandy and other operations. Fortunately he decided Stalin was a bigger threat and decided to put the "allied on their knees" by taking him out.

As for United Kingdom outnumbering Germany on sea, true, but Germany could of committed all ships and submarines(planes too) in one operation, not the luxury the brits shared(fighting against Japan and Italy was a very real threat). Submerging tanks were under development too, which actually worked(Operation Barbarossa).

Operation Sealion would of been possibly. It never received enough attention, never received enough planes or submarines to efficiently weaken the british defenses for a prominent invasion.
Asmodain
Herr Oberst
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 2:40 pm
Location: South Sandwich Islands


Postby Von_Schmidt » Wed Nov 19, 2003 6:04 am

Operation Sealion was impossible, as I just said. The brits were not yet at war in with the japense and only a small part of the British army were fighting the Italians, the bulk of the troops in Africa were commonwealth allies. READ what I said Asmo, it wasn't possible, Hitler never decided to make it possible. U-boats are no good when the British will bring they full number of destroyers to bare, and the RAF begun to bomb Germany then they Luftwaffe did on England. If the Kreigsmarine opened a corridor to send over they barges, the royal Navy will steam in making use of they overwhelming numerical power, the RAF would of strafed barges, and the british planned to set fire to the beachheads with oil. Assuming the transport got to the cliff, they will be in a worse case then americans were at ohamo. Machine guns, heavy artillery and entrenched troops which will begin to outnumber the invaders. Even if they do take London what about northern england and scotland? Never doubtful the jocks will surrendar, and the welsh. Not without a tough fight.

If the Germans did intend such an operation then it would of ended in a humanilating disaster. The reason why transport were brought to they starting points was to trick the British and the Soviet Union.
Von_Schmidt
Volksturm
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu May 01, 2003 10:10 am
Location: United Kingdom


Postby Gapiro » Wed Nov 19, 2003 10:14 am

DID I READ THE TIME OF THAT POST CORRECTLY?
very early.
Medal if you were gaming then.
Jeep says to tell you sorry but he counld,'t find the server you were on using ASE
User avatar
Gapiro
Herr General
 
Posts: 3152
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 4:01 pm
Location: United Kingdom


Postby Asmodain » Wed Nov 19, 2003 1:10 pm

For what I've read, the german were far superior when it comes to technology(Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine getting most of the benefits of this during 1940).

I didn't point out a specific date for Operation Sealion, did I? The planning for it was just beginning, Luftwaffe was only just preparing, Kriegsmarine were waiting for more ships and submarines to arrive. There was still time to develope new armor, weaponry, produce even more.
If they really had unleashed the machine of war on United Kingdom, I believe it could of been possible(it was possible to produce enough submarines to tighten the knot and even more in 2 years around the island, but Hitler divided the resources).

Moving an armada of ships from point A(mediterranien) to point B(canal) takes time. Sure the british expected an invasion, but where from? Should we move all of the navy to the canal? Should we pull some of our divisions from africa? Big questions and british generals didn't know the answers for them.

Germany could of send more troops to Africa, making the British tie more troops there and weaken their defenses on the island.
For what I know, Japan could of been persuaded to declare war. All was possible in 1940 IMO.

EDIT: Also the invasion would of been made from a few different directions, making it impossible to the british to focus their naval force in one point.
Asmodain
Herr Oberst
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 2:40 pm
Location: South Sandwich Islands


Postby Von_Schmidt » Thu Nov 20, 2003 9:11 am

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Gapiro</i>
<br />DID I READ THE TIME OF THAT POST CORRECTLY?
very early.
Medal if you were gaming then.
Jeep says to tell you sorry but he counld,'t find the server you were on using ASE
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Thank you for contribution Gapiro.
Von_Schmidt
Volksturm
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu May 01, 2003 10:10 am
Location: United Kingdom


Postby Gapiro » Thu Nov 20, 2003 10:06 am

Your welcome [:D]
User avatar
Gapiro
Herr General
 
Posts: 3152
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 4:01 pm
Location: United Kingdom


Postby Totenkopf » Wed Dec 24, 2003 12:34 am

Any Of These:
1)The Halted drive to Moscow
2)The dismised defensive line prior to Kursk
3)Failure to overrun Normany after landing (especially the beaten up divisions at Omaha
4)The Invasion of USSR and failure to push into North Africa

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.................vannila coffee!!!!!!
User avatar
Totenkopf
Hauptman
 
Posts: 493
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2003 10:53 am
Location: Australia


Postby Gapiro » Sun Dec 28, 2003 4:27 pm

whats kursk got to do with it
User avatar
Gapiro
Herr General
 
Posts: 3152
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 4:01 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Next

Return to Board index

Return to ww2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest