Karl Heidenreich wrote:... Have you heard of Erwin Rommel? What he did with a small and extremely limited amount of resources whilst the Mediterranean was almost in British hands?
No 8th Army and North Africa will be German. Where do you plan to land troops: Madagascar?
As a matter of fact you are the one inserting, continously, more and more variables in order to support what was a quite clear scenario.
Karl Heidenreich wrote:
England is the engine of a car: no engine no running car. At the contrary I think that Canada will not be involved in offensive actions against Germany if England is out of the war. Again, you are ignoring the amount of problems and imposibilities that present themselves once England is out and the Atlantic at the hands of Germany.
What you are doing is trying to prove that the US had a chance in an scenario where there is none.
Karl Heidenreich wrote:You are underestating the German capabillity to overcome odds. Which was what put the world at war in the first place. In 1939 the allies thought that Germany could not even invade France and the Maginot Line will stop them; three years later the Germans were running wild to the Volga. One million more German soldiers would have been determinant against Stalin.
Karl Heidenreich wrote:
Have you heard of Erwin Rommel? What he did with a small and extremely limited amount of resources whilst the Mediterranean was almost in British hands? .
Karl Heidenreich wrote:RF:
There are things you are not considering that are worth mentioning:
No Britain in the war means also no bombing raids over German cities and factories. No hundreds of thousands of German civilians burnt to death by night raids. No disruption of German production of tanks, fighters, submarines and H class battleships.
No Britain in the war means that the German Uboat arm will not be depleted but only building it up. Also surface units as Bismarck or Gneisenau will be available as German aircraft carriers (they will notice how effective they were in the Pacific theatre).
neil hilton wrote:I don't know if this one has been done yet or not, if it has please ignore this and tell me the thread that does.
1. Assuming the RAF lost the BoB, the luftwaffe gained air superiority to clear the English channel sufficiently to allow a wehrmacht crossing in autumn 1940. Over the course of the winter and spring of 1941 they defeat the UK and force an armistice which results in enforced neutrality for the UK, knocking them out of the war (similar to that enforced on France).
2. Operation Barbarossa takes place in May 1941 (historically this was the set time but was delayed due to a British inspired coup in Yugoslavia which forced the wehrmacht south for a month long delay).
3. With no enemy across the channel the Germans don't need to occupy the north and western sides of France or to start construction of the Atlantic Wall. However I think they would decide to station garrisons in the UK and France anyway.
4. I would envisage that once Hitler turned his army eastward he would leave the western theatre almost entirely to the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe and these organisations would build up ground forces for defence.
So heres the question, How would the US conduct an invasion of liberation across the Atlantic without a friendly island staging post? They conducted many long range invasions in the Pacific but they were of small islands, easily cut off, and the set invasion of Japan itself prompted the use of nukes.
Would such an invasion be possible and sustainable? (the Kriegsmarine would have little else to do but guard the eastern shores of Europe and their only enemy would be the USN).
Users browsing this forum: alecsandros, Bing [Bot] and 3 guests