Matrix Games Forums

This is the title of a well written article in this month's edition of THE ARMCHAIR GENERAL (PG. 70). The author postulates that if, following the fall of France, Hitler had listend to the advice of Admiral Raeder (as well as Kietel, Jodel, and Halder) and sent 4 armoured divisions to Africa (Lybia), it would have resulted in a domino efect. To wit:
Take Egypt, Suez, and the near middle east. Closing the suez canal would allow the Axis to interdict the Eastern Med. That would knock out Greece (or allow for an easy capture).
Invade French North Africa, Dakkar, Malta, and The Middle East. Take Gibraltar (if anyone is still there).

Russia is now in an analogus position as Poland in 1939------they have an extra front to cover, and it contains a good portion of their oil. No need to invade, they would cheerfulls supply raw material for finished goods. Basically Germany has Europe, less the Baltic States and Bessarabia/Bucknovia, a chunk Africa, and the middle east.

Opinions? (If you can, read the article...it is short and you don't need to buy the magizine.
Personally I think that the only way it could work is if the first step was to shoot Hitler. He was not prone to listen to advice, or do things in any manner other than brute force (post 1939). Also the Germans lacked the logistics to supply such a venture. Still, it would have taken a lot less troops that Barbarossa, and thos extre soldiers could have building Tracked Trucks and supply ships. Who knows?[:'(]

All Germany had to do is hold off 2-4 more years. IMHO I don’t think there was any risk of Europe pulling their heads out of the sand in that time frame.

Didn't Van Crevald debunk that in 'Supplying War'?

No way to support that much armour in the desert. Would never have worked.

All Hitler needed to do to come out as a winner was to not invade Poland and keep Austria, Czech, the Rhineland and East Prussia. He probably could have negotiated the Danzig corridor back from Poland.

ORIGINAL: Belphegor

Didn't Van Crevald debunk that in 'Supplying War'?

No way to support that much armour in the desert. Would never have worked.

Van Crevald’s 'Supplying War' did make a persuasive argument , but by far debunked anything.

Van Crevald writing hand is swayed offend by his political views rather then historical facts.

Hmm --I sense that nothing good can come out of this.  

The author postulates that if, following the fall of France, Hitler had listend to the advice of Admiral Raeder (as well as Kietel, Jodel, and Halder) and sent 4 armoured divisions to Africa (Lybia), it would have resulted in a domino efect. To wit:
Take Egypt, Suez, and the near middle east. Closing the suez canal would allow the Axis to interdict the Eastern Med. That would knock out Greece (or allow for an easy capture).
Invade French North Africa, Dakkar, Malta, and The Middle East. Take Gibraltar (if anyone is still there).
Russia is now in an analogus position as Poland in 1939------they have an extra front to cover, and it contains a good portion of their oil. No need to invade, they would cheerfulls supply raw material for finished goods. Basically Germany has Europe, less the Baltic States and Bessarabia/Bucknovia, a chunk Africa, and the middle east.

Don't see how it would help, it would simply spread out the German troops even further. Where in Africa would they stop?
Also the Caucusus is defensive terrain, the Soviets could hold out for ages. They would also, unlike the Germans, have an advantage of internal communications. If the Germans took Baku, it would have hurt the Soviets but they had other sources of oil, e.g. beyond the Urals. Plus if the Germans started moving into the Middle East, you have to consider the Soviet counter reaction. I think it is likely that Soviets would annex or ally with Iran or Turkey or both.
The British still have their navy and the Germans would have a lot of vulnerable shipping. AFAIK the British alone outproduced the Germans, so its not like Germans would have a lot of spare capacity to build ships. Also if the Germans moved in to take the French colonies, the German agreement with Petain would be void and the French fleet would join the British.

I've always felt taking out Britian with a fleet of transport submarines (moving the main force into the northern territory while feinting in the south was the way to victory for the Germans along with taking N. Africa and the Mediteranian as well. They wasted too many needed planes in the BFB. I would have done nothing but nighttime strategic bombings of radar installations myself as I do in most of my games I play. I also would hold off on any war with Russia until necessary and would have had diplomatic negotiations to "share the wealth" if Russia would throw in with me. I don't need to control the whole world, just half of it.

Ravinhood is dead, spot on. Conservative estimates are that had Germany continued their bombing campaign of England, the R.A.F could only sustain two-three more weeks until it had exhausted it's men and resources. A fateful decesion to pause at Dunkirk and not send Germany's armour divisions in also let 250,000-300,000 English and French escape. The ill fated timing of the Russian campaign with it's unnecessary pauses and decesion not to press forward at certain points in time has been well documented. Long and short of it, had Hitler let his generals run the war, and not meddled, the outcome quite certainly might have been different.

WOW DID THAT STIR THE POT! Y'all ought to read the article, only took 5 min @Wal-Mart. Didn't even have to buy the magazine[:'(]. NOTE. 1) No Battle of Britan. 2) No Barbarossa. After France falls, take Egypt, French North Africa, Dakkar, and the Middle East. Stay allied w/Russia and use them as a supply source. Strangle England w/U Boats & isolate her from supply sources (e.g. India, Austrailia, Canada). The plan requires more logistic support than the Germans had, but if they demobilized some troops the could use them to build tracked supply vehicles. 4 armour divisions to N Afrika starts the domino effect. Probable only feasible after removal of Hitler, as he was not sucess oriented after 1940.

TOCarroll, I have a couple of books that cover some "alternate history".  One is "Hitler Slept Late", by James P. Duffy, and the other is "The Hitler Options", edited by Kenneth Macksey.  You can probably find them on Amazon.
 
Both are pretty interesting.
 
 

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

I've always felt taking out Britian with a fleet of transport submarines (moving the main force into the northern territory while feinting in the south was the way to victory for the Germans along with taking N. Africa and the Mediteranian as well. They wasted too many needed planes in the BFB. I would have done nothing but nighttime strategic bombings of radar installations myself as I do in most of my games I play. I also would hold off on any war with Russia until necessary and would have had diplomatic negotiations to "share the wealth" if Russia would throw in with me. I don't need to control the whole world, just half of it.

But to do that requires the Nazi party not to be the Nazi party. The whole reason for the war was to beat Russia. And according to the view of the upper echelons of the Nazi party, the war on Russia had to be launched by spring 1942 at the latest.

I won't comment on the submarine idea but I will point out that supplying even more divisions in North Africa would have been something beyond the Italian and Germans' logistical abilities.[:)]

(Reply to several). Thanks for the tips on the books, and the opinions. I tend to agree. Hitler (& the Nazi's) could not have won World War 2, due to among other things their racist philosophy and rampant corruption in their government. HOWEVER....Germany was in a position, following the Fall of France, to knock out England and avoid war with Russia. IT IS A VERY BIG WHAT-IF, BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH GERMAN MILITARY CAPACITY, and would have probably required removal of the Nazi Goverment and SS, which could well have cause a civil war. I only brought it up because of the article in The Armchair General. The viabality of the "Raeder Paln" has been argued back and forth since at least 1945, and probably before that. See "The German Genrals Talk (and talk, and talk....) B. H. Liddel Hart. Hart himself says that it was a much more dangerous line of attack than attacking Russia.
 
I find the theory interesting, because so many WW2 games have to make special rules to prohibit the Germans from doing just that. (Third Reich---Malta Rule + Cyprus rule). The key, as Lidell-Hart points out, is the logistics, always a sticky point in multi-theater games.[;)]
 
I would like to see a game where the Axis can opt to use their resources a bit more sensibly.....maybe let the Germans allow Italy to use their PzIII & IV designs (ouch). Or more fully motorize the army instead of building capital ships. Lots of what-if's.
 
Tom OC

ORIGINAL: Marcus the leper

Ravinhood is dead, spot on. Conservative estimates are that had Germany continued their bombing campaign of England, the R.A.F could only sustain two-three more weeks until it had exhausted it's men and resources. A fateful decesion to pause at Dunkirk and not send Germany's armour divisions in also let 250,000-300,000 English and French escape. The ill fated timing of the Russian campaign with it's unnecessary pauses and decesion not to press forward at certain points in time has been well documented. Long and short of it, had Hitler let his generals run the war, and not meddled, the outcome quite certainly might have been different.

I think you and Ravinhood are actually wide of the mark. [;)]

By the end of the BOB, Britain had more fighters than she started with, germany had many less. Only one British airfield was actually out of action during the infamous airfield bombing phase usually cited as the point the RAF was nearly defeated, that was biggin hill, and that was only out of action for a few hours.

Fact is, the Germans never even got close during the BOB. Fighter Command could have gone on for a lot longer if required. I certainly think they could have defeated the Luftwaffe had they pushed it that far. When they switched to night bombing, though, the luftwaffe were essentially conceding the battle.

The stop order at Dunkirk was a grievous mistake, and I suspect the war was lost right there.

As for the Russian campaign, I think the Germans were defeated quite possibly before they started. I don't think any of the strategic decisions they made are necessarily bad ones, mainly because I can see a rationale for most of them, and I think the underlying problems the Germans encountered would have been encountered whatever strategic decisions were made.

regards,
IronDuke

What about the possibility of having waited another two years before Germany rattled its sword. This would have given them valuble time to build up their army and weapons.

ORIGINAL: Zap

What about the possibility of having waited another two years before Germany rattled its sword. This would have given them valuble time to build up their army and weapons.

Personally, I think the key is keeping the US out of the war at all costs. That means immediately assaulting England after Dunkirk and refraining from the alliance with Japan.

Fantasy thought... could a deal have been struck with Stalin to allow him hegemony in Asia in exchange for a partition of eastern Europe and peace with Germany?

Picture the Russians going after China, Mongolia, Manchuria, Korea, and Japan. Japan wouldn't attack the US and if England falls... where does that leave the US? A new tri-partite pact that guarantees the US total hegemony in North and South America, Russia hegemony in East Europe, and most of Asia, and the 3rd Reich controls Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. The world is divided three ways.

Just a wild bit of speculation... tear it up guys. [;)]

Under estimating England’s ability to defend herself against invasion would have gone down as one of the biggest miscalculations in military history.

ORIGINAL: Sarge


Under estimating England’s ability to defend herself against invasion would have gone down as one of the biggest miscalculations in military history.

Maybe so, but turning away from an invasion of England to attack the Soviet Union HAS gone down as one of the biggest miscalculations in military history.

If England falls, the chance to prevent a US entry into the war becomes a much more likely scenario.

This is a fantasy thread anyway.

What if Hitler had anticipated the Fall of France and had made some detailed plans for an invasion of Britain... perhaps the manufacture of hundreds of torpedo boats to seal off the Channel from the Royal Navy? An additional airborne division to strike at London and decapitate the Brtish government?

What if Hitler had realized that massed air power could destroy any sortie's by the Royal Navy that might threaten his invasion transports? Of course, the Prince of Wales and Repulse weren't going down for another year to make that point, but he could have had that insight. If the Germans had been able to put a couple of armored corps ashore in England, exactly what did the Brits have to defend with if it was done very quickly after Dunkirk? Was Churchill correct that they "would never surrender"?... or would they have agreed to work out some kind of deal?

Again... this is a fantasy thread so I'm just throwing out some speculation here.

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

I've always felt taking out Britian with a fleet of transport submarines (moving the main force into the northern territory while feinting in the south was the way to victory for the Germans along with taking N. Africa and the Mediteranian as well. They wasted too many needed planes in the BFB. I would have done nothing but nighttime strategic bombings of radar installations myself as I do in most of my games I play. I also would hold off on any war with Russia until necessary and would have had diplomatic negotiations to "share the wealth" if Russia would throw in with me. I don't need to control the whole world, just half of it.

Aw, it would probably be more practical to have doen what an interviewed Galland said to Hitler. That was to drop in troops in heavy fog such as what they did at Oslo. From what Galland said though, Hitler didn't really want to beat England because they were racially very much like the germans and turned Galland down on that basis. That might be the real reason why the evacuation at Dunkirk ever came off and that the panzers had the halt order.

I recall in another documentary, or perhaps it was the same one (something about how Hitler could have won the war) where one British fellow said he thought an invasion, even a puny one which is what they were liable to face, would have worked, because they had nothing to fight with, and then he mentioned that he had a friend who defended an entire 2 miles of beach with one WWI artillery piece.

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

ORIGINAL: Zap

What about the possibility of having waited another two years before Germany rattled its sword. This would have given them valuble time to build up their army and weapons.

Personally, I think the key is keeping the US out of the war at all costs. That means immediately assaulting England after Dunkirk and refraining from the alliance with Japan.

Fantasy thought... could a deal have been struck with Stalin to allow him hegemony in Asia in exchange for a partition of eastern Europe and peace with Germany?

Picture the Russians going after China, Mongolia, Manchuria, Korea, and Japan. Japan wouldn't attack the US and if England falls... where does that leave the US? A new tri-partite pact that guarantees the US total hegemony in North and South America, Russia hegemony in East Europe, and most of Asia, and the 3rd Reich controls Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. The world is divided three ways.

Just a wild bit of speculation... tear it up guys. [;)]

Just think if England and France had bothered to not ignore the fact that Poland was invaded by more than just Germany! I still to this day don't know of the defense pact they signed with Poland was for them to declare war on any powers invading Poland or just Germany. I bet eng/fra didn't send any dignitaries to the USSR to insist on them pulling out of Poland as they did Germany, because we certainly have never heard of them ever making even a whisper in the USSR's direction concerning that invasion. Imagine that. Suppose Germany does pull out of Poland, so what does eng/fr do when the USSR does not? I guess in German view, once the USSR entered they couldn't pull out, because they knew eng-fr wasn't going to be in any hurry to oust the USSR-held Poland, and probably would have still ignored it because the uSSR was too powerful in their eyes. Germany couldn't pull out, therefore, because that would leave USSR troops on the German border.