I prefer nuts
"Nuts!"
Brig. Gen. Anthony McAuliffe
Brig. Gen. Anthony McAuliffe
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
K.Rokossovski wrote:
so if their generals decided they couldn't break the line then, they probably couldn't have broken it at all. When Germany gobbled up Poland much faster than the French army could mount an offensive, and victorious German troops started to get transferred back from Poland to the French front, the window of opportunity was closed, if it had ever existed in the first place.
K.Rokossovski wrote:
What if:
General McAuliffe had said "Cashew" at Bastogne?
1101Pathfinder wrote:
Would have operation Sealion succeeded if Germany was able to gain air superiority over England ?
1101Pathfinder wrote:
Nice thoughts both of you what is Germany chose not to invade France and focused on the Soviets ?
_Pyth0n_ wrote:
1101Pathfinder wrote:
Would have operation Sealion succeeded if Germany was able to gain air superiority over England ?
Again, this also needs to consider the consequences of victory at Dunkirk for the Germans; damage to the Panzer Corp and a possible stabilisation of the French front, allowing remaining troops to fight on. Chances are there would be no Vichy France, instead with a delayed surrender of Mainland France and a proper government-in-exile set up in Algiers. The African theatre would change significantly; with French support, the Italians could not hope to hold on long enough to await German reinforcements (assuming they were even willing to send troops since they would have fought the French for significantly longer). The French Navy would have sailed to Britain and the various naval battles would have more Allied successes. France would immediately want a reconquest of the mainland at some point, whilst Germany commences Operation Barbarossa. As America gets involved in the war(assuming no TWR stuff happen), D-Day could have occurred even earlier than in OTL.
Carking the 6th wrote:
Yeah… the plan was to use MODIFIED RHINE RIVER BARGES to get past the largest naval fleet on Earth, assuming they defeated one of the strongest air forces as well. Then you’d have to land at best a couple hundred thousand without getting sunk, and hope those under supplied troops will be able to defeat the millions of angry tea drinkers ready to defend their home. The air defeat might extend how long it takes the allies to gain air superiority and then invade Germany, but none of this would stop the Soviets from railing you all the way to Berlin, while those casualties you took make D-day a little more feasible.
K.Rokossovski wrote:
This "what if" is about the British losing the air war. Assuming they did and there was nothing to stop German naval bombers throwing all they had against British battleships, that war fleets couldn't defend close-range combat against air forces. Repulse and Prince of Wales hadn't happened yet (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_Prince_of_Wales_and_Repulse), but the results wouldn't have been much different: be ready to lose five planes and you sink a battleship. The British battle fleet woul;d have been powerless short-range, and there would be no problem sailing Rhine barges along if they got their feet dry on the other end... and if the air war was lost, there would have been nothing to contest them.Carking the 6th wrote:
Yeah… the plan was to use MODIFIED RHINE RIVER BARGES to get past the largest naval fleet on Earth, assuming they defeated one of the strongest air forces as well. Then you’d have to land at best a couple hundred thousand without getting sunk, and hope those under supplied troops will be able to defeat the millions of angry tea drinkers ready to defend their home. The air defeat might extend how long it takes the allies to gain air superiority and then invade Germany, but none of this would stop the Soviets from railing you all the way to Berlin, while those casualties you took make D-day a little more feasible.
The post was edited 2 times, last by Carking the 6th ().
NEPTUNE the great wrote:
What if the Germans stuck to their original plan when invading Stalingrad instead of splitting up? And what if they won Stalingrad?
K.Rokossovski wrote:
That paragraph is frankly ridiculous... France was lost then, no matter if the BEF had made some kind of last stand, it wouldn't significantly have changed politics. Just another 100k of soldiers into the massacre, Wehrmacht land was way too strong to organize anything against them in 1940. Remember how German forces reduced Russian pockets in barbarosa: quietly, just choking them with infantry, no harm done to any strategic force. French surrender and the fleet and all that would not have changed significantly either.... remember Churchill offered them a "joint state" in those harsh hours and everything French thought it ridiculous... French combat the enemy when he comes (no matter if they lose), British have the seas to protect them and can afford to suffer some defeats and out-wait an enemy. They can be allies, but they cannot think allied, no matter how hard they SERIOUSLY tried._Pyth0n_ wrote:
Again, this also needs to consider the consequences of victory at Dunkirk for the Germans; damage to the Panzer Corp and a possible stabilisation of the French front, allowing remaining troops to fight on. Chances are there would be no Vichy France, instead with a delayed surrender of Mainland France and a proper government-in-exile set up in Algiers. The African theatre would change significantly; with French support, the Italians could not hope to hold on long enough to await German reinforcements (assuming they were even willing to send troops since they would have fought the French for significantly longer). The French Navy would have sailed to Britain and the various naval battles would have more Allied successes. France would immediately want a reconquest of the mainland at some point, whilst Germany commences Operation Barbarossa. As America gets involved in the war(assuming no TWR stuff happen), D-Day could have occurred even earlier than in OTL.1101Pathfinder wrote:
Would have operation Sealion succeeded if Germany was able to gain air superiority over England ?
_Pyth0n_ wrote:
No, I'm not stating that France would've not lost; I just think that officially, the chances of the French accepting a truce with the Germans were reduced, which could have led to a quicker African campaign, quicker control of the Mediterranean and the invasion of Sicily and Italy happening sooner, which in of itself could have hastened the planning for Overlord. It's not that politics would have been significantly altered, but the operational strength of the Wehrmacht. But, yes, I do see your pointK.Rokossovski wrote:
That paragraph is frankly ridiculous... France was lost then, no matter if the BEF had made some kind of last stand, it wouldn't significantly have changed politics. Just another 100k of soldiers into the massacre, Wehrmacht land was way too strong to organize anything against them in 1940. Remember how German forces reduced Russian pockets in barbarosa: quietly, just choking them with infantry, no harm done to any strategic force. French surrender and the fleet and all that would not have changed significantly either.... remember Churchill offered them a "joint state" in those harsh hours and everything French thought it ridiculous... French combat the enemy when he comes (no matter if they lose), British have the seas to protect them and can afford to suffer some defeats and out-wait an enemy. They can be allies, but they cannot think allied, no matter how hard they SERIOUSLY tried._Pyth0n_ wrote:
Again, this also needs to consider the consequences of victory at Dunkirk for the Germans; damage to the Panzer Corp and a possible stabilisation of the French front, allowing remaining troops to fight on. Chances are there would be no Vichy France, instead with a delayed surrender of Mainland France and a proper government-in-exile set up in Algiers. The African theatre would change significantly; with French support, the Italians could not hope to hold on long enough to await German reinforcements (assuming they were even willing to send troops since they would have fought the French for significantly longer). The French Navy would have sailed to Britain and the various naval battles would have more Allied successes. France would immediately want a reconquest of the mainland at some point, whilst Germany commences Operation Barbarossa. As America gets involved in the war(assuming no TWR stuff happen), D-Day could have occurred even earlier than in OTL.1101Pathfinder wrote:
Would have operation Sealion succeeded if Germany was able to gain air superiority over England ?
Carking the 6th wrote:
Another thing is that Germany would have horrifically punished France as well… Warsaw had 90% destroyed by the Nazis in the war. Surrender prevented this. The existence of Vichy France could also be argued to have weakened German influence over France, and made it so the Allied and Free France could liberate Africa more easily._Pyth0n_ wrote:
No, I'm not stating that France would've not lost; I just think that officially, the chances of the French accepting a truce with the Germans were reduced, which could have led to a quicker African campaign, quicker control of the Mediterranean and the invasion of Sicily and Italy happening sooner, which in of itself could have hastened the planning for Overlord. It's not that politics would have been significantly altered, but the operational strength of the Wehrmacht. But, yes, I do see your pointK.Rokossovski wrote:
That paragraph is frankly ridiculous... France was lost then, no matter if the BEF had made some kind of last stand, it wouldn't significantly have changed politics. Just another 100k of soldiers into the massacre, Wehrmacht land was way too strong to organize anything against them in 1940. Remember how German forces reduced Russian pockets in barbarosa: quietly, just choking them with infantry, no harm done to any strategic force. French surrender and the fleet and all that would not have changed significantly either.... remember Churchill offered them a "joint state" in those harsh hours and everything French thought it ridiculous... French combat the enemy when he comes (no matter if they lose), British have the seas to protect them and can afford to suffer some defeats and out-wait an enemy. They can be allies, but they cannot think allied, no matter how hard they SERIOUSLY tried._Pyth0n_ wrote:
Again, this also needs to consider the consequences of victory at Dunkirk for the Germans; damage to the Panzer Corp and a possible stabilisation of the French front, allowing remaining troops to fight on. Chances are there would be no Vichy France, instead with a delayed surrender of Mainland France and a proper government-in-exile set up in Algiers. The African theatre would change significantly; with French support, the Italians could not hope to hold on long enough to await German reinforcements (assuming they were even willing to send troops since they would have fought the French for significantly longer). The French Navy would have sailed to Britain and the various naval battles would have more Allied successes. France would immediately want a reconquest of the mainland at some point, whilst Germany commences Operation Barbarossa. As America gets involved in the war(assuming no TWR stuff happen), D-Day could have occurred even earlier than in OTL.1101Pathfinder wrote:
Would have operation Sealion succeeded if Germany was able to gain air superiority over England ?
Carking the 6th wrote:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_aircraft_production
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milita…_World_War_II#Land_forces
Look at these figures whenever you want to say if the Axis could have won… after the Soviets and Americans join, their days are numbered.
_Pyth0n_ wrote:
The attitude of the Germans towards Western Europeans was different to that of Eastern Europeans, but you make a good point. However, the situation in Africa would have been more advantageous for the Allies if the Vichy regime was not set up, mainly since French Algeria (considered a core French territory, not a colony) would have remained Free French (or in this timeline, the recognised French government), allowing control of the Algerian and Tunisian coastlines to the French Navy (with support of the Royal Navy). The British would have not needed to occupy the Syrian colony as well, and might have prevented the Iraqi coup (altho it certainly was still possible with the vast number of pro-German army officers and the revolt in Mandatory Palestine). I do still think if the Allies were smart enough, they would have won North Africa sooner, especially if in this timeline Dunkirk were a German victory, more tanks would be destroyed and German High Command would be less willing to fight a war in North Africa with their limited resources and their upcoming invasion of the USSR.Carking the 6th wrote:
Another thing is that Germany would have horrifically punished France as well… Warsaw had 90% destroyed by the Nazis in the war. Surrender prevented this. The existence of Vichy France could also be argued to have weakened German influence over France, and made it so the Allied and Free France could liberate Africa more easily._Pyth0n_ wrote:
No, I'm not stating that France would've not lost; I just think that officially, the chances of the French accepting a truce with the Germans were reduced, which could have led to a quicker African campaign, quicker control of the Mediterranean and the invasion of Sicily and Italy happening sooner, which in of itself could have hastened the planning for Overlord. It's not that politics would have been significantly altered, but the operational strength of the Wehrmacht. But, yes, I do see your pointK.Rokossovski wrote:
That paragraph is frankly ridiculous... France was lost then, no matter if the BEF had made some kind of last stand, it wouldn't significantly have changed politics. Just another 100k of soldiers into the massacre, Wehrmacht land was way too strong to organize anything against them in 1940. Remember how German forces reduced Russian pockets in barbarosa: quietly, just choking them with infantry, no harm done to any strategic force. French surrender and the fleet and all that would not have changed significantly either.... remember Churchill offered them a "joint state" in those harsh hours and everything French thought it ridiculous... French combat the enemy when he comes (no matter if they lose), British have the seas to protect them and can afford to suffer some defeats and out-wait an enemy. They can be allies, but they cannot think allied, no matter how hard they SERIOUSLY tried._Pyth0n_ wrote:
Again, this also needs to consider the consequences of victory at Dunkirk for the Germans; damage to the Panzer Corp and a possible stabilisation of the French front, allowing remaining troops to fight on. Chances are there would be no Vichy France, instead with a delayed surrender of Mainland France and a proper government-in-exile set up in Algiers. The African theatre would change significantly; with French support, the Italians could not hope to hold on long enough to await German reinforcements (assuming they were even willing to send troops since they would have fought the French for significantly longer). The French Navy would have sailed to Britain and the various naval battles would have more Allied successes. France would immediately want a reconquest of the mainland at some point, whilst Germany commences Operation Barbarossa. As America gets involved in the war(assuming no TWR stuff happen), D-Day could have occurred even earlier than in OTL.1101Pathfinder wrote:
Would have operation Sealion succeeded if Germany was able to gain air superiority over England ?
1 Member (1 invisible)