What would happen if Germany have focus all his forces in British Empire(Britain, North Africa...

It was completely feasible.

A direct ampibious assault on the mainland would have been very difficult, however if the Luftwaffe focused exclusively on suppressing the RAF then an island like the Isle of Wright could be cut off from resupply and would be very vulnerable.

Once captured it would act supply hub and provide forward air bases furthering air superiority and close air support. Armored divisions, fuel and other supplies brought to the Isle of Wright could then be rapidly transported to the bridgehead on the mainland allowing blitz style tactics as were used in the battle of France.

The Middle East wasn't producing much oil in the war. And even if it was, German would be running into constant problems with the RN, and even if they got past that, how do you propose refining it?

There's no evidence to support this theory

This kind of proposition I was looking for, thank you.

They can plan whatever they want, but they won't be able to actually carry something like that out, no.

> direct ampibious assault on the mainland would have been very difficult, however if the Luftwaffe focused exclusively on suppressing the RAF

Then

A) they'd ultimately fail, what with Britain outproducing Germany on single-engined fighters, as well as having the home field advantage for pilot recovery.

B) What exactly do you think they tried to do historically? At BEST, you'll force the RAF to rebase to places in the Midlands, outside of Me-109 range to strike and return, but that still leaves them capable of projecting force into the Channel, just less easily than before.

> then an island like the Isle of Wright could be cut off from resupply and would be very vulnerable. Once captured it would act supply hub and provide forward air bases furthering air superiority and close air support. Armored divisions, fuel and other supplies brought to the Isle of Wright could then be rapidly transported to the bridgehead on the mainland allowing blitz style tactics as were used in the battle of France.

It is also completely useless as a staging point, given that it's within even low caliber artillery range from the "mainland" of Britain, and thus any occupation force would be constantly shelled. The island is also very small, less than 20km by 20 km. Anything you place there is going to be bunched up like nobody's business, and promptly shredded. Also, I don't know if there's any port facilities worth mentioning, which makes resupply difficult. This is about as retarded as invading Germany through the Frisian islands.

You were looking for completely unfeasible idiocy?

If the Germans had waited a little bit until they had proper air launched torpedos they could have turned the Royal Navy into scrap metal without having to build their own huge surface battle fleet

"You were looking for completely unfeasible idiocy?"
No, for diferent opinions of these retarded of Veeky Forums that cant see a diferent way of happenings.

Same thing that happened in real life, Germany gets stuck at the Channel and nothing good happens.

I think that a war of attrition between Germany and Britain would be of no good for Britain.

Not at all. German misstrust and no oppurtunities for germany to deploy large troops contingents elswhere would have lead to heavily fortified german positions and large mobile reserves enabling a large scale elastic defense with no logistical problems. Given the soviet Performance early on we probably would have gotten a large scale backhand blow/second battle of Charkov situation. Combined with possible civil unrest/guerilla in the Ukraine and the baltic states. Also no great patriotic war morale boost because the soviet leadership initiated the war.

An increase of German deep-sea diving.

by naval superiority and embargo, or by control of all strategic mainlands ports and embargo. the british didnt have that much oil and blocking their oil supply would pretty much lead to insufficient farming, because britain was heavily industrialized. with insufficient farming starvation comes and generally people dont want to wage a war while they are in famine.

>by naval superiority
so a thing that can't happen
>embargo
and another thing that can't happen

the battle of britain was a conflict of attrition, one the british were winning and won
the battle of atlantic was lost by germany - and set towards this conclusion well before the american entry into the war
the naval supremacy of the british empire could not be by any stretch of the imagination be threatened by germany
how exactly would a prolonged conflict favor germany?

>I think that a war of attrition between two countries with similar production capabilities would be of no good for the country with access to raw materials and American support.

This. But Germany didn't start the war prepared to go to warfare against a navy and an island. Everything they had was meant for continental warfare and they had had very little force projection capabilities. But once France was knocked out and they had pretty much all the industrial power of Europe in their hands, they could have focused on delivering the luftwaffe longer range fighters, heavier bombers and all the equipment needed for the particular needs of warfare against an Britain. They could have also deployed more units to take Egypt and the M.East (the Afrika Korps was a ridicolous 3-4 divisions Corps) and better air and naval strategic cooperation with Italy. Instead they went for more continental warfare in Yugo and Greece and preparations for an invasion of the SU.

Even so, they nearly k.o Britain with Rommel and a few tanks, and with the unprepared and ill-equipped Luftwaffe over Britain until Goering was baited into bomb London mode.

Also, in the event of a Soviet attack, which wouldn't even be feasible until 1943 at the earliest, why does some people think it would have been a steamrolling invasion?

The Red Army didn't know how to fight, their logistics pretty poor and the motivation and morale for the average soldier very poor. They were even btfo by Poland alonr in the 1920 when they tried to invade. Or Finland in the winter war.

It literally was the German invasion and defeat after defeat what taught the Soviets into tactics and how to fight a modern war, and it provided the populace and the armed forces of the USSR with a resilient spirit of determination to fight. There's a reason why it's called the Great Patriotic War in Russia.

A soviet attack, rather than stemrolling the Reich, would have likely ended with military defeat after over9000 tactical fuck ups, the average ruskie soldier not caring and half of the ukrainians, caucasians, baltics and etc conscripts passing to the German lines. Then shitshow in Moscow and either peace or civil war again.

Yes. Also most factors that enabled successfull soviet offensives wouldn't be present. No logistical problems for the germans, no german overextension so that their lines were over stretched. No anti-german partisans/probably ani-soviet ones. No transfer of industry behind the Ural, so an even bigger Possibility of massive devastiation by the german airforce/ a german counteroffensiv.

All in all i see nearly no factors that are beneficial for a soviet offensive. The germans were pretty adapt at the employing of elastic defenses while the soviets needed a while till they were able to amount successfull large scale operations. These offensives were successfull against an overstretched enemy, with logistical/partisan problems deep in their territory. I am not saying that germany would have won the eastern front necessarily but the soviets would have needed even more allied Support/additional fronts.

>Either way, the Soviets are almost definitely going to attack sooner or later.

Why? This is Stalin we are talking about not Lenin or Trotsky.

Stalin in my mind only would have attacked if all possible oponents would have been gravely weakened.

>The liberal democracy can wage unrestrained war, threatening their homeland with air and terrorattacks, against a totalitarian fascist and militarist dictatorship. The liberal democracy recently had a crushing defeat on the battlefield, lost a big traditional ally, narrowly avoided even bigger desaster in dunkirk and is threatened in the pacific.
>WEW LAD

They get skullfucked when the US military enters the war. I mean, Hitler's Germany is still going to wind up at war with the US regardless.

No. Overlord wouldn't have happened and the Western allies had no way to break german superiority on the continent. Atomic bombs wouldn't have happened because the germans held europe hostage and would have done terrible things. Without soviet landpower overlord is as probable as Sealion.

lol bullshit, the US alone had more then enough military superiority to skullfuck germany into the dirt. Overlord was more then possible and they had more then enough military capability to shatter the german military on their own.

Just like you shattered Vietnam right? lol

>>comparing a conventional war against a nation occupying other nations to a popular resistance movement.
lol

That aside, I should mention that we did shatter the vietcong and did terrible damage to the NVA regulars too. The NVA only made effective progress against the south when we left and stopped providing them with air support.

A lot of unsubstiated claims. Ignoring the fact that the germans were more skilled and experienced on a strategic level we saw what happened historically. In the ardennes offensive the allies nearly got btfo against a fraction of the german power on the eastern front. Apart from the fact of the course that without the eastern front the germans had more than enough troops to crush every beach head before the USA could even bring its full power into play. Also shit like market garden, not beeing able to conquer the netherlands etc.

>No, for diferent opinions of these retarded of Veeky Forums that cant see a diferent way of happenings.
I know fetuses that can structure sentences better than this.

>>In the ardennes offensive the allies nearly got btfo
Nope, the germans were nowhere near achieving their objectives, and faced far more stubborn resistance then they expected.
>>blah blah germany is teh uberz and will crush teh beachheadz

lol they had more then enough men and machines to theoretically do this in france in 1944 but they couldn't because guess what? We had overwhelming air superiority.

I'm not from a country that speak english. ^^

Nice revisionist american wankfest. Will answer you in detail in about half an hour when i am @home but nice to see Le americans won the war meme is alive and kicking.

I didn't say americans won the war on their own as it stands. I'm saying we had the capability to do so, there is nothing germany could have done against the overwhelming material superiority we had, the most you can say is that the war would have lasted a few years longer.

Remember that germany had over a million men defending france and italy and those million+ soldiers failed miserably.

Britain probably would have surrendered at some point, assuming the US never entered the war.

Agreed

You underestimate the British spirit - especially with Churchill at the head.

Captcha: select all images of tea.

We shall fight on the beaches.

Spirit, alone, dont win a war, Hitler learned that.

True, but then again the combined American and British forces had numbers, guts and vast quantities of weapons and supplies.

But why? Their ships were running back and forth from the US (with bought supplies, as in not allied Lend & Lease), their ships dwarfed the Germany navy, their airpower had beaten their German counterpart... Those aren't exactly surrender terms.

>Nope, the germans were nowhere near achieving their objectives, and faced far more stubborn resistance then they expected.

True but it was a small offensive compared to the ones on the eastern front. Also with soviet trade there wouldn´t be as much ressource scarcity. Also without the losses on the eastern front there would be no manpower shortage. This were the 3 major factors that doomed the battle of the bulge for the germans. With more pressure it most probably would have been more successfull.

>lol they had more then enough men and machines to theoretically do this in france in 1944 but they couldn't because guess what? We had overwhelming air superiority.

Air superiority at the time wasn´t as deciding as nowadays. Sure the germans had a lot of trouble but against better equipped germans that actually outnumber them it would still be a big factor but not as decisive. Also the germans had about 350.000 troops in the immediate area of the invasion. The 1 million figure is actually ALL troops in france including security troops etc.

>Remember that germany had over a million men defending france and italy and those million+ soldiers failed miserably.

Actually the allies weren´t able to achieve a decicive victory in italy. If more axis troops would have been available for the italian theater it would have been even more costlier and slower for the allies, given they would have been able to advance there (i am not sure). Also the germans would have been able to equip more italian divisions which under german leadership with german armament were surprisingly good.

They couldn't have gotten across the channel. Stalin would have invaded sooner or later

>Stalin would have invaded sooner or later
Yeah and nobody delievered a good argument for why that wouldn´t have ended in a big soviet fuckup.

>>True but it was a small offensive compared to the ones on the eastern front. Also with soviet trade there wouldn´t be as much ressource scarcity. Also without the losses on the eastern front there would be no manpower shortage. This were the 3 major factors that doomed the battle of the bulge for the germans. With more pressure it most probably would have been more successfull.
>>Doesn't even mention the lack of air support or the fact that the US would have inevitably brought more divisions into france and the low countries absent the eastern front.

>>Air superiority at the time wasn´t as deciding as nowadays.
Bullshit. All of germany's mobile forces were crippled by allied air strikes and naval gunfire on their support units. Which in turn meant that their vehicles were low on fuel and ammunition. That makes a successful counter attack difficult if not impossible to pull off.

>>The 1 million figure is actually ALL troops in france including security troops etc.
This is misleading, as the majority of german troops in france were not internal security forces.

>> better equipped germans
This could have happened.

>>that actually outnumber them it
This could not have. Again, the US was going to bring more, far more forces into europe if the soviets were somehow knocked out of the war or not participating.

>>Actually the allies weren´t able to achieve a decicive victory in italy.
Yeah, because of mountains and hills, and even with such favorable terrain the germans were still getting pushed back.

>>If more axis troops would have been available for the italian theater it would have been even more costlier and slower for the allies
Perhaps, but again, this has more to do with the fact that italy has lots of mountains and hills.

>spelling USSR as URSS

How to spot a 3rd worlder

troubled?

Surely not Frenchie, enjoy your poverty.

Britain literally wins all of its wars by attrition (and its navy)

I don't know where you're getting that from. Britain's never been fantastic as wars of attrition.

>Doesn't even mention the lack of air support or the fact that the US would have inevitably brought more divisions into france and the low countries absent the eastern front.

Where would this new divisions come from ? Just pulling them from their ass? Japan is just vapenation now so the US don´t have to commit troops there? Also i adressed the lack of air support in my next sentence you american scoundrel.

>Bullshit. All of germany's mobile forces were crippled by allied air strikes and naval gunfire on their support units. Which in turn meant that their vehicles were low on fuel and ammunition. That makes a successful counter attack difficult if not impossible to pull off.
>Naval strikes
>allied air strikes
Ofc they just would have positioned their mobile reserves so near on the coast and we are in the first gulf war so that they are able to destroy all the mobile reserves with tomahawk missiles. The germans made some bad divisions and had a lack of mobile reserves. With no pressure in the east there would have been more than enough reserves to counter the invasion in the early stages.

>This could not have. Again, the US was going to bring more, far more forces into europe if the soviets were somehow knocked out of the war or not participating.
Again pulling them out of their ass, against public resistance.

>Yeah, because of mountains and hills, and even with such favorable terrain the germans were still getting pushed back.

>Perhaps, but again, this has more to do with the fact that italy has lots of mountains and hills.

You just tend to say the allies would have performed the same with slightly more losses against way more massive german troops with better equipment, probably better air support and better fortified position. You vastly overstimate the air superiority at the time. Ofc it was an important factor but we are not in the first gulf war here. The german troops would have suffered badly ofc but not in the extent you assume.

Nothing.

The Middle East oil craze was just beginning, majority of world's oil surprise came from Caucasus, modern day Indonesia and Texas. It took almost 2 years to Japanese to actually start moving the oil from Dutch Eastern Indias and they've had to use existing infrastructure to transport it to harbour and load it onto a tanker, while Germany/Italy in Mosul would have to build "alternative" pipeline going to Benghazi(and then get to italy) or through Turkey, assuming they'd be able to convince Turks to agree on it.

The only other prize in Mediterranean theatre outside of said oil fields is Suez canal which could've been blown up by British and made useless for months if not for years and it's not like the British were sending some unusual amount of stuff through it since Italy has joined the war.

That's assuming they could get more troops here.

Germany had NO chance of launching an invasion in British isles. Even the "if they'd focus on RAF instead of bombing cities they'd break the RAF" doesn't really work since if they really did because at some point they'd have to divert the bombers and fighters to deal with RN which in turn would give the needed breaker for RAF.
As for naval matters - Britain totally outnumbered Germany in every class but submarines, which were never really successful used in battle(which would have to happen to assume naval dominance of Germany that would open a window for amphibious assault) anyway.
They've had over three times the number of Battleships and Battlecruisers, 30% more heavy cruisers and in lighter classes it wasn't even funny with British having around 100 destroyers by 1939 and Germany having about 30.

I think its hillarious how you all just ignore the fact that germany was a totalitarian dictatorship. Neither GB nor the US could have sustained the enormous losses the UDSSR and Germany did. They would have left the war at some point.

The Hell kind of losses would GB possibly be taking? Losses of pilots? Losses of ships? The British spirit thrives in war - it's the only time we stop complaining about things.

>le ebin pathetic national pride meme
So GB justs sits on their island and watches is debt rising ?

>>Where would this new divisions come from ? Just pulling them from their ass?
The US could have deployed 300 divisions if necessary, because of the fighting in eastern europe, the number never went above 90.

Ofc they just would have positioned their mobile reserves so near on the coast and we are in the first gulf war so that they are able to destroy all the mobile reserves with tomahawk missiles. The germans made some bad divisions and had a lack of mobile reserves. With no pressure in the east there would have been more than enough reserves to counter the invasion in the early stages.
Nah, this wasn't happening, because it doesn't matter how many tanks and men you're trying to rush along a given number of roadways that are being bombed and shelled, those men are going to be incapable of launching an effective attack due to low amounts of ammunition, fuel and food. This isn't even mentioning the morale effects that would result from said bombardment and shelling.

>>against public resistance.
lol no. WW2 USA is not Vietnam era USA.

>>You just tend to say the allies would have performed the same with slightly more losses against way more massive german troops with better equipment, probably better air support and better fortified position. You vastly overstimate the air superiority at the time. Ofc it was an important factor but we are not in the first gulf war here. The german troops would have suffered badly ofc but not in the extent you assume.
The American and Commonwealth forces in Italy would have suffered more losses, sure. But they still would have gradually pushed the germans north. And frankly you're dead wrong about the effects of air superiority, and I already explained the reasons why.

I forgot to mention that without the eastern front and thus the 1944 assasination the german generals wouldn´t have been hampered by hitlers micromanaging.

>Nah, this wasn't happening, because it doesn't matter how many tanks and men you're trying to rush along a given number of roadways that are being bombed and shelled, those men are going to be incapable of launching an effective attack due to low amounts of ammunition, fuel and food. This isn't even mentioning the morale effects that would result from said bombardment and shelling.

Dude, the airforce and navy wouldn´t have been able to just shell all the infrastructure (which btw was easy to replace just look at the overhyped effects of massive strategic bombing) and thus stopping all offensives. Again air support often was crucial but wasn´t able to be in all places in the same time. Also you can´t always use your airforce due to weather reasons. Its not a magic meme weapon, against large troop bodies you generally need large troop bodies. Also: Would the air situation be equally bad to OTL ? I am not so sure.

>lol no. WW2 USA is not Vietnam era USA.
Lol ok so the US population wasn´t mostly reluctant to join the war and surely would have stomached losses in the millions easily ok..

>The American and Commonwealth forces in Italy would have suffered more losses, sure. But they still would have gradually pushed the germans north. And frankly you're dead wrong about the effects of air superiority, and I already explained the reasons why.

No not only more losses. The whole goddamn situation is different. Germany was beaten when overlord went off in OTL. In this TTL germany had nearly no major losses of manpower, enough breathing space to modernize and enlargen their airforce AND due to trade with the soviets no ressource shortages. Several decisive factors are very different and you just say lel air superiority, again it isn´t THAT decisive.

>Dude, the airforce and navy wouldn´t have been able to just shell all the infrastructure (which btw was easy to replace just look at the overhyped effects of massive strategic bombing) and thus stopping all offensives. Again air support often was crucial but wasn´t able to be in all places in the same time. Also you can´t always use your airforce due to weather reasons. Its not a magic meme weapon, against large troop bodies you generally need large troop bodies. Also: Would the air situation be equally bad to OTL ? I am not so sure.

We would have had those large troop bodies and it was originally planned to field larger forces in europe then what we originally planned. And I'm not talking about strategic air campaigns here, nor am I talking about bombing every road in northern france, I am talking about deliberate air and naval strikes against the support forces that make mobile forces like armored divisions work. This problem is still there even if germany has more forces to work with and frankly having more soldiers and vehicles low on supplies doesn't an effective counter attack make.

>>Lol ok so the US population wasn´t mostly reluctant to join the war and surely would have stomached losses in the millions easily ok..
Once Germany declared war on us there was no real dissent.

>>No not only more losses. The whole goddamn situation is different. Germany was beaten when overlord went off in OTL. In this TTL germany had nearly no major losses of manpower, enough breathing space to modernize and enlargen their airforce AND due to trade with the soviets no ressource shortages. Several decisive factors are very different and you just say lel air superiority, again it isn´t THAT decisive.
Not just air power, air power plus larger armies, which the US was more then capable of fielding, especially with less need to supply another combatant.

>>then what we originally planned.
Should read, then what we actually fielded.

>Not just air power, air power plus larger armies, which the US was more then capable of fielding, especially with less need to supply another combatant.

America actually had manpower shortages because initially they demanded way to much qualifications for certain positions. Also american logistic capabilties aren´t endless. How the fuck are you going to supply so many troops in europe. You will of course answer now US meme magic.

>Once Germany declared war on us there was no real dissent.
And it wouldn´t have occured when high losses set in ? Historically democracies aren´t so keen on wars especially if they are costyl and far from home.

>Not just air power, air power plus larger armies, which the US was more then capable of fielding, especially with less need to supply another combatant.

Instead they have to supply the newly fielded divisions completly alone without another gigantic industry on their side, not ripping their transport capabilties apart like a virgin asshole. Oh and at some point you start drafting people that work in your industry. The germans compensated that with slave labor to a certain degree. I would be delighted to hear how the US would have managed that.

>America actually had manpower shortages because initially they demanded way to much qualifications for certain positions.
This really isn't relevant to much of anything.

>>Also american logistic capabilties aren´t endless. How the fuck are you going to supply so many troops in europe. You will of course answer now US meme magic.
We had more then enough industrial and logistical capability to do this, If you want to use edgy buzzwords to deny these simple facts that is your problem, not mine.

>>And it wouldn´t have occured when high losses set in ? Historically democracies aren´t so keen on wars especially if they are costyl and far from home.
Which wars? Which democracies? WW2 was a very unique set of circumstances. In any case, the US during this era was not the same as the US during the vietnam conflict.

>>Instead they have to supply the newly fielded divisions completly alone without another gigantic industry on their side, not ripping their transport capabilties apart like a virgin asshole.
Again, US industry was more then capable of doing this at that time.

>>Oh and at some point you start drafting people that work in your industry. The germans compensated that with slave labor to a certain degree. I would be delighted to hear how the US would have managed that.
We had more then enough people to supply both a large and powerful military and a large labor force, especially because we let women take up large numbers of industrial positions.

Germany used slave labor so much because they had less people to begin with and were for whatever reason opposed to women entering the industrial workforce.

We had more then enough industrial and logistical capability to do this, If you want to use edgy buzzwords to deny these simple facts that is your problem, not mine.

Show prove. At some point you have to back your argument up with numbers if you endlessly claim the US would have just been able to do it. Show that there is enough manpower in the US to field a 300 division army, keep the industry running and merchant and military navy active.

Prove that the logistical capabilities where enough AND that you had sufficient escorts to protect the huge ammounts of supply convois needed.

Your argument against the numerous factors i brought up is airpower and us strength. So back these up if you have no new arguments.

For military stuff? ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-Victory/

For military production and GDP? >>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II

America had more then enough manpower and material to do what was required, but the realities of the conflict in eastern europe meant that war material and other supplies that could have gone to more american divisions instead were given to the soviet armies.

On the specific issue of manpower:
>>"I stuck my neck out," Wedemeyer admitted, "and said the armed forces could use approximately ten percent of the population."48 He believed that it was better to overestimate the needs of the military, rather than underestimate them, and noted that no one seriously questioned his figures. Working with that ratio, he calculated that the United States, with its population of around 140 million, could field a maximum military force of 14 million men.

Even if the US could only field 10 or 12 million at max, that is more then enough for the conflict in question.

The industrial question is easily answered by just reading the wiki link and paying careful attention to the production and GDP figures for the US.

One other thing: I fully recognize that the victory plan wasn't flawless for all sorts of reasons, but the US had plenty of people, more then enough of which were capable of being put into military service. Simply due to the US having a population of 140 million in the 1940s.

Lets focus on Germany vs Britain, guys? ^^'

Okay, fine. How the fuck does Germany get around the Royal Airforce and the Royal Navy before Britain is more then adequately reinforced by the US?

Fuck man even if the US doesn't enter the war does Germany just magic a massive navy out of thin air or some shit?

Problem was not manpower but supplies. US army's own studies put the maximum force that could be supplied overseas at ~100 divisions.
However ~100 divisions would have sufficed against a German army that did not benefit from years of fighting the Soviets in terms of development and experience, but instead sat doing nothing.