WWII what-ifs

[Officer of Engineers]

I was going back a bit farther than that.

The war you fought 200 years ago would have little bearing on an enemy who overcame your strategy.

I understand that. My point is that you cut your coat according to your cloth. Had those resources not been available or had it been a different enemy they would have adopted a different strategy. They lost some big battles, but stayed in the fight long enough to claim the win.

They've lost the war - twice. They've won their 3rd war.

Oh, I agree entirely. Tet was a massive miscalculation and it wasn't Vo's first. He tried the same thing in 1951 & butchered the cream of his army. I don't see him as the military genius some do. However, Tet worked on several levels. While there was a major and expensive miscalculation about the state of the RVN & the ARVN, there was also an understanding that the US could be pressured into withdrawal as the French were. That wasn't the immediate aim of Tet and could probably have been achieved at lower cost, but it was part of the broader strategy.

It could have easily gone the other way. Pissed off the Americans so much that they decide to invade and indeed this strategy backfired against the Chinese. They invaded -twice.

LBJ offered the North a way out of the war more or less immediately & it didn't take it. Clearly the belief was that even in a badly weakened state the North could just wait the US out and rebuild. Also keep in mind that but for a few votes in a few states Nixon would have lost to Hubert Humphrey, who was committed to ending the war quite quickly. Had that happened Tet would seem like a master stroke. It should tell us something about the strength of the North's strategic position that it could find itself in an improved position after Tet despite the damage done.

What improved strategic situation? Hanoi was left wide. The Chinese were leaving to face their own upcoming war with the USSR? Zero defences against the upcoming LB I and II? Let's be clear about this, right after Tet, Hanoi was shitting in their pants with fear.

Think of it a bit like Zhukov's failed offensives in 1942. He butchered his armies, but he still left his enemy in a relatively worse position than it was before. Sure, he could have used those forces more judiciously and achieved more, but Germany was further from winning after than it was before. Likewise the US & by extension RVN after Tet.

Zhukov did not leave Moscow wide open for the taking.

[Officer of Engineers]

In the short term yes, he ended up fighting a 3 front war. He was pennywise but pound foolish.

Ok, let's work this through. The odds were the British could re-enforce North Africa faster than the Germans can build a rail into Syria. British Generals had learned how to deal with Blitzkreig by this time. So, again absent Franco taking Gibraltar (and even that was not a given since the Brits could easily restart the Spanish Civil War), odds were the Brits were going to win.

So, therefore, you're going to repeat WWII Russian Front with a weakened German force?

[Mihais]

Sir,''this time'' being when? The British learned at El Alamein,but that was against a few German infantry btn's and a couple of tank companies.Yes,in theory there were armored divisions,but in practice...
There is roughly 1000 miles of rail from Marmara Sea to Syria.Rail capacity to supply ~40 divisions is needed,because the British don't have more than 30.
6 months buildup,3 months of campaigning.It's doable in 1941.Even if the Brits keep Sinai,German airpower in the Arabian Peninsula pretty much interdicts any traffic in the Red Sea.

The Germans will break somewhere and after that it's Gazala and Tobruk on a bigger scale.
And there is a problem.What the Empire will do without BIA?Because the BIA is critical in this scenario,but given the track rcord of the period,it's very likely it gets smashed.

[Officer of Engineers]

That really wasn't the thrust of my argument. My argument is what does Hitler gain from taking out the Brits vis-a-vi the Soviets and I mean from Hitler's perspectives at the time without the usage of the crystal ball. Taking out North Africa does zero to the Battle of the Atlantic and LL would still be going full force. And now, he's short an army group to do or to support BARBAROSSA.

[Mihais]

In that regard I concur.Still,taking Malta in 1940 would have been a good thing to do for them.

[zraver]

Ok, let's work this through. The odds were the British could re-enforce North Africa faster than the Germans can build a rail into Syria.

Not really, not until late 1942 anyway. They were still rebuilding from the loss of the BEF's equipment and having toshift at least some forces east as Japan first made noises then war.

British Generals had learned how to deal with Blitzkreig by this time. So, again absent Franco taking Gibraltar (and even that was not a given since the Brits could easily restart the Spanish Civil War), odds were the Brits were going to win.

Disagree, in 1941 the Desert Fox was the bane of British generals, they only halted him when his supplies ran out. Had the Germans taken Malta, the bonus fuel material and men he lost in real history from forces based in Malta would have tipped the scales in Egypt.

So, therefore, you're going to repeat WWII Russian Front with a weakened German force?

Not really, just taking Malta gives Rommel a big boost in men, material and fuel without impacting Barbarossa more than it did historically.

[Parihaka]

I know this has been discussed before but damned if I can find it, what happens if Britain reinforces the BEF with the two? Canadian divisions and goes all out with the RAF, say 12 group, rather than withdrawing through Dunkirk?

[zraver]

I know this has been discussed before but damned if I can find it, what happens if Britain reinforces the BEF with the two? Canadian divisions and goes all out with the RAF, say 12 group, rather than withdrawing through Dunkirk?

They die... 2 divisions wasn't enough to turn the tide, not by the time they could be committed. The addition of the Canadians would only add 20% to the combat power of the English speakers and only about 5% overall. Plus command was disjointed with the UK, Fr and Bl all having their own objectives and goals. Adding 40,000 troops won't really change any of this, they will still be outnumbered about 2-1. Not to mention they will be out fought at the tactical and strategic level. They were facing 4 panzer, 2 motorized 1 SS division, 3 infantry divisions plus 2 heavy infantry regiments (Grossduetchsland and SSLAH). The Canadians might have forced the Germans to pause as OKW wanted to do but... That just means when Panzergroup Kleist (XIV and XVI armies) does attack its rested.

The RAF would have fared even worse. In the BoB fighter command just about held its own thanks to the advantage of more fuel, radar and the fat that the Germans had to fight to defend the bombers. In 1941/42 when it was the RAF flying over the channel they got routinely trounced because the defenders advantages shifted to the Germans. The lack of plane production would still have hurt Germany long term (see the drop in Luftwaffe strength by June 1941), but the losses in pilots would not have been anywhere close to what it was fighting over Britain. Hell the pilot losses might just force the RAF into the same ruinous situation the Germans faced.

What the reinforced BEF's and RAF's sacrifice might have done is buy the rest of the French army some time. So the real question is could France have built a counter to Blitzkrieg with her remnant army given an extra 2 weeks?

[Parihaka]

What the reinforced BEF's and RAF's sacrifice might have done is buy the rest of the French army some time. So the real question is could France have built a counter to Blitzkrieg with her remnant army given an extra 2 weeks?

That's what I'm wondering. Ignoring the RAF except 12 group giving cover over British held territory (they played little role in the BoB) could the British with the Canadians held some sort of defensive posture in the lowlands long enough to give the French a chance to rally? And would they have?

[Bigfella]

They've lost the war - twice. They've won their 3rd war.

They lost campaigns & won the war. The families may grieve for the losses, but the nation gets the win. Same wiht Hitler, he won a lot of campaigns, but lost the war.

It could have easily gone the other way. Pissed off the Americans so much that they decide to invade and indeed this strategy backfired against the Chinese. They invaded -twice.

America isn't China. It is half a world away and people get to vote Presidents out of power. The chances of America getting pissed off and sending more troops to the Sth & expanding the war were very small, and Hanoi was prepared for that possibility. That 'very small' chance was that the US might occupy parts of the DRV, not send the First Armoured toward Hanoi. Sending more than another 20,000 troops after Tet would have forced LBJ to call up the reserves. Invading the DRV would have involved stripping quality troops out of Europe. That just wasn't going to happen.

What improved strategic situation? Hanoi was left wide.

No, it wasn't. The Communists lost 30,000 over about two months. The majority were local forces, not PAVN regulars. The PAVN was damaged but sufficiently intact to fight an invading army. There wasn't an American army waiting coiled to attack Hanoi & Hanoi knew it - they probably knew more about US troop dispositions than the ARVN did. Any US buildup for an invasion would take time & be very obvious.

The Chinese were leaving to face their own upcoming war with the USSR?

At this point in the war America was unclear about the exact nature of that conflict & China's commitment to Hanoi. After Korea no President was going to roll those dice without 100% certainty the war would not expand. China was bluffing (by this point, if not before), but it was too big a bluff to call.

Zero defences against the upcoming LB I and II?

LB 1 started four and a half years and one US President after the Tet Offensive ended - October 1972. Hanoi had built up and lost an entire army in the Ester Offensive by that time.

Let's be clear about this, right after Tet, Hanoi was shitting in their pants with fear.

No, they weren't. Look at the timeline. Tet was launched at the very start of Feb. That was 'Phase 1' of three proposed phases. In mid-March, after heavy losses, COSVN - the DRV's southern command centre - was sufficiently pleased with the results to announce that Phases 2 & 3 would go ahead. At the end of March Johnson announced the bombing halt and his decision not to run again. He also started up the Paris Peace talks. At this point the remote chance the US might escalate was dead. Hanoi remained optimistic, sent another 50,000 men South & launched Phase 2 - the 'May Offensive'. Phase 3 was launched in mid-August.

The last 2 phases hurt the PAVN, but the fact that Hanoi was still committing large numbers of men in mid-August should tell you that they didn't fear invasion. There were questions asked during the offensive and severe recriminations in the aftermath, but Hanoi wasn't in danger & didn't think it was.

Zhukov did not leave Moscow wide open for the taking.

Zhukov fought the war he needed to fight and he won. Hanoi did the same.

[zraver]

That's what I'm wondering. Ignoring the RAF except 12 group giving cover over British held territory (they played little role in the BoB) could the British with the Canadians held some sort of defensive posture in the lowlands long enough to give the French a chance to rally?

I'd give them 2 weeks, they still didn't understand the enemy they were facing.

And would they have?

I don't think so, the French government was shell shocked. Waygand lost hope on June 10, and on a June 11 meeting with Churchill Weygand and Petain both dismissed the idea of a Breton Redoubt and all but said the war was lost.

[Bigfella]

I'd give them 2 weeks, they still didn't understand the enemy they were facing.



I don't think so, the French government was shell shocked. Waygand lost hope on June 10, and on a June 11 meeting with Churchill Weygand and Petain both dismissed the idea of a Breton Redoubt and all but said the war was lost.

A more interesting scenario is if France decides to fight on from the colonies. So some of those forces get deployed to delay the German advance as long as possible while the French government evacuates as many men & as much equipment as it can. French troops in the UK after Dunkirk reform & get rearmed as best as possible. The French navy & RN cover the evacuation by sea. Atlantic & Med ports can be used, though most will be Med. French air units either fly to the UK or Corsica/Nth Africa (I think some did in OTL). It would certainly have been possible to create salients in Normandy & Brittany for the evacuation & slow the German advance down the Rhone valley & through the Massif Central in order to evacuate via Marseilles.

With the French navy still in the war and some sort of credible armed force in Tunisia the complexion of the war in the Med changes immediately. Interesting possibilities.

[Mihais]

Yes,it means an even quicker and more decisive Soviet victory.

[zraver]

A more interesting scenario is if France decides to fight on from the colonies. So some of those forces get deployed to delay the German advance as long as possible while the French government evacuates as many men & as much equipment as it can. French troops in the UK after Dunkirk reform & get rearmed as best as possible. The French navy & RN cover the evacuation by sea. Atlantic & Med ports can be used, though most will be Med. French air units either fly to the UK or Corsica/Nth Africa (I think some did in OTL). It would certainly have been possible to create salients in Normandy & Brittany for the evacuation & slow the German advance down the Rhone valley & through the Massif Central in order to evacuate via Marseilles.

With the French navy still in the war and some sort of credible armed force in Tunisia the complexion of the war in the Med changes immediately. Interesting possibilities.

It would bugger Mussolini's dreams, the French may have looked like Keystone Cops vs the Germans but they were more than a match for the Italians. With no real prospect of a war in North Africa, what would an extra panzer corps mean in Russia? Does Moscow fall?

[zraver]

Italy didn't jump in until June 10, if France was already making moves to continue the fight from the overseas pats of Metropolitan France and the colonies she likely would not jump in at all.