Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What if - Naval showdown in the English Channel

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Ok Snipe whats the Intel? do the British know how many ships are sortieing and from where?

    Also have the code crackers been able to determine if the German Fleet is going to marshal somewhere?

    If so, where and is it possible for the Royal Navy to put out a superior size task force in order to intercept portions of the German Fleet before they can marshal?

    (I suppose your the gamemaster as it were :) )
    Your look more lost than a bastard child on fathers day.

    Comment


    • #17
      For sake of balance let's say the brits know the Germans and Italians are massing their fleets for a decisive battle, and they know the date that the fight will be brought to them.....but they don't know where or exactly when.

      These circumstances allow the brits to mass as well, but do not give them the opportunity for advanced interdiction air strikes or heavy minelaying ops.

      This is gonna be a full-out force on force fight with all the top cover both sides can muster.

      That's bombers, fighters, subs, ships, the kitchen sink(minus any assets either side has in the Pacific).

      Let's keep it a straight up fight.

      Comment


      • #18
        I've been wracking my brain on this and I cannot see a different outcome than what already occurred. The Battles of Britain and Atlantic was essentially this fight. The details are different but the OPOBJ and the thinking is the same.

        Even using Jutland as the example, neither the Grand Fleet nor the RN was crippled beyond repair. The Germans just lost nerve and never ventured forth again.

        Would this happen here? And would both sides commit everything including the kitchen sink? For the Brits, this was an impossibility. No matter how vital this battle in preventing Sea Lion, they're reliant on the Atlantic sea lanes for their survival, they ccould not have abandonned those escourted convoys, even if this meant that they're restricting this to the RCN.

        What that would mean is that there wouldn't be a knock out blow. At the very least, the RCN would still be an effective force. Remember that Canada out-produced Germany in ships and other war materials.

        Even supposed that the Kreigsmarine won such a battle. What would they achieved? The RCN would still be getting through and now the Kreigsmarine would be definetely that much weaker against a force that won the Battle of the Atlantic. Militarily, the only thing that such a battle would allow is for Sea Lion to proceed and that was just a disaster waiting to happen.

        Would the Brits lose nerve? More precisely, more old Winston Bull Dog lose nerve? I don't think so. The man allowed civies to be bombed rather risk allowing the Germans know that their codes were broken.

        I cannot see a different outcome of the war, saved perhaps Sea Lion went forth and that would have benefitted the Brits.

        Comment


        • #19
          Well there is certainly no doubt sealion was an absolute disaster waiting to happen.

          Comment


          • #20
            In my opinion

            Had the germans started WW2 at least 2 years later than historical their plan Z would have progressed a little further and this would have given them ample time to prepare for an amphipious landing. keep in mind the germans had quite a few S-boats that could support a landing and the old predreads and cruisers would also be very usefull in this task. With Plan Z a little further along the pocket battleships would also become second line units so the germans would have no shortage up support vessels. Had the germans been smart they would have expanded on Plan Z and built 2 more Bismarck class BB's in addition to the initial design of the "H" class BB's to speed up the build up of the fleet. Throw in the historically imcomplete CA's Lutzow, Seydlitz along with a 6th unit, 2 graf zeppilin class CV's and as many as 6 "M" class CL's and the german fleet would be more of a threat.
            This would give them 2 CV's 6 BB's, 2 BC's, 3 PBB's,
            2 predreads, 6 CA's, 12CL's and likly twice as many DD's as they started the war with, most of these ships would be modern and they would be assisted by the italians who by this time would have all of their Littorio's in service and would likely be able to begin to adress the manpower issues in their navy. The Germans may even be able to start 2 further BB's.
            To counter this the French would only have 2 more Richelieu class BB's and a few more cruisers while the british would get all the KGV in service and possibly start the Lion class as well as have Vanguard and a sister building. With the additional time for a buildup of forces for war the Brits might be able to get their faster ships Like Hood and Repulse rebuilt and maybe even the last of the QE's rebuilt as well.
            Last edited by smilingassassin; 14 Dec 03,, 00:37.
            Facts to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman.

            -- Larry Elder

            Comment


            • #21
              Germany and WW1 / WW2

              The difference between Germany and Britain during the two world wars is, largely, psychological. Britain needed the sea. Germany had enough interaction without the sea.

              One result of the successful blockade of Germany during the First World War was the Battle of Jutland. That was the Second Reich's attempt to break out - there was not a second attempt.

              Within the Mediterranean, Britain and the Mediterranean nations were much more of "level ground". The Kaiser kinda won Jutland, but then again, he turned tail - saying that Germany doesn't need this.

              There was an option of Germany, after Jutland, heading north and "taking" the Norwegian coast. Then again, maybe not. Or if Germany just head west, along the English Channel and along the French and English coasts - but that would have too easily turned into a shooting gallery.

              But after Jutland, Germany turned tail and said that they didn't need the "high seas". Because, then, Germany would have been fighting on both east and west and north.

              In WW2 / SWW Hitler did the right thing - regarding the u-boats.

              jay

              Comment


              • #22
                Simple answer: The Battle of the Atlantic would have not have happened and Sealion would still have failed, move forward DDay a year.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by snapper View Post
                  Simple answer: The Battle of the Atlantic would have not have happened and Sealion would still have failed, move forward DDay a year.
                  holy necropost batman....

                  That said, I am not so sure.

                  The U-boats used in the battle of the Atlantic were for the most part built after the Battle of Britain, while no major German surface combatants were. A major naval fight for control of the English Channel would cost Germany her surface navy, but might cost Britain the war. The losses suffered by the RN at Dunkirk if extrapolated to a English Channel fight might well have cost England the ability to even pretend to properly escort her merchant fleet. As it was, it was a near thing. Add in the loss of a lot more desroyers and smaller escort vessels and the Wolf Packs would have a much longer "happy Time".

                  With fewer merchants getting through not only does England risk starvation, but there is no way to speed up D-Day. Also depending on RN losses, there could be major implications for the Med, North Africa and the Pacific.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I wonder if an RN seriously reduced by the Channel battle would have seen the US commit to providing escorts earlier, and in greater numbers. Maybe an earlier occupation of Iceland. Would a greater US role in the Atlantic late 1940 into 1941 have provoked Hitler into declaring war?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Tzimisces View Post
                      I wonder if an RN seriously reduced by the Channel battle would have seen the US commit to providing escorts earlier, and in greater numbers. Maybe an earlier occupation of Iceland. Would a greater US role in the Atlantic late 1940 into 1941 have provoked Hitler into declaring war?
                      I am not sure FDR could have done more or faster given the domestic situation. WWI left a very bad taste in the mouth of the average American.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        The mood of the country was shifting in this period, but I agree in late 1940 FDR still faced isolationist sentiment. However in spring 1941 the USN made plans with the RN, and occupied Greenland. In July Iceland, and in Sept and Oct 1941 USN escorts were firing on (and being fired upon by) U-boats. The USN certainly recognized the need to keep the Atlantic sea-lanes open, and if the situation was desperate enough, perhaps may have actively participated earlier than they did. Isolationism was loud, but not universal.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by zraver View Post
                          That said, I am not so sure.
                          The war would have also ended early. A SEALION disaster would deny Hitler both the political and military means to continue a war as it happened in the past, most certainly, he would not be able to politically to start BARBAROSA at the same period in time.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by zraver View Post
                            Also depending on RN losses, there could be major implications for the Med, North Africa and the Pacific.
                            As Sealion would have been a disaster, not withstanding losses to the RN, N.Africa and Rommels involvement there would probably never have happen... the trans Atlantic shipping would been alot less interrupted and hence DDay moves forward.

                            It is likely Barbarossa would never have happened and possibly not even Pearl Harbour. WW2 may well have remained a European war which Britain would have won with control of the Atlantic.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I think even in this scenario there still would have been a Pacific war. The issues that caused tension between the US and Japan still existed, the lapse of the naval treaties meant that time favored the US. Japan made the final decision to go to war with the embargo, which was a result of the fall of France (and Japan's occupation of Indo-China). The only thing different is no Barbarossa to ensure the Soviets will be idle on that front.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by snapper View Post
                                As Sealion would have been a disaster, not withstanding losses to the RN, N.Africa and Rommels involvement there would probably never have happen... the trans Atlantic shipping would been alot less interrupted and hence DDay moves forward.
                                Even Hitler was not stupid enough to send the barges into the channel with the RN and RAF in physical control. For Sealion to go forward the Kreigsmarine and Luftwaffe have to have won control of the channel. So German ground strength is not going to be affected unless your talking losses vs a seriously weakened British Army that might well have lost the battle.

                                It is likely Barbarossa would never have happened and possibly not even Pearl Harbour. WW2 may well have remained a European war which Britain would have won with control of the Atlantic.
                                Only if you presume Jitler and the German leadership pushes the assault troops into the Channel in the face of the RN and RAF.

                                As for the battle of the Atlantic, with even fewer escorts for the merchant ships the U-boats that sank 270 vessels from June-Oct 1940 would enjoy an extended "happy times" period and suffer fewer losses in return. By 1942 in real history German U-boat strength was 101. With fewer losses that number will be higher sooner and will be facing fewer escorts.

                                England has a couple of very bad choices- 1. abandone the med at least in part or operate there with reduced forces. 2- abandone the East. Both have major implications for Englands critical ANZAC allies who may pull out early to defend themselves from Japan. This would leave the British forces in North Africa seriously weakened and ripe for picking. it also makes a defence of Greece, Malta and Crete less likely.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X