What if - Naval showdown in the English Channel

[Officer of Engineers]

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 would also lead to more Dieppes. The assumption that the Brits would stay on the defensive is not a valid one. And that in turn would force more Kreigsmarine surface combattants being wanted.

[zraver]

It would also lead to more Dieppes. The assumption that the Brits would stay on the defensive is not a valid one. And that in turn would force more Kreigsmarine surface combattants being wanted.

Sir, I am not sure how more raids would lead to more surface combatants beign wanted (other than E boats) if the RN had beaten the Kreigsmarine. surface combatants take a long time to build and once the existign fleet was lost, there is no chance to catch up unless the RN took truly massive losses of major warships in which case the ability to do more raids at all is in question.

The main British arms in counter attacks were commando raids and Bomber Command. Deippe failed becuase it tried to over reach.

[Officer of Engineers]

Sir, I am not sure how more raids would lead to more surface combatants beign wanted (other than E boats) if the RN had beaten the Kreigsmarine. surface combatants take a long time to build and once the existign fleet was lost, there is no chance to catch up unless the RN took truly massive losses of major warships in which case the ability to do more raids at all is in question.

The point is that the Germans could not afford to build u-boats while the coastline under their control is under continued threat.

The main British arms in counter attacks were commando raids and Bomber Command. Deippe failed becuase it tried to over reach.

All that means is that the British would have learned from their mistakes. I agree about Bomber Command and company level raids but the Brits would also need some big show of success here and there. Dieppe level raids would have continued if for nothing else, to take the offensive to the Germans.

[zraver]

The point is that the Germans could not afford to build u-boats while the coastline under their control is under continued threat.

The French and Norwegian Coast were under threat and the U-boats still sailed. In france they sailed until the allies physuically advanced on the sub pens with ground troops.

[Officer of Engineers]

The French and Norwegian Coast were under threat and the U-boats still sailed. In france they sailed until the allies physuically advanced on the sub pens with ground troops.

But the dynamics of that campaign is far different than what is portrayed here.

The u-boats were the only thing with a prayer to stop North American supplies to the USSR. Take away the Russian Front and suddenly, your one and only worry is now your coastline. Would you still be making u-boats then?

[Tzimisces]

But the dynamics of that campaign is far different than what is portrayed here.

The u-boats were the only thing with a prayer to stop North American supplies to the USSR. Take away the Russian Front and suddenly, your one and only worry is now your coastline. Would you still be making u-boats then?

I assume we're talking about a Channel battle either in the autumn of 1940 or the spring of '41. At that time there was no lifeline to Russia, who was still party to the non-aggression pact with Germany. Everyone understood that to defeat England, she needed to be cut off from the sea. Germany deployed U-boats and surface raiders to interdict shipping. The French ports were far too useful toward this end.

[zraver]

But the dynamics of that campaign is far different than what is portrayed here.

The u-boats were the only thing with a prayer to stop North American supplies to the USSR. Take away the Russian Front and suddenly, your one and only worry is now your coastline. Would you still be making u-boats then?

Sir, Russia is a non issue until June 41. From June 40 to June 41 British Empire is in the fight alone.

A RN that took massive losses coupled with a RAF that lost a lot more pilots than the historical BoB due to fighting over water not England vs German fighters with a lot more fuel to fight with....

The RN was strecthed thin on escorts historically. Lose a lot more of them in a compressed period of time like a channel battle and the results will have a wide effect on the war. Remember, if we go back to the first post, the Italians (with German) help have cleared the med and forced passage past Gibraltar. This means even if the RN wins, they not only have an increasing u-boat menace, but need to create a new navy for the Med and send either ships or troops East to mollify her increasingly ressitive ANZAC allies.

A RN full of battleships but light on destroyers can't really protect England in an age of submarines and airplanes.

[snapper]

Even so Sealions fails and odds stack up the other side. To clear the RN you need the Italians ergo they suffer too so Med is stalemate. German losses climbing ashore would have bad and N.Africa, Greece and Russia impossible within the next 2 years. Then you still have unbeaten Britain knocking at the door and recieiving ships from Canada etc so would you wish to go for Greece, Russia etc? Not likely... Indeed as several historians have noted Hitlers big mistake was to open a second front in the east before the western front was closed. I cannot see that trying to force the Channel in late 1940/early 1941 would have removed his western front but it may have stopped him opening an eastern front. In that case replay the Atlantic scenarios.

[Tzimisces]

Sir, Russia is a non issue until June 41. From June 40 to June 41 British Empire is in the fight alone.

A RN that took massive losses coupled with a RAF that lost a lot more pilots than the historical BoB due to fighting over water not England vs German fighters with a lot more fuel to fight with....

The RN was strecthed thin on escorts historically. Lose a lot more of them in a compressed period of time like a channel battle and the results will have a wide effect on the war. Remember, if we go back to the first post, the Italians (with German) help have cleared the med and forced passage past Gibraltar. This means even if the RN wins, they not only have an increasing u-boat menace, but need to create a new navy for the Med and send either ships or troops East to mollify her increasingly ressitive ANZAC allies.

A RN full of battleships but light on destroyers can't really protect England in an age of submarines and airplanes.

A Channel battle in the spring of 1941 that results in the RN suffering grievous losses in destroyers would result in the US taking a more active role in the Atlantic. By this time the US was already moving in this direction, and I don't think they would have stood by while England is cut off. The actual timetable would only be moved back by a few months.

[Officer of Engineers]

I assume we're talking about a Channel battle either in the autumn of 1940 or the spring of '41. At that time there was no lifeline to Russia, who was still party to the non-aggression pact with Germany. Everyone understood that to defeat England, she needed to be cut off from the sea. Germany deployed U-boats and surface raiders to interdict shipping. The French ports were far too useful toward this end.

Sir, Russia is a non issue until June 41. From June 40 to June 41 British Empire is in the fight alone.

A RN that took massive losses coupled with a RAF that lost a lot more pilots than the historical BoB due to fighting over water not England vs German fighters with a lot more fuel to fight with....

Gentlemen, given what you've described, THE ENTIRE STRATEGIC PICTURE has now changed. Great Britain would no longer be on the defensive but on the offensive after the RN sinks the Kreigsmarine. And Germany would at the very least be reactionary instead of pro-active. Whatever losses you can extrapolate on the RAF and the RN, the reverse would be more than devastating to the immediate Kreigsmarine thinking. It would take an extremely bold Kreigsmarine commander, and no matter how well we all view Donitz, he would not be the one to convince Hitler not to build ships to challenge the RN.

Hitler could not and would not tolerate RN dreadknaughts showing up at dawn to land several hundred tons of HE on his coast, especially as you gentlemen put it, lost his surface combattants and the luffwaffle's ability to refuse to be driven from the skies over the channels.

[Tzimisces]

Gentlemen, given what you've described, THE ENTIRE STRATEGIC PICTURE has now changed. Great Britain would no longer be on the defensive but on the offensive after the RN sinks the Kreigsmarine. And Germany would at the very least be reactionary instead of pro-active. Whatever losses you can extrapolate on the RAF and the RN, the reverse would be more than devastating to the immediate Kreigsmarine thinking. It would take an extremely bold Kreigsmarine commander, and no matter how well we all view Donitz, he would not be the one to convince Hitler not to build ships to challenge the RN.

Hitler could not and would not tolerate RN dreadknaughts showing up at dawn to land several hundred tons of HE on his coast, especially as you gentlemen put it, lost his surface combattants and the luffwaffle's ability to refuse to be driven from the skies over the channels.

Ahh, I failed to grasp your point the first time around. You are suggesting that with the surface navy smashed Germany would have placed a higher priority on surface ships to help protect the French coast?
I'm not sure I agree. Larger surface ships would be of limited utility, compared to aircraft and mines. I doubt England would have won complete air superiority, without which any bombardment would have to be at night. I think the Solomons campaign is illustrative.
I certainly agree that the scenario of Germany losing a Channel battle completely changes the strategic picture. The initiative might have passed to England, but would she be in any position to exploit it?

[Officer of Engineers]

The point remains just as the British were not ready to do invade Europe after Dunkirk, the Kreigsmarine would not be thinking about any U-Boat Happy Times after such a devastating loss. They would be thinking rebuilding and regrouping.

[zraver]

A Channel battle in the spring of 1941 that results in the RN suffering grievous losses in destroyers would result in the US taking a more active role in the Atlantic. By this time the US was already moving in this direction, and I don't think they would have stood by while England is cut off. The actual timetable would only be moved back by a few months.

FDR was already moving as fast as he could, and Japan was still a threat. Even with the US the supply of escorts is dangerously low through 1942. A lot of the more capable and modern US destroyers were needed in the pacific after pearl harbor to provide ADA cover for the carriers. A lot of the older platforms got sunk in the first few months of the war as the allied navies got pasted.

[zraver]

Gentlemen, given what you've described, THE ENTIRE STRATEGIC PICTURE has now changed. Great Britain would no longer be on the defensive but on the offensive after the RN sinks the Kreigsmarine. And Germany would at the very least be reactionary instead of pro-active. Whatever losses you can extrapolate on the RAF and the RN, the reverse would be more than devastating to the immediate Kreigsmarine thinking. It would take an extremely bold Kreigsmarine commander, and no matter how well we all view Donitz, he would not be the one to convince Hitler not to build ships to challenge the RN.

Hitler could not and would not tolerate RN dreadknaughts showing up at dawn to land several hundred tons of HE on his coast, especially as you gentlemen put it, lost his surface combattants and the luffwaffle's ability to refuse to be driven from the skies over the channels.

Sir, the KM lost most of its surface combatants in real history and didn't go on a building spree. Nor did they worry about the occupied coasts. Germany did end up losing most of her major surface combatants and only built a couple of destroyers from 1939. Raider and Donitz both knew that the U-boat was the only means of fightign the RN. In fact U-boats sank more allied warships than any other weapon durign the war. The Germans even developed homing torpedoes to attack escorts.

During WWII the U-boats would sink 2 battleships, 6 aircraft carriers, 7 merchant cruisers, and 5 light cruisers. Thats out of a list of 222 warships sunk/written off by U-boats. There is no building program in the world starting after 1940 that could get those results except u-boats.

[Officer of Engineers]

Sir, the KM lost most of its surface combatants in real history and didn't go on a building spree. Nor did they worry about the occupied coasts. Germany did end up losing most of her major surface combatants and only built a couple of destroyers from 1939. Raider and Donitz both knew that the U-boat was the only means of fightign the RN. In fact U-boats sank more allied warships than any other weapon durign the war. The Germans even developed homing torpedoes to attack escorts.

Again, different dynamics. Pin prick losses can add up but that is completely different than one singular loss. Dunkirk is but an example where the British were forced onto the defensive after that battle even though the Empire had more than enough men and material to replace the loss.

Had Dunkirk held, the British would have shipped over the Canadian divisions still in Great Britain instead of keeping them as defences against SEALION. The rush was on to replace the lost equipment and the worry was British shores, and no one was even thinking Africa or Italy in those days.

The same kind of strategic mindset would have dominated the KM after such a colossal loss and they would rush to fill holes in their defences, real or perceived.