plausible ways of getting Great britian out of WW2?

[Snake Featherston]

A lot of this tactical skill was based on excellent intelligence, both from a special decryption team that was captured at El Alamein and the US diplomatic codes stolen by the Italians. Both of these dried up around the same time and resulted in the final defeat of the Axis in Africa.
And yes, supply cannot possibly be solved for the Axis in Africa, which means that it was a blackhole of effort, except for keeping Italy in the game, not winning the war.

^Yup.

The Germans were employing 2 field divisions and a reinforced brigade about 1/9 of the LW's total service aircraft (including suppression and supply forces in Italy) with a few u-boats in support

Put 40 u-boats in the med, 1500 tactical aircraft into the theater and 4 field divisions (at the expense of maintaining as large an italian force until the egyptian ports are captured) and you change the balance dramatically

capturing malta removes a decent portion of the threat to axis shipping, and capturing alexandria removes most of the rest as the RN is driven into the red sea; and the RAF is driven far away from many of the supporting ports; leaving the main remaining risk as subs coming from gibraltar which with the action moving east will have shorter patrols

How does capturing Malta remove that threat? How does the Axis *find* four divisions while preparing Barbarossa? Why does Hitler decide not to do what he wants to do all along to go traipsing around the desert in a fashion that even at its most successful can never actually win him the war? If the goal is to get the UK out of the war altogether, North Africa's not where to go about doing that.

 

[MattII]

How strong were the shore defences on Malta? Why couldn't the Italians have simply parked a BB nearby and land troops under the cover of it's guns? No need to rely strictly on airborne troops

Landing troops the way the Italians did it requires a harbour, they didn't have anything that were the equivalent of Higgins Boats.

Maybe they got through because the axis expended important air assets to keep Malta suprressed, which air assets would become available for other tasks if the island was taken.

It doesn't f*****g matter, even with Malta effectively worthless, the Italian ports just weren't good enough to allow Rommel to build up a steamroller force.

could have... would have... In the end it all worked out fine for the Germans. Even the losses were not that great in absolute numbers because the forces engaged were not that great in absolute numbers, when compared to the Wehrmacht as a whole.

They were pretty cataclysmic for the paratroopers though, which saw them pulled from use, and thus Hitler pulled another of his own teeth.

Also, the airborne forces were not really "wrecked for the rest of the war", it's just that Hitler was to afraid to use them again. But to take Malta it is not necessary to rely chiefly on aiborne forces because a sea landing is much more easier to do that on Crete

No it isn't, Germany and Italy have virtually no amphibious capabilities the way the allies had in '44.

The logistic infrastructure in North Africa was good enough for the British to roll through from east to west, so I do not see why it would be impossible for the Germans to roll through from west to east.

*headdesk*

 

[BlairWitch749]

^Yup.



How does capturing Malta remove that threat? How does the Axis *find* four divisions while preparing Barbarossa? Why does Hitler decide not to do what he wants to do all along to go traipsing around the desert in a fashion that even at its most successful can never actually win him the war? If the goal is to get the UK out of the war altogether, North Africa's not where to go about doing that.

Eliminating Malta as an airbase and submarine base removes forces that preyed on the Tripoli and Bengahzi supply lines;

such an initiative would obviously have to come at the expense of postponing barbarossa

the op is defeat Britain, and this is how their forces in the field at that time could be beaten

it falls into the category of certainly physically possible but politically difficult versus hitlers desire to go after russia

 

[Snake Featherston]

Eliminating Malta as an airbase and submarine base removes forces that preyed on the Tripoli and Bengahzi supply lines;

such an initiative would obviously have to come at the expense of postponing barbarossa

the op is defeat Britain, and this is how their forces in the field at that time could be beaten

it falls into the category of certainly physically possible but politically difficult versus hitlers desire to go after russia

There needs to be an explanation as to why Hitler decides to postpone Barbarossa, then, for this scenario to be possible in the first place. And it would be just that: another postponement, not a cancellation of any sort. Perhaps a longer Balkans campaign might do it.

 

[BlairWitch749]

There needs to be an explanation as to why Hitler decides to postpone Barbarossa, then, for this scenario to be possible in the first place. And it would be just that: another postponement, not a cancellation of any sort. Perhaps a longer Balkans campaign might do it.

maybe a better performance by the Russians in the winter war convinces hitler he needs a multi year buildup with a southern front out of the middle east (although he could see this the opposite way and think time is running out to crush russia; the man was unpredictable about how he read things) and he could see the crushing of Britain as a necessary secondary objective prior to opening hostilities; the man did have moments of being opposed to two front war and had people in his entourage who felt the same way

 

[Snake Featherston]

maybe a better performance by the Russians in the winter war convinces hitler he needs a multi year buildup with a southern front out of the middle east (although he could see this the opposite way and think time is running out to crush russia; the man was unpredictable about how he read things) and he could see the crushing of Britain as a necessary secondary objective prior to opening hostilities; the man did have moments of being opposed to two front war and had people in his entourage who felt the same way

I don't think that impacts anything anyhow, Hitler will still see Slavs as inferior subhumans and the USSR's leadership as a bunch of Jewish parasites ruling said subhumans, so he'll just fit in this potential risk to his plans by altering the aforementioned conspiracy theory somehow to make it all work. Not to mention he'd originally assigned Finland to the Soviet sphere in 1939 as it was so he'd probably just use the army in Finland IOTL in Army Group Center instead.

 

[CalBear]

It might be possible for a combination of circumstances to get the UK to agree to a ceasation of active hostilities but beyond that seems quite unlikely. No one in the British government trusted Hitler as far as they could throw him aftert Munich and they were not about to start.

The British also had to ensure that the Empire remained secure, especially the Raj.

Expect a cease fire with tensions similar to the Korean Peninsula as the best case. Anything beyond that would be in place because the Reich dictated the terms at the point of a gun in London.

 

[Snake Featherston]

It might be possible for a combination of circumstances to get the UK to agree to a ceasation of active hostilities but beyond that seems quite unlikely. No one in the British government trusted Hitler as far as they could throw him aftert Munich and they were not about to start.

The British also had to ensure that the Empire remained secure, especially the Raj.

Expect a cease fire with tensions similar to the Korean Peninsula as the best case. Anything beyond that would be in place because the Reich dictated the terms at the point of a gun in London.

^Exactly. The Nazis also have no real means to defeat the British Empire, and given the immense problems they'd have in simply invading Britain (to the point that in the 1940s it's a no-go), the odds of them somehow getting anywhere *near* India or Canada, let alone being universally accepted by either, are so far out of ASB possibilities as to get into Crack!TL possibilities.

 

[Shaby]

I said it already in an ill conceived thread on Mussolini and Malta. Peripheral, low intensity war was the single worst choice Germany in 1940 could make. Entire regime is oriented towards the achieveng their goals in shortest time posible. Their army was huge. Their continental position dictates they keep a huge army and have a land focus. Germany absolutely never in her history led such a war.

To undertake the effort that would simmer around the edges, with absolutely no possibility to employ their greatest strength - a huge army - and where enemy can employ theirs greatest strength - navy - is simply irrational. Why fight Britain in Africa wher in the best case ever, they would always fight at parity in terms of land forces and where said forces could at any time be completely cut off?

Once Hitler figured it would take multiple years to defeat the British, he along with others in hierarchy just said "Fudge it, let's use 1941 to destroy USSR and England is not able to interfere in any meaningful way. By 1942 we will defeat Soviets and then turn on Britain." Every day he delays attack on Russia he becomes more and more dependant on them. And eventually he will have to pay the Russians for supplies delivered. Even if they do not attack first.

 

[Easterling]

There needs to be an explanation as to why Hitler decides to postpone Barbarossa

The question was, what could Germany do to defeat Britain, not what would Hitler be willing to do. We are asuming there is a "Britain First" policy in place and that Barbarossa is cancelled or postponed.
This incidentally means that trucks and other such assets are free for use in North Africa.

Landing troops the way the Italians did it requires a harbour, they didn't have anything that were the equivalent of Higgins Boats.

No, but the Germans had Siebelfahren and other such things prepared for Sealion. They may not have been enough against England but perhaps they could work against Malta

*headdesk*

So, you do believe that it is more difficult to drive through North Africa in one direction than in the other?

 

[PMN1]

So, you do believe that it is more difficult to drive through North Africa in one direction than in the other?

British railways in Egypt 1939

Axis railways in Libya as late as 1943 (in red)

See a slight problem with the Axis railways??

The British railways were all standard gauge while most of the Axis ones were narrow gauge of lower capacity,

A very good post on how the British took the time to extend its already extensive railway system while the Germans and Italians did little.


http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=99035

And you can forget roads - one coastal road easily interdicted.

 

[Snake Featherston]

The question was, what could Germany do to defeat Britain, not what would Hitler be willing to do. We are asuming there is a "Britain First" policy in place and that Barbarossa is cancelled or postponed.
This incidentally means that trucks and other such assets are free for use in North Africa.

Germany's best bet is to try to sucker the UK into thinking it's temporarily won the sea war, ramp up U-Boat production, and try to time its U-Boat offensive with Japan's own offensive, so that the two combined ultimately to overstretch the UK's ability to do all things while US war production is still a matter of theory more than reality. And even then all this gets is a cease-fire with Germany and the UK and USA ganging up on Japan for what will be a bloody and shorter by far war than IOTL for Japan but also a much worse defeat. In this regard delaying Barbarossa would actually be a necessity because it will be producing for its Navy, not the Army, and so long as Hitler refuses wartime economic measures in a war there's only so many marks to go around.

 

[Shaby]

See a slight problem with the Axis railways??

OT

Seriously where does the railway section in Cyrenaica lead to? Deep south into desert? Why? Was there melange there or what?

 

[PMN1]

The question was, what could Germany do to defeat Britain, not what would Hitler be willing to do. We are asuming there is a "Britain First" policy in place and that Barbarossa is cancelled or postponed.
This incidentally means that trucks and other such assets are free for use in North Africa.

This form Len Deighton's Blitzkrieg but other books say the same type of things.

The shortage of motor vehicles was not unconnected with the great variety of vehicles being manufactured during the 1930’. By 1938 there were 100 different types of commercial trucks in Army service, 52 types of cars, and 150 different types of motorcycles. A drastic scheme – the Schell-Programme- had reduced this chaos, but still the German motorised columns looked like a parade of used cars and the supply of new vehicles was no more than trickle.

At the outbreak of war in 1939 the German armed forces resorted to the desperate measure of commandeering civilian motors. They took some 16,000, but these were swallowed up immediately to replace worn out vehicles, bring Army units to their full allotments, equip new divisions, and for training. None of the civilian trucks could be kept as a form of reserve, so there was no reserve. Civilian vehicles were flimsy by military standards, with only two-wheel drive, a far cry from the six-wheel (4four-wheel drive) Krupp trucks that were the army’s preferred equipment.



By February 1940 the situation was getting worse by the day. The Polish campaign, with its fighting, dust, and very bad roads, had caused some units to write off 50 per cent of their trucks. Replacements from the factories (many of those with only two-wheel drive and unsuited to combat conditions) were pitifully inadequate.


The army’s normal peacetime loss of trucks through wear and tear was about 2,400 trucks each quarter year, but only 1,000 new vehicles were arriving each quarter. In other words, the army’s supply of trucks was dwindling at the rate of 1,400 trucks each quarter year without fighting.

 

[PMN1]

OT

Seriously where does the railway section in Cyrenaica lead to? Deep south into desert? Why? Was there melange there or what?

Ahh sorry, should have made it clearer, its the thin red lines around Tripoli and Benghazi that are the railway lines....not sure what the thick lines are.

 

[Flayer]

The Axis would be capable of improving and expanding its ports and railroads without Russsia using up 90% of its resources. Axis air superiority would also enable more damage to be done to the Allied ports and logistics network.

 

[Shaby]

The Axis would be capable of improving and expanding its ports and railroads without Russsia using up 90% of its resources. Axis air superiority would also enable more damage to be done to the Allied ports and logistics network.

Perhaps. But expanding both ports and railroads means no operations by Afrika Korps for months. Rails and docks cannot just be produced in Germany and have them appear in Africa overnight.

How much time, material and tools and labor force would be needed to expand the ports? I am virtually certain that it would have to be taken away from supplies for forces in Africa. Taking anything from those forces leads to a quick defeat as they were already hanging by a thread. By the time the logistic preparations are finished, even if British have not attacked by then, they too would be more ready to resist.

Even once completed (provided Germans actually have the resources needed for it) Germans need to provide rolling stock, locomotives (which were not in abundance in Germany, btw), COAL (difficult to transport) and water on the whole line. Besides they need to bring spare parts for those locomotives, as I am certain that they would break often.

Once all this is completed, Axis ends up with a rail line, probably going along the coast, vulnerable to commando raids, air attacks and naval fire along the entire route.

Before all this, of course, you need Italian OK to do it in the first place.

Entire venture would take years to complete. Hitler will not wait.

 

[PMN1]

The Axis would be capable of improving and expanding its ports and railroads without Russsia using up 90% of its resources. Axis air superiority would also enable more damage to be done to the Allied ports and logistics network.

That requires a complete change in Italian and German thinking.

Italy thought it would be a quick war - you don't pick a war with a maritime power when over a third of your merchant marine is at that country's mercy well away from where your own forces can protect it.

North Africa didn't even feature in German plans (not much in the way of agricultural land there) until they were forced to prop up the Italians and Rommel scored lucky early victories.

While you are improving that infrastructure and taking a long time to do so, or attacking Allied infrastructure, the UK is going to know exactly what its aimed at and respond accordingly.

Meanwhile the Russian bear is lurking at your eastern border.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

That requires a complete change in Italian and German thinking.

Italy thought it would be a quick war - you don't pick a war with a maritime power when over a third of your merchant marine is at that country's mercy well away from where your own forces can protect it.

North Africa didn't even feature in German plans (not much in the way of agricultural land there) until they were forced to prop up the Italians and Rommel scored lucky early victories.

While you are improving that infrastructure and taking a long time to do so, or attacking Allied infrastructure, the UK is going to know exactly what its aimed at and respond accordingly.

Meanwhile the Russian bear is lurking at your eastern border.

More to the point, the Allies were ramping up their industry faster than the Axis was. If Hitler tries Barbarossa 1 or 2 years later, he'll get slaughtered, for instance.

 

[Easterling]

That requires a complete change in Italian and German thinking.

It all depends on what you consider "plausible" (as in the thread title)
Is it plausible for the Axis to adopt a "Britain First" strategy?
Is it plausible that once they pick a course of action, they would understand its requirements set out to fulfill them (like expanding the logistics network in North Africa, building docks, railroads, etc.)?
Is it plausible that they would be given the time to do it before other great powers intervene?
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=5651171#post5651171