Kursk - could the outcome have been different?

[Vinnie]

In the period July-September 1940 the British had five "combat" aircraft carriers available, as best I can tell. These were Ark Royal (54 aircraft), Eagle (21), Hermes (26), Furious (36) and Illustrious (36). In total that's 173 aircraft of all types. That's not really a big heap of aircraft. It's better than none I suppose. And I have to wonder whether the carriers would be committed or just the aircraft. There were also a few "escort-quality" carriers, e.g. Argus & Unicorn. It's very likely that the aircraft would have been taken off these ships.

The other problem with using the carriers is that the British carrier aircraft are not splendid, unlike, say, the Spitfire (the Seafire and Sea Hurricanes were developed later). You don't really think of the Blackburn Skua or the Fairey Fulmar, etc., as among the great planes to come out of the war, never mind the Swordfish. They did get the job done if the circumstances were right, but they were not brilliant planes. Even if the British managed to assemble all these carriers they probably would be good for only a few days of heavy combat. If you were going to commit the Fleet Air Arm, you might consider taking just the pilots and putting them in Spitfires and/or Hurricanes if possible.

The German/Italian failure to secure the Mediterranean really can't be put down to the British carriers, I don't think.

JR

The advantage of the Fleet Air Arm is not the carrier's, the aircraft could and would have operated from land based, but the fact the pilots were trained at attacking ships.

 

[Vinnie]

We all have opinions, which is healthy!. Aircraft carriers were extremely vulnerable to aircraft just look at the situation in the pacific with the Japanese and Americans. I think although not sure that our aircraft carriers were more vulnerable due to less armor etc. As JRV mentions the small amount of planes being carried and in some cases inferior aircraft and not fighters would have had little effect. the carriers would have to stay in the North Sea with protection to avoid u boats which would have depleted part of the Royal Navy's strength.

The British aircraft carriers were a lot less vulnerable than the American or Japanese ones due to having an armoured flight deck. After one was heavily bombed by stukas in the med (500kg bombs and three hit) it still continued to operate aircraft.

 

[Vinnie]

There is little doubt that the Germans could have gotten ashore in 1940 but after that, they could not have resupplied their troops with out an overwhelming loss.
The aircraft covering them could be countered by aircraft based in the Midlands out of reach of Luftwaffe.
Heavy support would have been from ships and the RN ruled there.
As for a strike to decapitate the British government, that would have involved a drop on the centre of London....not something any sane airborne commander would have agreed to!

 

[witchbottles]

T...
As for a strike to decapitate the British government, that would have involved a drop on the centre of London....not something any sane airborne commander would have agreed to!

within range - check.
used as official war plans vs King Haakon in norway - check.
used as official war plans vs Queen Wilhelmina in the Neth3erlands - check
parachute and airlanding forces specifically trained for the type of operation - check
special commandoes trained to deal with fortified bunkers - check
a feasible plan of covering operations to ensure time for success of a "snatch" operation - check


Nope I disagree - this was the best opportunity the Nazi's had for making peace with england. What prevented it was excellent work by Special Branch in keeping Nazi intel assets dark as to the location and whereabouts of the government officials and the royal family - even when they were at work on a daily basis running the war and their empire.

 

[Yuri0352]

A higher priority placed on invading and conquering the Soviet Union - check.

 

[Bob Walters]

We all have opinions, which is healthy!. Aircraft carriers were extremely vulnerable to aircraft just look at the situation in the pacific with the Japanese and Americans. I think although not sure that our aircraft carriers were more vulnerable due to less armor etc. As JRV mentions the small amount of planes being carried and in some cases inferior aircraft and not fighters would have had little effect. the carriers would have to stay in the North Sea with protection to avoid u boats which would have depleted part of the Royal Navy's strength.

Nor has anyone mentioned stringing thick barriers of mines across the access to the of the invasion corridor.

 

[jrv]

Nor has anyone mentioned stringing thick barriers of mines across the access to the of the invasion corridor.

By the British (to prevent invasion) or the Germans (to guard the invasion flanks)? Not that it matters a lot. The English Channel is a big area to mine (the Germans never finished mining the Channel coast on land). You might knock off a barge or two but it isn't going to stop an invasion. Similarly used on the flanks they might destroy a counter-attacking ship or two but they wouldn't stop the fleet.

JR

 

[jrv]

An interesting contrast to Unternehmen Seelöwe would be (the also hypothetical) Operation Olympic. In the latter the contest would have been between an unstoppable force (the US) and an immovable object (Japan)¹. Unternehmen Seelöwe, in comparison, would have been between a very stoppable force and a very movable object. The Germans did not have the equipment to conduct such an operation, while the British were on the ropes after a string of unmitigated defeats (assuming they had also lost the Battle of Britain). One is tempted to give the Germans the edge because of their high morale, but the x-factor might be the Royal Navy. A clean sweep of the Channel (by surface ships; I don't think the carriers would be that useful in the operation) would leave the German army on the wrong side of a large body of water, allowing them to be be beaten.

The 1974 wargame of the operation assumed that the Germans had not gained air supremacy, but it was still primarily the intercession of the RN that turned the tide. It's hard to say whether the Luftwaffe owning the skies over the Channel would have been enough to win the day.

JR

¹The Americans clearly would have "won", but at what price?

 

[AdrianE]

In this document it says "the minimum interval between the first and the second waves will be 48 hours" (p. 21). That would include unloading after the first outbound trip, return trip, loading and second outbound trip, I assume. I also guess it assumes that landing/unloading will take place during daylight, so even if the interval could be made shorter by, say, twelve hours, the second outbound trip would be delayed so that landing could be done in daylight. Even at the widest part of the channel that was going to be used for the invasion, a three-day, one-way crossing does not sound right.

JR

Really ? From skimming your link:

"In the second wave the Army High Command requires the transportation of 160,000 men with equipment. The shipping space for this purpose amounts to 2,000,000 tons. This is not available, neither could it be accommodated in the area of embarkation. i> simultaneous transportation of the second wave is therefore not possible; indeed, it is necessary to spread this Wave over 4 or 5 echelons at intervals of 2 days."

They can't even deliver an echelon of the 2nd wave in 48 hours in the optimistic plan.

Read Hewitt's book. It goes into a great deal of detail.

Add in the fact that bomber command managed to sink 10% of the accumulated barges in only a few raids and the only Germans who would make landfall in England would be wounded or half drowned prisoners.

 

[AdrianE]

The 1974 wargame of the operation assumed that the Germans had not gained air supremacy, but it was still primarily the intercession of the RN that turned the tide. It's hard to say whether the Luftwaffe owning the skies over the Channel would have been enough to win the day.

That wargame makes a massive error:

• The invasion fleet was largely unmolested in the crossing.

The RN had pickets in the channel and had every intention of vigourously contesting the invasion. The Royal Navy's entire purpose is to protect England from invasion. I can not imagine them shirking their duty. They even bombarded the embarkation ports with an old battleship in October.

Lets not forget that Churchill is Prime Minister. There will be NO negogiations

 

[RRschultze]

Good thread.... moved from Kursk to Britain...where next

 

[witchbottles]

Good thread.... moved from Kursk to Britain...where next

Hawaiian invasion after multiple airstrikes by the Kido Butai obtain complete air supremacy over the islands - the Close escort force battleships bombard landing beaches near Pearl City - and assault waves come ashore with the smoking ruins of the US Pacific Fleet still at anchor where they sunk or capsized? Could the Japanese have pulled off a surprise invasion on December 7th?

 

[jrv]

Why do you people never tell me anything useful? There's a new movie coming out on Dunkirk.

JR

 

[Bob Walters]

An interesting contrast to Unternehmen Seelöwe would be (the also hypothetical) Operation Olympic. In the latter the contest would have been between an unstoppable force (the US) and an immovable object (Japan)¹. Unternehmen Seelöwe, in comparison, would have been between a very stoppable force and a very movable object. The Germans did not have the equipment to conduct such an operation, while the British were on the ropes after a string of unmitigated defeats (assuming they had also lost the Battle of Britain). One is tempted to give the Germans the edge because of their high morale, but the x-factor might be the Royal Navy. A clean sweep of the Channel (by surface ships; I don't think the carriers would be that useful in the operation) would leave the German army on the wrong side of a large body of water, allowing them to be be beaten.

The 1974 wargame of the operation assumed that the Germans had not gained air supremacy, but it was still primarily the intercession of the RN that turned the tide. It's hard to say whether the Luftwaffe owning the skies over the Channel would have been enough to win the day.

JR

¹The Americans clearly would have "won", but at what price?

There are some who feel the will for the Japanese to resist and the number of casualties were vastly overstated in the proposed invasion of Japan. Indeed, it is quite possible that the used of the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary.

 

[jrv]

There are some who feel the will for the Japanese to resist and the number of casualties were vastly overstated in the proposed invasion of Japan. Indeed, it is quite possible that the used of the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary.

The use of the atomic bomb was never necessary in the large sense. Japan was going to lose the war whether the atomic bomb was used or not. I would argue that given the evidence available at the time its use was justifiable. I also think that a fair case can be made that its importance in the actual way the war ended was not crucial. The Japanese were probably going to surrender anyway, but there is no way that the Americans could have guessed that.

JR

 

[Bob Walters]

By the British (to prevent invasion) or the Germans (to guard the invasion flanks)? Not that it matters a lot. The English Channel is a big area to mine (the Germans never finished mining the Channel coast on land). You might knock off a barge or two but it isn't going to stop an invasion. Similarly used on the flanks they might destroy a counter-attacking ship or two but they wouldn't stop the fleet.

JR

I was thinking it would be done by the Germans to keep restrict access to the invasion corridor and guarded with large numbers of UBoats. Sea denial.

 

[Bob Walters]

The use of the atomic bomb was never necessary in the large sense. Japan was going to lose the war whether the atomic bomb was used or not. I would argue that given the evidence available at the time its use was justifiable. I also think that a fair case can be made that its importance in the actual way the war ended was not crucial. The Japanese were probably going to surrender anyway, but there is no way that the Americans could have guessed that.

JR

Actually there is quite a bit of evidence that they were, however, there were quite a few that ignored it for various reasons.

 

[jrv]

Actually there is quite a bit of evidence that they were, however, there were quite a few that ignored it for various reasons.

I don't think the Japanese themselves knew they were going to surrender until very shortly before the event.

JR

 

[Bob Walters]

I don't think the Japanese themselves knew they were going to surrender until very shortly before the event.

JR

There were peace feelers but we were worried abut the entry of the USSR.

 

[jrv]

There were peace feelers but we were worried abut the entry of the USSR.

The Japanese government was very conflicted until the end. There were peace feelers out (sort of; some were looking for an "honorable" end to the war); there were nuts who were ready to have every scrap of the island blasted into the ocean. You can't fight your war looking at the possibility that things might go better. The Japanese public face to almost the end was that every last Japanese was going to die defending the empire. And that is how you had to fight the war.

JR