Kursk - could the outcome have been different?

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Read the German plan. The barge trains would have been extremely slow. Look at the time between the planned landing of the first wave and the planned arrival of the second.
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
 

Proff3RTR

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Messages
4,270
Reaction score
597
Location
Cornwall
Country
llUnited Kingdom
And the British Army has shown on many occasions it has the ability when needed to fight to the last, so I do think/feel Germany would of had a bit of a wake up call had they actually gotten troops into mainland UK soil.
Agreed.

There is no such thing as a people fighting to the last man.
There may be such a thing as a people being fought to the last man.

Even the Japanese did not fight to the last man as a people. And they were of a much different sort of mindset than the British with regard for determination in that line. On the other hand, history provides numerous examples for genocide.

von Marwitz
 

RRschultze

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
474
Reaction score
299
Location
Chester, UK
First name
Ian
Country
llUnited Kingdom
And the British Army has shown on many occasions it has the ability when needed to fight to the last, so I do think/feel Germany would of had a bit of a wake up call had they actually gotten troops into mainland UK soil.
I know its all hypothetical, however if the Germans had won the battle of britain i.e continued to knock out the southern airfields and avoided bombing cities, us brits would have been in trouble. Why? well most of the RAF would have been inoperable, on the basis that we were losing skilled pilots and we were struggling to replace planes. Spitfires were good (not as good as ME109 though - thats another debate!) but werent the main workhorse which was the Hurricanes. What was left of the RAF would have had to pull back to Midlands and would not be able to cover the proposed german landings on the south coast. Indeed the RAF suffered the same issues as the germans with regards to flight time, so the flight froms Midlands would have given some amount of time over south coast. With regards to our Royal Navy which is well placed to cover any landings on the south coast, the luftwafffe would have subdued the navy. At this stage no navy could compete against aircraft. The Stukas had ran riot over merchant ships in the channel so i dont think they would have had that much issues over navy. Not to mention any active subs the germans had. With regards to the British army, we were in trouble following the Dunkirk debacle, most of our equipment was left on the beaches in France, couple with the fact we were raw troops. Home Guard was a joke, formed mainly to raise morale. In my opinion, if the Germans had won the Battle of Britain, the threat of invasion 'Sea Lion' would have been enough for parliament and we would have sued for peace.
 

Proff3RTR

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Messages
4,270
Reaction score
597
Location
Cornwall
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I know its all hypothetical, however if the Germans had won the battle of britain i.e continued to knock out the southern airfields and avoided bombing cities, us brits would have been in trouble. Why? well most of the RAF would have been inoperable, on the basis that we were losing skilled pilots and we were struggling to replace planes. Spitfires were good (not as good as ME109 though - thats another debate!) but werent the main workhorse which was the Hurricanes. What was left of the RAF would have had to pull back to Midlands and would not be able to cover the proposed german landings on the south coast. Indeed the RAF suffered the same issues as the germans with regards to flight time, so the flight froms Midlands would have given some amount of time over south coast. With regards to our Royal Navy which is well placed to cover any landings on the south coast, the luftwafffe would have subdued the navy. At this stage no navy could compete against aircraft. The Stukas had ran riot over merchant ships in the channel so i dont think they would have had that much issues over navy. Not to mention any active subs the germans had. With regards to the British army, we were in trouble following the Dunkirk debacle, most of our equipment was left on the beaches in France, couple with the fact we were raw troops. Home Guard was a joke, formed mainly to raise morale. In my opinion, if the Germans had won the Battle of Britain, the threat of invasion 'Sea Lion' would have been enough for parliament and we would have sued for peace.

That sits ill with me, I really do not see us rolling over like the other European countries (pattern forming there already), and I really do not see the Germans even with their moral and such being able to take us out of the fight, I honestly do think it would of been to much for them.
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Great to see you're a scrapper, but I believe you've got more faith in politicians and public opinion than I. Sorry to say, but with a former King as a Nazi sympathizer (at least to some degree) still alive and available and the RAF & Army in tatters, the Royal Navy somewhat neutralized, the British "Empire/Commonwealth" may not have surrendered or sued for peace, but I do think Britain may well have settled for some sort of armistice or cessation of hostilities short of occupation. If total defeat was an option, I'm not to sure of my stance there as the Brits are a stubborn and proud people, not used to occupation, let alone a foreign imposed rule. JMHO as an outsider though.
 

Proff3RTR

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Messages
4,270
Reaction score
597
Location
Cornwall
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Great to see you're a scrapper, but I believe you've got more faith in politicians and public opinion than I. Sorry to say, but with a former King as a Nazi sympathizer (at least to some degree) still alive and available and the RAF & Army in tatters, the Royal Navy somewhat neutralized, the British "Empire/Commonwealth" may not have surrendered or sued for peace, but I do think Britain may well have settled for some sort of armistice or cessation of hostilities short of occupation. If total defeat was an option, I'm not to sure of my stance there as the Brits are a stubborn and proud people, not used to occupation, let alone a foreign imposed rule. JMHO as an outsider though.
That's all good brother, I do though have no faith in our political leaders now a days, and if any of them were around then we would of rolled over the second a German even thought of putting on a stahlhelm yet alone paint a Panzer grey and brown and invade France.
But yes, most Brits are scrappers so I think if the main island had been invaded, Fritz would not of had an easy time of it.
 

RRschultze

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
474
Reaction score
299
Location
Chester, UK
First name
Ian
Country
llUnited Kingdom
That sits ill with me, I really do not see us rolling over like the other European countries (pattern forming there already), and I really do not see the Germans even with their moral and such being able to take us out of the fight, I honestly do think it would of been to much for them.
Yes i knew you wouldnt like it! as i know you are in the armed forces. Realistically though as Eagle4ty mentions we would have settled for some sort of neutrality pact, similar to Spain/Switzerland. I know we are scrappers but Captain Mainwaring (Dad's Army) wouldnt cut the Mustard. Politics would dictate our outcome.
 

Proff3RTR

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Messages
4,270
Reaction score
597
Location
Cornwall
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Yes i knew you wouldnt like it! as i know you are in the armed forces. Realistically though as Eagle4ty mentions we would have settled for some sort of neutrality pact, similar to Spain/Switzerland. I know we are scrappers but Captain Mainwaring (Dad's Army) wouldnt cut the Mustard. Politics would dictate our outcome.
I agree with the 'Home Guard' thing 100% but all is hypothetical and we will never know, but it would of been one hell of a scrap I bet.
 

Bob Walters

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
868
Reaction score
360
Location
Santa Clara, California
Country
llUnited States
Great to see you're a scrapper, but I believe you've got more faith in politicians and public opinion than I. Sorry to say, but with a former King as a Nazi sympathizer (at least to some degree) still alive and available and the RAF & Army in tatters, the Royal Navy somewhat neutralized, the British "Empire/Commonwealth" may not have surrendered or sued for peace, but I do think Britain may well have settled for some sort of armistice or cessation of hostilities short of occupation. If total defeat was an option, I'm not to sure of my stance there as the Brits are a stubborn and proud people, not used to occupation, let alone a foreign imposed rule. JMHO as an outsider though.
Indeed, I have read that a great part of the nobility and the wealthy were secretly Nazi sympathizers. It maybe that the highlands would have held out in a guerilla war and it is possible that Churchill would have fled there.
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
With regards to our Royal Navy which is well placed to cover any landings on the south coast, the luftwafffe would have subdued the navy. At this stage no navy could compete against aircraft. The Stukas had ran riot over merchant ships in the channel so i dont think they would have had that much issues over navy. Not to mention any active subs the germans had.
I am afraid that I have to disagree with that. The LW had decent success against Channel coastal traffic, true enough, but that was against slow cumbersome tubs but had little success against warships at sea. During the Norway campaign the LW sank only two ships in open sea, Bison (F) and Afridi (B) while with an evacuation convoy from Namsos. Indeed if I remember correctly the first success of the LW against any warship at sea was against one of their own destroyers, the Leberecht Maass, in early '40 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wikinger). Being tied to convoy escort increases the vulnerability to air attack compared to being part of a destroyer group hell bent at getting at an invasion force.

The LW (X Fliegerkorps) did become proficient against naval vessels in the Med, but that was more than a year later. Similarly their successes against the Artic Convoys was still much in the future. Against destroyers, little chance, smaller cruisers, a bit better but larger cruisers and battleships and battlecruisers a fair chance but those larger ships with their good protection would have a very good chance at shrugging off hits from 250kg General Purpose (HE) bombs that were the heaviest available to the Ju-87. The LW also had few torpedo bombers available. This is '40 BoB, not '41 Pearl Harbour or '42 Midway.
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,358
Reaction score
10,208
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
Against destroyers, little chance, smaller cruisers, a bit better but larger cruisers and battleships and battlecruisers a fair chance but those larger ships with their good protection would have a very good chance at shrugging off hits from 250kg General Purpose (HE) bombs that were the heaviest available to the Ju-87.
Typical bomb armament was one 250kg bomb under the fuselage and 2x 50kg bombs under each wing. But it was also possible to mount a 500kg bomb beneath the fuselage instead (or an 'overloaded' bomb-load totalling 1000kg which would not have been used for the purpose).

von Marwitz
 

Yuri0352

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
1,200
Location
25-30 Hexes
Country
llUnited States
With regards to our Royal Navy which is well placed to cover any landings on the south coast, the luftwafffe would have subdued the navy. At this stage no navy could compete against aircraft. The Stukas had ran riot over merchant ships in the channel so i dont think they would have had that much issues over navy. Not to mention any active subs the germans had.
This opinion fails to consider the fact that the Royal Navy possessed several aircraft carriers which would have also challenged any attempt by the land-based Luftwaffe to gain air superiority over the channel or the landing beaches. Setting the hypothetical aside for a moment, consider the failure of the land based Luftwaffe AND Regia Aeronautica to defeat the Royal Navy and gain control of the Mediterranean during the following two years.

Not to mention the target-rich, barge filled environment within the channel for those 'active subs' of the Royal Navy.
 
Last edited:

Bob Walters

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
868
Reaction score
360
Location
Santa Clara, California
Country
llUnited States
This opinion fails to consider the fact that the Royal Navy possessed several aircraft carriers which would have also challenged any attempt by the land-based Luftwaffe to gain air superiority over the channel or the landing beaches. Setting the hypothetical aside for a moment, consider the failure of the land based Luftwaffe AND Regia Aeronautica to defeat the Royal Navy and gain control of the Mediterranean during the following two years.

Not to mention the target-rich, barge filled environment within the channel for those 'active subs' of the Royal Navy.
when you set aside the hypothetical there is no discussion because everyone has already admitted the Germans did not have s snowballs chance in hell of even being able to land.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
This opinion fails to consider the fact that the Royal Navy possessed several aircraft carriers which would have also challenged any attempt by the land-based Luftwaffe to gain air superiority over the channel or the landing beaches. Setting the hypothetical aside for a moment, consider the failure of the land based Luftwaffe AND Regia Aeronautica to defeat the Royal Navy and gain control of the Mediterranean during the following two years.

Not to mention the target-rich, barge filled environment within the channel for those 'active subs' of the Royal Navy.
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
 

Yuri0352

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
1,200
Location
25-30 Hexes
Country
llUnited States
The German/Italian failure to secure the Mediterranean really can't be put down to the British carriers, I don't think.

JR
True, but then again I never made such an implication.

Regarding the quoted stats for FAA aircraft during the planned Sea Lion time frame, it's anyone's guess as to how many of these aircraft would have been actually available within the British Isles to challenge the invasion. The only certainty is that even one or two carriers would have been more than the Kriegsmarine would have brought to the battle.

173 might not be a 'big heap of aircraft', however the Cactus Air Force performed a commendable job of maintaining air superiority over the Solomon islands with far fewer planes.
 

witchbottles

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
9,100
Reaction score
2,254
Location
Rio Vista, CA
Country
llUnited States
True, but then again I never made such an implication.

Regarding the quoted stats for FAA aircraft during the planned Sea Lion time frame, it's anyone's guess as to how many of these aircraft would have been actually available within the British Isles to challenge the invasion. The only certainty is that even one or two carriers would have been more than the Kriegsmarine would have brought to the battle.

173 might not be a 'big heap of aircraft', however the Cactus Air Force performed a commendable job of maintaining air superiority over the Solomon islands with far fewer planes.
true enough on the Cactus Air Force - but the F4F-3 Wildcat was an even match vs any fielded Japanese aircraft of the time period in 1942. The same cannot be said of the Fleet Air Arm planes vs their Luftwaffe counterparts - with the possible exception of the Swordfish being on a par as a torpedo plane to the AR-95 / 195, HA-140, Do-22/ 217, Fi-167, He-59/115 or other various early German torpedo bombers, most of which were biplane or high wing floatplanes.


I do think it is highly unrealistic to assume the Royal Navy could have pulled all the aircraft carriers from their stations to the British Isles home ports in the summer of 1940. One was tied down in the Med, another in Ceylon, a third on the convoy run from the UK to Gibralter.
 

Bob Walters

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
868
Reaction score
360
Location
Santa Clara, California
Country
llUnited States
True, but then again I never made such an implication.

Regarding the quoted stats for FAA aircraft during the planned Sea Lion time frame, it's anyone's guess as to how many of these aircraft would have been actually available within the British Isles to challenge the invasion. The only certainty is that even one or two carriers would have been more than the Kriegsmarine would have brought to the battle.

173 might not be a 'big heap of aircraft', however the Cactus Air Force performed a commendable job of maintaining air superiority over the Solomon islands with far fewer planes.
Yes but the aircraft in the Cactus Air Force were not Swordfish, Blackburn Skuas, or Fairly Fulmars.
 

RRschultze

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
474
Reaction score
299
Location
Chester, UK
First name
Ian
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I am afraid that I have to disagree with that. The LW had decent success against Channel coastal traffic, true enough, but that was against slow cumbersome tubs but had little success against warships at sea. During the Norway campaign the LW sank only two ships in open sea, Bison (F) and Afridi (B) while with an evacuation convoy from Namsos. Indeed if I remember correctly the first success of the LW against any warship at sea was against one of their own destroyers, the Leberecht Maass, in early '40 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wikinger). Being tied to convoy escort increases the vulnerability to air attack compared to being part of a destroyer group hell bent at getting at an invasion force.

The LW (X Fliegerkorps) did become proficient against naval vessels in the Med, but that was more than a year later. Similarly their successes against the Artic Convoys was still much in the future. Against destroyers, little chance, smaller cruisers, a bit better but larger cruisers and battleships and battlecruisers a fair chance but those larger ships with their good protection would have a very good chance at shrugging off hits from 250kg General Purpose (HE) bombs that were the heaviest available to the Ju-87. The LW also had few torpedo bombers available. This is '40 BoB, not '41 Pearl Harbour or '42 Midway.
Dont be afraid Paul! its all opinion and a healthy debate over a hypothetical situation. I note your comments, however during the Norway campaign there was not 3 Luflotte involved. On the assumption that the RAF was neutralised per my earlier comments, i'm not sure that the Royal Navy would have sailed in to the English Channel, due to it being extremely narrow. With the amount of bombers available to the germans carrying either 250 or 500kg bombs it would be enough against the thin deck armor. I havent even mentioned the possibility of german u-boats getting involved as well.
 
Last edited:

RRschultze

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
474
Reaction score
299
Location
Chester, UK
First name
Ian
Country
llUnited Kingdom
This opinion fails to consider the fact that the Royal Navy possessed several aircraft carriers which would have also challenged any attempt by the land-based Luftwaffe to gain air superiority over the channel or the landing beaches. Setting the hypothetical aside for a moment, consider the failure of the land based Luftwaffe AND Regia Aeronautica to defeat the Royal Navy and gain control of the Mediterranean during the following two years.

Not to mention the target-rich, barge filled environment within the channel for those 'active subs' of the Royal Navy.
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.
 
Top