The problem, if you like, is that Hitler fell into war; he did not really plan for it initially. Then, when he found he was at war, he tried to keep it as a limited war until after the defeat of France where his ambition finally got the better of him. Most of the German High Command were deeply surprised at the ease of their victory over France and the BEF, Hitler included.

If Germany had somehow reached a long-term agreement with the Soviet Union they would have both the time and the resources to build up both their surface and u-boot fleets under a modified Z-Plan, as well as beefing up the Luftwaffe. A long-term peace between the 2 dominant European powers would have spelled disaster for the UK. Just as well that it was as about as likely as the Catholic and Protestant churches reforming. In that scenario, if the will had been there, it would only have been a matter of time before Britain fell. But I do not believe that would ever have happened and the UK would probably have fallen into line at least to neutrality towards Nazi Germany.

It goes without saying that had the Wehrmacht managed to get a reasonable force landed on the English coast soon after Dunkirk it would have been all over bar the shouting. Especially because the BEF would have virtually no heavy equipment having left it all behind in Normandy.

All of this surely indicates that Hitlers focus was never really on the West, it seems that his plans were to simply keep them at arms length while he headed East, however once he had finished with the Russians would that have been the end of it?

Well, Mein Kampf pretty much summed up Hitler's intent. Had he conquered Russia, his plans for the region would have kept him, and Germany, busy for years. These plans would only have been possible I think if Hitler had stability on his Western Front, which meant some kind of arrangement with Britain.

Even the plans that Germany and the USSR had under their treaty were pretty radical. It involved dividing the planet into 2 spheres of influence; German and Soviet with the line basically down their border where Poland was. Britain, of course, would be in the German half.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I am not certain 10 carriers floating around the Atlantic unsupported and in weather that really would have made flight operations almost impossible would really have been that much of a threat.

Well the British carriers rendered the Bismark useless in the Atlantic with their antiquated Swordfishes so I expect the British Battleships would have been very suseptible to air attack. Yes some support would have been necessary but this was mainly to defend against air attack, the carriers themselves with half decent aircraft could have done this.

Originally Posted by perseus

Well the British carriers rendered the Bismark useless in the Atlantic with their antiquated Swordfishes so I expect the British Battleships would have been very suseptible to air attack. Yes some support would have been necessary but this was mainly to defend against air attack, the carriers themselves with half decent aircraft could have done this.

This is true however the British carriers had battleship, cruiser and destroyer escorts along with fleet supply ships they just didn't let carriers go sailing off on their own.
For Germany to field 10 Carriers they would have needed at least 100-200 support and escort ships.

They would have been better off concentrating on submarines and a long range heavy bomber.

Submarines yes but I wouldn't see the point of a long-range heavy bomber capability for Germany for use against the UK. The distances involved would not make it worthwhile. Plus, unless you are using a WMD, strategic bombing in itself does not win wars. This has been proved time and time again.

If there had been a period of peace after the Battle of France, one option for Germany might have been to attempt a second Battle of Britain, after they had built up the Luftwaffe and made the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 the fighter mainstay.

I am not sure why you need a fleet of ships with the carriers, what are they going to be attacked by? Swordfish Biplanes? surely mincemeat for any fighter aircraft. The Germans already had a good supply of fuelling ships. Perhaps a mix of carriers and heavy cruisers may have been a better option. The aircraft would attack the large ships the heavy cruisers the destroyers and the Uboats the dispersed convoy.

A suitable time for invasion would have been summer 1942 especially if the USA could be kept out of the war. The FW 190 was superior to the Spitfire V as demonstrated over Dieppe and was available in suitable numbers. Of course this may have been academic since no convoys, no fuel, no ships, no aircraft.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Submarines yes but I wouldn't see the point of a long-range heavy bomber capability for Germany for use against the UK. The distances involved would not make it worthwhile. Plus, unless you are using a WMD, strategic bombing in itself does not win wars. This has been proved time and time again.

If there had been a period of peace after the Battle of France, one option for Germany might have been to attempt a second Battle of Britain, after they had built up the Luftwaffe and made the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 the fighter mainstay.

I probably used the wrong term when I said long range but I am convinced Germany needed a heavy bomber.
I am also uncertain the FW-190 was ever going to become the mainstay of the Luftwaffe after all it never showed signs of filling the role after 1940 and given that they were still producing Me-109 variants in 1945 I think it safe to say that Me-109 was going to fill the role until jet fighters took their place.

In terms of the Fw-190 I was under the impression it was really only designed for Eastern Front operations and the need for an aircraft that was heavily armed and easily maintained in primitive conditions which really wasn't a requirement on the Western Front.

Originally Posted by perseus

I am not sure why you need a fleet of ships with the carriers, what are they going to be attacked by? Swordfish Biplanes? surely mincemeat for any fighter aircraft. The Germans already had a good supply of fuelling ships. Perhaps a mix of carriers and heavy cruisers may have been a better option. The aircraft would attack the large ships the heavy cruisers the destroyers and the Uboats the dispersed convoy.

Personally if you look at the amount of resources the Tirpitz tied down just sitting in a Norwegian Fjord they may have been better off sticking a battleship in every fjord and tying up 80% of the Royal Navy and Bomber Command.

In terms of sailing a carrier around without support I would like to point out that the British has submarines and carriers were not strong on ASW during WW2 on top of this a carrier may sink 1 or 2 or 5 destroyers coming at it but I will guarantee that one of the opposing task forces battleships, cruisers or destroyers will still take it down.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I probably used the wrong term when I said long range but I am convinced Germany needed a heavy bomber.
I am also uncertain the FW-190 was ever going to become the mainstay of the Luftwaffe after all it never showed signs of filling the role after 1940 and given that they were still producing Me-109 variants in 1945 I think it safe to say that Me-109 was going to fill the role until jet fighters took their place.

In terms of the Fw-190 I was under the impression it was really only designed for Eastern Front operations and the need for an aircraft that was heavily armed and easily maintained in primitive conditions which really wasn't a requirement on the Western Front.

Not sure why you think that Monty but it certainly was superior to the Me-109, Spitfire Mk V and P-51a. The only reason why it did not wholly replace the Me-109 was due to the fact that Germany was embroiled in a titanic struggle with the the USSR. If there was no war against Russia then I'm certain the Fw 190 would have fully replaced the Me-109 in Luftwaffe squadrons.

Hello everyone, this my first post but have been following this thread. I think many of the reasons stated are valid points which certainly contributed to their defeat. My opinion is logistics & lack of mobility for most of the German army is what prevented a German victory. While they were masters of Blitzkrieg tactics their army was mostly unmechanized or dependent on horses for transport.

There are many notable examples of panzer units having to stop and wait for infantry support and supply to catch up. This negated some of the tactical advantages of Blitzkrieg. Had the German army been fully mechanized army with equally mobile supply then outcome could have been much different. The added mobility would have yielded even greater encirclements and gotten them closer to Moscow much sooner.