Special Forces in WW2: were they worth the time, money, and effort?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**queen_annes_revenge**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Excommunicatus wrote:
The Abwehr were utterly [Expletive Deleted]ing useless. SOE were very necessary. Ditto SMERSH.

I don't know enough to venture an opinion on the others.

In all honesty, I'm not 100% sure about the Abwehr. Were they bad because they were genuinely incompetent, or were they deliberately bad, because a lot of them were anti-Nazi, and thus, deliberately screwed up?

I don't know...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:
I may have missed it (just skimmed above posts) but the various raider units in the Pacific did a fantastic job of keeping Japanese land forces occupied and messing up logistics lines which greatly enabled the over all island hopping campaign.

Some of the UDT and other beach reconnaissance teams REALLY did a lot, helping to determine suitable landing approaches and clearing obstacles and such.

I'm a fan. Just the threat of a commando or SAS or other group operating tied up lots of German security forces to guard potential targets.

I forgot about the Pacific.

But to address your point about German security forces: from what I've read, most of them seemed to be second or third line units, or injured soldiers getting back in the saddle, so if Commandos are tying these guys down, is it a great loss to the Germans? Fair enough if it were quality divisions, but green troops? . I'm not totally convinced by that argument.

And coming back to one of my original questions to everybody, because there's a lot of knowledgeable folk on dakka, but did the Russians, the Japanese, or the Italians have Special Forces in WW2? I know the Italians had them in WW1.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

queen_annes_revenge wrote:
in terms of demolition of targets, yes. one specialist unit could blow up a target that bombing raids would have to drop hundreds of bombs to hit.

I'm usually wrong on these things

but I can't think of many vital targets that were blown up by Special Forces in WW2 from either side.

https://www.historyanswers.co.uk/history-of-war/8-greatest-british-commando-missions-of-world-war-2/

also, hitler seemed to think so, otherwise he probably wouldntve issued the kommandobefahl

**Frazzled**

Special forces were key for reconnaissance, which was vital in all theaters of war.

In Europe they were used to investigate potential landing zones for the Wallies. On the Eastern Front both sides used recce units extensively.

In the Pacific Navy and Marine units investigated landing zones and Japanese force dispositions, supported guerilla activities, and took key islands. On the Japanese side Japanese Marines were key in landings and critical assaults.

**Easy E**

Sometimes, when you are on the defensive you have to be seen to be doing something; ergo British Commandos!

**Grey Templar**

LordofHats wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The Italian special forces were, from what I remember, excellent throughout all of WW2; overall Italy's problem seemed to be that they had potato-tier commanders commanding excellent soldiers. Their scuba divers both before and during the war were top of the line, and I seem to remember something about Italian mountain troops performing well in the Caucasus, although I can't find anything right now with a quick Google.

Italian troops are always confusing, in part cause I'm unaware of anyone who extensively researched them by their own words. Most sources on them that come up in English language history books is the opinion of others, Germans, Brits, Americans, or Frenchmen. And everyone had wildly different, or even contradictory, opinions on the quality and ability of Italian soldiers during the war. About the only thing that remains consistent is that "the commanders sucked." Kind of a big hole in the current record of the war.

Italy was in a pretty bad spot for many reasons, none of which were the specific cause of their total inadequacy.

They had to deal with having a weak economy, a poorly developed industrial base, made very very poor logistical choices, and had a leader who was reaching for a goal that was even more out of reach than what Hitler was trying for.

Italy was basically the same as Germany. Just without any of the positive things they had going into the war, like a strong economy, good generals, and solid industrial base to provide for a war.

**Insurgency Walker**

AndrewC wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
but I was looking at some interesting stats about WW1 and WW2. Many people talk about the best rifle, the best tank, or whatever, and then you read that 50% of ALL casualties in WW1 were from artillery. 99.9% of soldiers never saw or heard the shell that killed them, for obvious reasons. And it's a similar number for WW2.

Sorry to be flippant, but kind of hard to ask a dead guy if he saw or heard the shell that killed him.

With regard to the troops, the threat that they were there, effective or not, meant they had value in existing. The enemy troops were then worrying about what might be out there rather than on the job to hand.

I also think that there is bias in your question. It is human nature to dwell upon the things that went wrong rather than right and so by your initial post seem to support that theory.

For example the commando raid on the docks. Those men went in knowing that they were unlikely to escape or survive, yet they went in and completed their mission, but you seem to view this as a failure because many, almost all of them never returned. Whereas I would view that as a success.

After the debacle that was the trench warfare of WW1, commanders were trying something new, and as such some worked and some failed.

Just to check on your viewpoint, Op Market Garden, Allied failure or German success?

Though I'm not the OP, I would like to know your views on Market Garden. I see Market Guarden as a failure of the allied intelligence and a success of the German mechanics working in the field. It was also a failure of the German high command as they didn't see,( crap I can't remember his name Model?) the obvious obfuscation of the motorized elements of Models? division which were supposed to have been directed to the western front.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, causality doesn't mean dead, which I think is an assumption made by the OP. You don't hear the round that kills you is sort of the aftermath of supper sonic weapons

Toss in the effect on the brain that extreme trauma can have and many people find it hard to grasp exactly what happened when things went sideways.

**Kilkrazy**

I don't think anything could be considered a strategic success for the Germans after they failed to stop the D Day landings.

Nothing they achieved after that did anything except to stave off their inevitable defeat by a few more months.

A real success would involve some way of ending the war without unconditional surrender. The last turning point in that regard probably was losing the Battle of the Atlantic in 1943. This prevented the UK from being knocked out, which provided the US with the secure European end of the supply line which re-inforced the Soviet war effort as well as the western allies.

To broaden the topic further, could the Soviet Union have beaten the Nazis alone if the UK had been knocked out in 1942, and they had fought alone?

**AlmightyWalrus**

The US was already in the war by that point.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Frazzled wrote:
Special forces were key for reconnaissance, which was vital in all theaters of war.

In Europe they were used to investigate potential landing zones for the Wallies. On the Eastern Front both sides used recce units extensively.

In the Pacific Navy and Marine units investigated landing zones and Japanese force dispositions, supported guerilla activities, and took key islands. On the Japanese side Japanese Marines were key in landings and critical assaults.

Recon units aren't special forces though, are they? A few armoured cars scouting ahead for a Panzer Division, will obviously contain people who are trained in recon techniques, but to me that's no different to being a medic, or a cook, or an engineer. It's a different skill set, for sure, but not 'special' IMO.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Elbows wrote:
I think there are more severe cases of this, but it's one of the facts of life with any military career. Ideally special forces produce an effect far beyond their size would suggest, and that was arguably the case most often. The units were small enough to not jeopardize the well-being of the normal military (often the special forces soldiers would go on to have a great impact improving the normal military afterwards as instructors, future etc.)

Training does take time and costs money, but your end goal is high performance. Consider combat aviators - who, at least currently - are massively time consuming and expensive to train. Imagine all of the time and cost of losing a single twin-seat modern combat aircraft, perhaps on its first flight. That's a catastrophic loss of time and materiel, but wouldn't say it wasn't worth the risk in most situations.

You don't "not" train someone to do something special because they may not be worth it. You do it, because they may be worth it. With special forces, so much that is learned trickles down into the normal military and then becomes a facet of modern combat that we take for granted, even if its impact isn't clearly stated.

I agree with the gist of this argument, and obviously losing a bomber on its first flight would be a disaster, but bombers did far more to win the war than some Commandos blowing up a German ammo dump.

Destroying the factory that makes the ammunition is far more useful in a total war situation than pinprick strikes.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Insurgency Walker wrote:
AndrewC wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
but I was looking at some interesting stats about WW1 and WW2. Many people talk about the best rifle, the best tank, or whatever, and then you read that 50% of ALL casualties in WW1 were from artillery. 99.9% of soldiers never saw or heard the shell that killed them, for obvious reasons. And it's a similar number for WW2.

Sorry to be flippant, but kind of hard to ask a dead guy if he saw or heard the shell that killed him.

With regard to the troops, the threat that they were there, effective or not, meant they had value in existing. The enemy troops were then worrying about what might be out there rather than on the job to hand.

I also think that there is bias in your question. It is human nature to dwell upon the things that went wrong rather than right and so by your initial post seem to support that theory.

For example the commando raid on the docks. Those men went in knowing that they were unlikely to escape or survive, yet they went in and completed their mission, but you seem to view this as a failure because many, almost all of them never returned. Whereas I would view that as a success.

After the debacle that was the trench warfare of WW1, commanders were trying something new, and as such some worked and some failed.

Just to check on your viewpoint, Op Market Garden, Allied failure or German success?

Though I'm not the OP, I would like to know your views on Market Garden. I see Market Guarden as a failure of the allied intelligence and a success of the German mechanics working in the field. It was also a failure of the German high command as they didn't see,( crap I can't remember his name Model?) the obvious obfuscation of the motorized elements of Models? division which were supposed to have been directed to the western front.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, causality doesn't mean dead, which I think is an assumption made by the OP. You don't hear the round that kills you is sort of the aftermath of supper sonic weapons Toss in the effect on the brain that extreme trauma can have and many people find it hard to grasp exactly what happened when things went sideways.

In my humble opinion, people are missing the point I was trying to make.

You can talk until the cows come home about Tiger tanks taking out 30 Shermans with one shot, or Commandos stealing Hitler's lunch money, or this rifle was better than that rifle, or 100 other things, but the stats are saying that since the days of proper artillery, say from the 1700s, that artillery is the war winning weapon that inflicts the most casualties.

Only disease comes close to matching artillery for the most casualties in war.

**AdmiralHalsey**

There's no denying that special forces did stuff. Even good stuff. Even valuable, significant stuff.

What's unfortunately much harder to tell is what would have happened if all those exceptional men and women had been front line soldiers, instructors, NCOs, and officers. The real fighting on the front lines is done by a handful of people. If you swap out the best of those to contrate them in one place, it lowers the quality of the real fighting units, and exposes those individuals to horrific attrition.

German and Britian both suffered from huge manpower shortages and quality troops - Things that could have been helped by not having those men largely wasting thier time in seldom used prestige units.

This is particularly true of paratroopers on all sides, who rarely did anything but consumed the very fittest of men.

**Frazzled**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Special forces were key for reconnaissance, which was vital in all theaters of war.

In Europe they were used to investigate potential landing zones for the Wallies. On the Eastern Front both sides used recce units extensively.

In the Pacific Navy and Marine units investigated landing zones and Japanese force dispositions, supported guerilla activities, and took key islands. On the Japanese side Japanese Marines were key in landings and critical assaults.

Recon units aren't special forces though, are they? A few armoured cars scouting ahead for a Panzer Division, will obviously contain people who are trained in recon techniques, but to me that's no different to being a medic, or a cook, or an engineer. It's a different skill set, for sure, but not 'special' IMO.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Elbows wrote:
I think there are more severe cases of this, but it's one of the facts of life with any military career. Ideally special forces produce an effect far beyond their size would suggest, and that was arguably the case most often. The units were small enough to not jeopardize the well-being of the normal military (often the special forces soldiers would go on to have a great impact improving the normal military afterwards as instructors, future etc.)

Training does take time and costs money, but your end goal is high performance. Consider combat aviators - who, at least currently - are massively time consuming and expensive to train. Imagine all of the time and cost of losing a single twin-seat modern combat aircraft, perhaps on its first flight. That's a catastrophic loss of time and materiel, but wouldn't say it wasn't worth the risk in most situations.

You don't "not" train someone to do something special because they may not be worth it. You do it, because they may be worth it. With special forces, so much that is learned trickles down into the normal military and then becomes a facet of modern combat that we take for granted, even if its impact isn't clearly stated.

I agree with the gist of this argument, and obviously losing a bomber on its first flight would be a disaster, but bombers did far more to win the war than some Commandos blowing up a German ammo dump.

Destroying the factory that makes the ammunition is far more useful in a total war situation than pinprick strikes.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Insurgency Walker wrote:
AndrewC wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
but I was looking at some interesting stats about WW1 and WW2. Many people talk about the best rifle, the best tank, or whatever, and then you read that 50% of ALL casualties in WW1 were from artillery. 99.9% of soldiers never saw or heard the shell that killed them, for obvious reasons. And it's a similar number for WW2.

Sorry to be flippant, but kind of hard to ask a dead guy if he saw or heard the shell that killed him.

With regard to the troops, the threat that they were there, effective or not, meant they had value in existing. The enemy troops were then worrying about what might be out there rather than on the job to hand.

I also think that there is bias in your question. It is human nature to dwell upon the things that went wrong rather than right and so by your initial post seem to support that theory.

For example the commando raid on the docks. Those men went in knowing that they were unlikely to escape or survive, yet they went in and completed their mission, but you seem to view this as a failure because many, almost all of them never returned. Whereas I would view that as a success.

After the debacle that was the trench warfare of WW1, commanders were trying something new, and as such some worked and some failed.

Just to check on your viewpoint, Op Market Garden, Allied failure or German success?

Though I'm not the OP, I would like to know your views on Market Garden. I see Market Guarden as a failure of the allied intelligence and a success of the German mechanics working in the field. It was also a failure of the German high command as they didn't see,( crap I can't remember his name Model?) the obvious obfuscation of the motorized elements of Models? division which were supposed to have been directed to the western front.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, causality doesn't mean dead, which I think is an assumption made by the OP. You don't hear the round that kills you is sort of the aftermath of supper sonic weapons Toss in the effect on the brain that extreme trauma can have and many people find it hard to grasp exactly what happened when things went sideways.

In my humble opinion, people are missing the point I was trying to make.

You can talk until the cows come home about Tiger tanks taking out 30 Shermans with one shot, or Commandos stealing Hitler's lunch money, or this rifle was better than that rifle, or 100 other things, but the stats are saying that since the days of proper artillery, say from the 1700s, that artillery is the war winning weapon that inflicts the most casualties.

Only disease comes close to matching artillery for the most casualties in war.

Tell that to a Recon Marine. They'll never find your body.

Thats not a recce unit.
Recon is a key if not the key use of special forces throughout history. A scout with a radio is more lethal than a tank company. Plus with the radio they can obliterate the tank company.

**Not Online!!!**

Frazzled wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Special forces were key for reconnaissance, which was vital in all theaters of war.

In Europe they were used to investigate potential landing zones for the Wallies. On the Eastern Front both sides used recce units extensively.

In the Pacific Navy and Marine units investigated landing zones and Japanese force dispositions, supported guerilla activities, and took key islands. On the Japanese side Japanese Marines were key in landings and critical assaults.

Recon units aren't special forces though, are they? A few armoured cars scouting ahead for a Panzer Division, will obviously contain people who are trained in recon techniques, but to me that's no different to being a medic, or a cook, or an engineer. It's a different skill set, for sure, but not 'special' IMO.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Elbows wrote:
I think there are more severe cases of this, but it's one of the facts of life with any military career. Ideally special forces produce an effect far beyond their size would suggest, and that was arguably the case most often. The units were small enough to not jeopardize the well-being of the normal military (often the special forces soldiers would go on to have a great impact improving the normal military afterwards as instructors, future etc.)

Training does take time and costs money, but your end goal is high performance. Consider combat aviators - who, at least currently - are massively time consuming and expensive to train. Imagine all of the time and cost of losing a single twin-seat modern combat aircraft, perhaps on its first flight. That's a catastrophic loss of time and materiel, but wouldn't say it wasn't worth the risk in most situations.

You don't "not" train someone to do something special because they may not be worth it. You do it, because they may be worth it. With special forces, so much that is learned trickles down into the normal military and then becomes a facet of modern combat that we take for granted, even if its impact isn't clearly stated.

I agree with the gist of this argument, and obviously losing a bomber on its first flight would be a disaster, but bombers did far more to win the war than some Commandos blowing up a German ammo dump.

Destroying the factory that makes the ammunition is far more useful in a total war situation than pinprick strikes.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Insurgency Walker wrote:
AndrewC wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
but I was looking at some interesting stats about WW1 and WW2. Many people talk about the best rifle, the best tank, or whatever, and then you read that 50% of ALL casualties in WW1 were from artillery. 99.9% of soldiers never saw or heard the shell that killed them, for obvious reasons. And it's a similar number for WW2.

Sorry to be flippant, but kind of hard to ask a dead guy if he saw or heard the shell that killed him.

With regard to the troops, the threat that they were there, effective or not, meant they had value in existing. The enemy troops were then worrying about what might be out there rather than on the job to hand.

I also think that there is bias in your question. It is human nature to dwell upon the things that went wrong rather than right and so by your initial post seem to support that theory.

For example the commando raid on the docks. Those men went in knowing that they were unlikely to escape or survive, yet they went in and completed their mission, but you seem to view this as a failure because many, almost all of them never returned. Whereas I would view that as a success.

After the debacle that was the trench warfare of WW1, commanders were trying something new, and as such some worked and some failed.

Just to check on your viewpoint, Op Market Garden, Allied failure or German success?

Though I'm not the OP, I would like to know your views on Market Garden. I see Market Guarden as a failure of the allied intelligence and a success of the German mechanics working in the field. It was also a failure of the German high command as they didn't see,( crap I can't remember his name Model?) the obvious obfuscation of the motorized elements of Models? division which were supposed to have been directed to the western front.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, causality doesn't mean dead, which I think is an assumption made by the OP. You don't hear the round that kills you is sort of the aftermath of supper sonic weapons Toss in the effect on the brain that extreme trauma can have and many people find it hard to grasp exactly what happened when things went sideways.

In my humble opinion, people are missing the point I was trying to make.

You can talk until the cows come home about Tiger tanks taking out 30 Shermans with one shot, or Commandos stealing Hitler's lunch money, or this rifle was better than that rifle, or 100 other things, but the stats are saying that since the days of proper artillery, say from the 1700s, that artillery is the war winning weapon that inflicts the most casualties.

Only disease comes close to matching artillery for the most casualties in war.

Tell that to a Recon Marine. They'll never find your body.

Thats not a recce unit.
Recon is a key if not the key use of special forces throughout history. A scout with a radio is more lethal than a tank company. Plus with the radio they can obliterate the tank company.

Yeah, if the guns behind the Radio or plane are used competently.
If not, the scout literally is worthless.

**Kilkrazy**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The US was already in the war by that point.

Yes, that's right.

However if the UK had been knocked out, the US aid for the Soviets would have had to go via the Pacific-Vladivostock-Siberian Railway route, which was a lot less efficient than the North Atlantic route. Not to mention that the UK also delivered a lot of aid to the SU. it wasn't just US materiel.

So the question is how important the foreign aid was to the Soviet war effort, especially as in my scenario, the Soviets can't hope for any western front to open up.

**Excommunicatus**

IMO, if Britain collapses in 1942 then it's a coin-toss as to whether the CCCP holds.

If Britain falls in 1940/41, the CCCP is boned.

With massive amounts of hindsight added, obviously.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Where does Iceland go in this hypothetical situation? Wouldn't the US be able to base escort DDs there and continue the Murmansk convoys?

I think a bigger game changer would be that Germany wouldn't be getting bombed 24/7 because there's nowhere for the US to fly from.

**Not Online!!!**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Where does Iceland go in this hypothetical situation? Wouldn't the US be able to base escort DDs there and continue the Murmansk convoys?

I think a bigger game changer would be that Germany wouldn't be getting bombed 24/7 because there's nowhere for the US to fly from.

from russia directly?
In that scenario it wouldn't be unlikely that airpower would've been moved over to the CCCP.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Is the infrastructure actually there though? Even if it is, it's a far way from the front in 1942 to Germany, and the planes would presumably be flying from further back.

Plus, would Stalin tolerate the capitalist pig-dogs from the enemy of the people's revolution to send actual troops to Soviet soil?

At least Japan would go down faster due to the US focusing on them first, so there's that.

**Not Online!!!**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Is the infrastructure actually there though? Even if it is, it's a far way from the front in 1942 to Germany, and the planes would presumably be flying from further back.

Plus, would Stalin tolerate the capitalist pig-dogs from the enemy of the people's revolution to send actual troops to Soviet soil?

At least Japan would go down faster due to the US focusing on them first, so there's that.

When the uk 1941 collapses, i doubt india would stand in the way of Japan.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Stand in the way of what, though? Even if they won in China the war against Japan ends with mushroom clouds. Japan and Germany combined just cannot out-Navy the US and as Japan is an island...

**Not Online!!!**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Stand in the way of what, though? Even if they won in China the war against Japan ends with mushroom clouds. Japan and Germany combined just cannot out-Navy the US and as Japan is an island...

I personally doubt that if the UK colapses that it would lead to an intact navy.
And with the big navy out of the water and probably a now lot more legitimate Vichy regime (another big navy) and a UK puppet, because let's face it direct controll the germans will not implement, the case isn't as clear cut anymore.

**Excommunicatus**

I have a seriously hard time believing that the Royal Navy would fall, intact, into German hands.

After the surrender of France, Britain blew up French vessels (and French sailors) in North Africa to avoid them falling into German hands.

Maybe the Kreigsmarine get one or two new tubs, but the majority of the fleet would be scuttled rather than risk capture, IMO.

**Kilkrazy**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Where does Iceland go in this hypothetical situation? Wouldn't the US be able to base escort DDs there and continue the Murmansk convoys?

I think a bigger game changer would be that Germany wouldn't be getting bombed 24/7 because there's nowhere for the US to fly from.

Imagine the logistical effort needed for the US to put a major base on Iceland when the Atlantic has already been conquered by the U Boats and you've got no air cover for most of it because the UK is gone. Plus the Germans would be able to deploy their surface raiders, as no Royal Navy to stop them.

And you're absolutely right about the bomber campaign.

**LordofHats**

Excommunicatus wrote:

After the surrender of France, Britain blew up French vessels (and French sailors) in North Africa to avoid them falling into German hands.

Something the French took great offense to, because the Germans weren't even trying to take their ships yet and they insisted they'd scuttle themselves before letting the Germans have the fleet.

Which they proved a few years later when Germany did try to seize the French fleet and the French scuttled it. I doubt the British would be any different, and that's ignoring that the fall of Britain is such an out there possibility that it's kind of whimsy to even entertain it. The situation with Britian and Germany in 1940 and 1941 developed because Germany couldn't topple Britain and British leadership, however concerned, felt secure enough that surrender wasn't an option. That fight was never about Britain enduring as much as Britain's empire enduring (which it didn't even though the Brits won the war). It's hard to fathom a scenario where Germany could ever dominate the Atlantic when they couldn't even dominate a small island nation.

**AlmightyWalrus**

The Kriegsmarine isn't going to out-navy the US. It just won't happen. The question is if the US can make enough escorts to cover the convoys, to which the answer is probably yes. IIRC the US alone had something like 33% of the world's total industrial capacity. It's just not a fight at all. The question is how many additional Soviet troops would die before the US compensated for the loss of Britain.

I assumed the UK folding meant a negotiated settlement, not a Nazi puppet. Otherwise we're going so far off the track that the Japanese might as well have succeeded in making a practical weapon out of their death ray project. The only way Nazi Germany occupies the UK in 42 is if Winston Churchill lets them across the channel without a fight. A negotiated settlement letting Hitler turn his full attention towards the USSR is much more plausible. Even if the UK falls, the Royal Navy is by then either sunk or safely in the US. There is no way Nazi Germany gets the ships, and even if they did they have neither the infrastructure nor the expertise to use them.

Plus, the French fleet scuttled itself when the Germans came for it. Why would they not in this case?

**Excommunicatus**

We have rather wandered into the realms of fancy.

Let's talk about SOE agents killing Heydrich instead. That's one of my favourite parts.

**Haighus**

Going back to special forces, aside from the recon effects which are definitely worthwhile, I think the biggest impact is the potential threat.

Once strategic targets start getting hit far behind the frontline, it necessitates increasing the garrisons of every strategic target that could feasibly be raided. That is a lot of troops that are no longer supporting the frontline. Even if they are second or third tier troops, they are no longer supporting the first tier troops, who will be stretched thinner at the front.

It is similar to some of the effects of strategic bombing- aside from the direct impact a lot of resources are tied up in air defence and interception. The air war over Western Europe didn't cost Germany that many lives in the scheme of WWII, but it cost them huge resources, including large amounts of valuable and scarce materials like fuel and high-quality alloys. All resources that would've served Germany very well on the Eastern front or in the Mediterranean/Western front.

Special forces raids has a similar strategic effect.

**Not Online!!!**

Excommunicatus wrote:
I have a seriously hard time believing that the Royal Navy would fall, intact, into German hands.

After the surrender of France, Britain blew up French vessels (and French sailors) in North Africa to avoid them falling into German hands.

Maybe the Kreigsmarine get one or two new tubs, but the majority of the fleet would be scuttled rather than risk capture, IMO.

I never stated the whole Navy, also never underestimate sympathisants for radical ideologies that seize the moment in a extreme situation.
Also even if the Navy get schuttled that is allready a massive weight off the Kriegsmarine.

**AndrewC**

Insurgency Walker wrote:
Though I'm not the OP, I would like to know your views on Market Garden. I see Market Guarden as a failure of the allied intelligence and a success of the German mechanics working in the field. It was also a failure of the German high command as they didn't see,( crap I can't remember his name Model?) the obvious obfuscation of the motorized elements of Models? division which were supposed to have been directed to the western front.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, causality doesn't mean dead, which I think is an assumption made by the OP. You don't hear the round that kills you is sort of the aftermath of supper sonic weapons Toss in the effect on the brain that extreme trauma can have and many people find it hard to grasp exactly what happened when things went sideways.

I had the opportunity about 10 years ago to go on a battlefield tour of Op MG. Not a holiday tour but one lead and planned by UK MoD. Really good. Op MG was a German success. It always annoys me that most people view it as an Allied failure, thereby diminishing the successes of the field officers leading the various units pinning the paras in place. It came as a surprise to learn that the grid coordinates system, much beloved of artillery men world over originated in the units involved in defending. The allies on the ground could never understand how the germans managed such quick and accurate fire in the towns without spotters. Also following the Op, countries the world over then used the German response as the base plan to counter any such aerial assault in their home country.

If you ever get the chance try and find a book called "It never snows in September". It's a good read.

Cheers

Andrew

**Vulcan**

Not Online!!! wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Is the infrastructure actually there though? Even if it is, it's a far way from the front in 1942 to Germany, and the planes would presumably be flying from further back.

Plus, would Stalin tolerate the capitalist pig-dogs from the enemy of the people's revolution to send actual troops to Soviet soil?

At least Japan would go down faster due to the US focusing on them first, so there's that.

When the uk 1941 collapses, i doubt india would stand in the way of Japan.

Which just means the Japanese get stuck in a quagmire in India, on top of being stuck in one in China, on top of being the primary focus for America's attention in order to clear the route to Vladivostok and therefore supply the Soviets easier.

A note in passing: The distance from Iceland to Berlin is less than the distance from Saipan to Tokyo. The B-29s would do it just fine, they just wouldn't have as nice a climate to operate from.

I also think that counting out the opening of a western front just because Britain sued for peace (a German invasion of Britain simply wasn't happening) is being pessimistic. Operation Torch could easily have still happened, and from there invasions of Sicily, Italy, and southern France are quite possible.

**Not Online!!!**

Vulcan wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Is the infrastructure actually there though? Even if it is, it's a far way from the front in 1942 to Germany, and the planes would presumably be flying from further back.

Plus, would Stalin tolerate the capitalist pig-dogs from the enemy of the people's revolution to send actual troops to Soviet soil?

At least Japan would go down faster due to the US focusing on them first, so there's that.

When the uk 1941 collapses, i doubt india would stand in the way of Japan.

Which just means the Japanese get stuck in a quagmire in India, on top of being stuck in one in China, on top of being the primary focus for America's attention in order to clear the route to Vladivostok and therefore supply the Soviets easier.

A note in passing: The distance from Iceland to Berlin is less than the distance from Saipan to Tokyo. The B-29s would do it just fine, they just wouldn't have as nice a climate to operate from.

I also think that counting out the opening of a western front just because Britain sued for peace (a German invasion of Britain simply wasn't happening) is being pessimistic. Operation Torch could easily have still happened, and from there invasions of Sicily, Italy, and southern France are quite possible.

I meant more in the way as in leaving the empire.
It pretty clear considering fuel alone, that a Invasion can't really happen of the uk.

**Vulcan**

Not Online!!! wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Stand in the way of what, though? Even if they won in China the war against Japan ends with mushroom clouds. Japan and Germany combined just cannot out-Navy the US and as Japan is an island...

I personally doubt that if the UK colapses that it would lead to an intact navy.
And with the big navy out of the water and probably a now lot more legitimate Vichy regime (another big navy) and a UK puppet, because let's face it direct controll the germans will not implement, the case isn't as clear cut anymore.

What makes you think the U.K. would outright collapse to the point where a collaborationist government would take control? At worst the U.K. would be in a state of economic depression and sue for peace. They SURE wouldn't let Germany come in and take over. The U.K. may become neutral, but I can't see any path short of outright invasion that leads to the U.K. under German control.

And so long as the Fleet exists, Germany cannot invade.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Excommunicatus wrote:
I have a seriously hard time believing that the Royal Navy would fall, intact, into German hands.

After the surrender of France, Britain blew up French vessels (and French sailors) in North Africa to avoid them falling into German hands.

Maybe the Kreigsmarine get one or two new tubs, but the majority of the fleet would be scuttled rather than risk capture, IMO.

Or the Fleet sails for America, much as the Polish and Greek navies sailed to English ports when the Germans took over their countries.