User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 3:31:25 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: British aircraft production kept up. They were running short of trained pilots. Not nearly as fast as the Germans were. As it has been said before when a German pilot with shot down and survived over Britain he went to a prison camp. When a British pilot was shot down and survived it was giving a ride back to the base and put another airplane. Now with additional "experience ". |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 3:59:23 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not sure if serious. Battle of Britain was in June 1940. There was no industrial buildup to it. Barbarossa, following the invasion of the Balkans, was 11 months later. Germany lost two million KIA and POW in the East. Battle of Britain they lost 3500. Drop. Bucket. If he built fighters, bombers, E-boats, light transports, JU-52s, and gliders, set up an air bridge, and said, "yeah, I'm willing to lose one million men" could he have done it? Probably. He fought for 90 days and quit. And at the time they weren't even doing shift work in German factories. In 1941 the Germans built 9,000 aircraft, in 1944 they built 35000, while being bombed, they lost 2000 in 90 days or so over England. It was not total war by any stretch. If they built 20,000 aircraft in 1941, the RAF would have broke. If they had pounded the Supermarine factory in Southhampton, knocked out radar, and gone to full production of airplanes, there would have been a long struggle over whether the Luftwaffe could defeat the RN in the channel. Admittedly, it's hard to scale it. That's alot of ifs about Germany and not many ifs about what everyone else is doing during these new German ifs. If frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their asses on the ground when they hopped. Since the Battle of Britain was an air war, the comparison of just total human casualties to the entire eastern front losses (which involved millions of infantryman) is kind of a pointless comparison. They lost 2000 aircraft. In 90 days. At a time when they only built 9000 aircraft in the entire year. In three months of fruitless attempts to gain the upper hand, they lost almost 1/3 of their aircraft production for that year. IOW, they were basically losing aircraft about as fast as they could build them. Yes, if they had built 20,000 aircraft in 1941, sure. The RAF probably would have broke. But they couldn't build 20,000 aircraft in 1941. All this can be boiled down to "If they'd only tried harder, they could've won!" Yeah, ok. Maybe??? How hard were they capable of trying? How hard was necessary? Is Britain now going to try even harder to resist? That one is more answerable, since failure meant the end of the British nation. Britain was committed to winning no matter the cost. Germany wasn't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 4:02:07 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think it was the English Channel Hitler was never going to cross the Channel, and if he did happen to cross it, his entire army would have ran out of ammo and food and supplies within a week. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 4:05:58 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Meh. The Germans took a leisurely cruise up the Channel in their big ships right under the Brits nose. The Germans were lucky to get them back to friendly ports. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 4:11:33 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: British aircraft production kept up. They were running short of trained pilots. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Germany couldn’t handle the aircraft losses either. Dowding’s deployment of fighter squadrons was also key as German sorties were frustrated to find resistance in areas they thought would be lightly defended. British aircraft production kept up. They were running short of trained pilots. No different than Germany, even in the final months of war, fighter production was still high, just no pilots. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 4:14:26 PM EDT
[#6]
As much as the news reels like to show Chamberlain looking like a dip shit with the worthless paper he supported the development of the radar and planes (and Pilots with nerves of steel) which is solely responsible for saving Britain and would force Hitler into a late start towards the East.
Battle of Britain redirected the entire course of the European Conflict. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 4:25:00 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Germany needed air superiority to mount a successful invasion. They never even got close. Without air superiority, their attacking armada would be located hours before it landed, their ships would be sunk, and whatever remaining attacking troops got to shore would be bombed into very small pieces. The Allies had air superiority before D-Day, which is why the Germans were caught by surprise. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Battle of Britain was a air war only, no troops. Germany needed air superiority to mount a successful invasion. They never even got close. Without air superiority, their attacking armada would be located hours before it landed, their ships would be sunk, and whatever remaining attacking troops got to shore would be bombed into very small pieces. The Allies had air superiority before D-Day, which is why the Germans were caught by surprise. Germany knew they would never have air superiority, German fighters simply didn’t have the legs needed. There is allot of thought if there was even a plan for a ACTUAL invasion or was this another side show of Hitler’s to hide the fact he was planning on actually invading Russia? The English Channel worked both ways, a Spitfires range was not great either, had Churchill tried to invade France the Germans would have decimated the British, when your bombers have range, yet your fighters have barely 30 minutes of fuel over target before they have to return home that’s not a good plan for air superiority or protection for your bombers. The Allie’s only had air superiority thanks to the P-51B’s and later versions with their Merlin’s to escort the bombers to Berlin. The US actually called of daylight bombing due to losses, and had to reevaluate their strategic bombing. Had the Merlin powered Mustangs not happened daylight bombing would not have resumed until there was a way to successfully escort the bombers. Many question the resumed bombings success, as German production of aircraft never really was slowed down until the end, yes it effected other parts of their war effort, ball bearing factories in particular, but what it did was to take out the Luftwaffe as a effective fighting force through attrition. Planes with no pilots, planes with non seasoned, no combat experience pilots are nothing more than targets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 4:26:03 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Germany couldn’t handle the aircraft losses either. Dowding’s deployment of fighter squadrons was also key as German sorties were frustrated to find resistance in areas they thought would be lightly defended. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Radar had nothing to do with it? How about losses of pilots? A British pilot shot down landed in England. A German pilot shot down became a POW. No those aren't important. Only the speed and armament of one type of fighter plane was the sole reason. Germany couldn’t handle the aircraft losses either. Dowding’s deployment of fighter squadrons was also key as German sorties were frustrated to find resistance in areas they thought would be lightly defended. Germany couldn’t handle the loss of pilots, they could produce fighters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 4:34:57 PM EDT
[#9]
Op is half right . Spitire and the Hurricane , and Radar .
The English Channel was pretty damned important as well . And the Invasion of Russia . Pearl Harbor had Squat to do with it . Hitler really didn’t want to invade England . |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 7:12:52 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's alot of ifs about Germany and not many ifs about what everyone else is doing during these new German ifs. Yes, if they had built 20,000 aircraft in 1941, sure. The RAF probably would have broke. But they couldn't build 20,000 aircraft in 1941. All this can be boiled down to "If they'd only tried harder, they could've won!" Yeah, ok. Maybe??? How hard were they capable of trying? How hard was necessary? Is Britain now going to try even harder to resist? That one is more answerable, since failure meant the end of the British nation. Britain was committed to winning no matter the cost. Germany wasn't. No, it is one of those answered questions. And the answer is yes they could, they needed to work 24 hours/day. They needed to pull skilled labor out of conscription for Barabrossa and send it into the factories to increase production. In 1940 the Germans weren't working three shifts. The German aircraft factories were running eight hours/day. Historical fact. If Hitler decides not to invade Russia until after his west flank is secure, take the industrial output used to field boots, rifles, tanks, and supplies for a 4 million man army and then use it for other stuff. While you simply have airplane factories work three shifts. Approx BoB numbers: Brits Germans 1,963 aircraft2,550 aircraft Casualties and losses Brits 1,744 aircraft destroyed Germans 1,977 aircraft destroyed British produced about 12,000 fighters per year and Germany 9,000 in 1940. Generally speaking both sides were taking 100% casualties in a three month period. I tend to think the Germans could have tripled aircraft production and fought a war of attrition, or Barbarossa, not both. I agree the Germans weren't committed and their efforts were disorganized, and by the winter they had abandoned it and looked east. The assumption here is that they realized they need to avoid a two front war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 8:56:06 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Early WW2, we were also at war WITH Soviet Russia - that did not change until some two years later when the Soviets suddenly entered their "Great Patriotic War" phase, and in typical Communist fashion, conveniently brushing aside their previous few years worth of atrocities, etc. so they could play the victim card. Fuck 'em! Just Britain and the Commonwealth?? (aka British Empire) You're familiar with how much of the globe WAS part of the Look at an older (1930's) globe or map - all the pink bits belonged to Britain...quite a lot of real estate, raw material and man-power. I always wonder how much aid the US would have been asked to supply if Churchill's mother had not been American & he'd not held dual citizenship. It WAS a great help, being given the raw materials and in some cases, a lot of old mothballed USN ships - all of which we were still paying the interest on until surprisingly recently... Chances are it would have been more drawn out, but that's not to say the result would have been that different. Besides, we're on the subject of the invasion of Britain itself, not the bigger picture of how the war played out once the US decided which side to come in on  Point 2 mentions the commonwealth in reference to allies (military power). The empire sucked for providing power. It was comprised of backwards places that were in no way military powers or really much good for production. Some raw materials sure. But it was far flung and there weren't enough ships. It was US production delivered by US convoys full of US ships that fortified Great Britain. Eventually allied air power would protect those convoys nearly all the way across the Atlantic. The reason for making the statement "if you consider the Soviets allies" was because of their initial treaty and land grab with the axis and because it was obvious that they would hold Europe after they were at war with the Axis. It was imperative to fortify Great Britain and build an Invasion force as fast as possible to stop the Soviets from replacing the axis as well the fortress Europe holder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 9:02:25 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We gave you the jet engine and all the early work on 'tube alloys'. And the cavity magnetron. Bloody colonials. The jet engine was of no consequence for WW2, though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 9:48:35 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They tried that. It was called the Battle of Britain. It didn't work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 9:51:10 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: USS Reuben James became first U.S. warship sunk by enemy action in World War II. On Oct. 31, 1941, the Navy destroyer Reuben James was torpedoed and sunk by a German U-boat while on convoy duty off Iceland, with the loss of 100 crew members, including all officers. Right. WHY was it torpedoed? What was it doing at the time? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 9:53:40 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Right. WHY was it torpedoed? What was it doing at the time? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: USS Reuben James became first U.S. warship sunk by enemy action in World War II. On Oct. 31, 1941, the Navy destroyer Reuben James was torpedoed and sunk by a German U-boat while on convoy duty off Iceland, with the loss of 100 crew members, including all officers. Right. WHY was it torpedoed? What was it doing at the time? Carrying munitions and other war materiel to a trading partner. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 9:58:42 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I guess we're just pretending North Africa and Italy didn't happen? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 10:03:29 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A one off event does not change the fact that the RN would have raped the Kriegsmarine in a surface action in the channel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 10:05:10 PM EDT
[#18]
The English Channel and the Soviet Union
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 10:11:16 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The war was always going to be about destroying communism and Lebensraum. I doubt Hitler would have invaded France if Britain and France had not declared war on Germany first. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Failure to knock out the Soviets in Barbarossa was probably a bigger factor. By the end of 1941 they were locked in a front that stretched from Baltic to the Black Sea with no prospect of quick victory. Once they launched Barbarossa the war in the east became the prime German focus. Everything else was a secondary consideration. Attacking the Soviets was a huge gamble. They needed the oil for their war economy to be sure, but there must have been alternatives. Perhaps the Germans would have been better served by making concessions to the Soviets in exchange for oil. Combine this with synthetic refineries and maxing out production in Romania and it could have been enough. They could focus on Britain and the Mediterranean and make real gains. Despite all the anti-Soviet rhetoric from Hitler, the Molotov-Rittentrop pact was honored so there was some goodwill for diplomacy. All the consolidation of forces on the Western front and Mediterranean might have forced a conclusion of the war before the use of atomic weapons. There are so many what ifs in WWII. The Axis powers could have probably won the war if they made better strategic decisions. The Germans and the French always had a hardon for one another. France wasn't going to get out scot-free. under any circumstances. Hitler had to humiliate them for the Treaty of Versailles. And did. in the same train car in the same spot where the German surrender was signed. The plan was to take all of Europe and make them vassal states beholden to Germany above all. New Order. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 10:15:29 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The accidental bombing of London on August 24 saved Britain. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 10:37:09 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Germany needed air superiority to mount a successful invasion. They never even got close. Without air superiority, their attacking armada would be located hours before it landed, their ships would be sunk, and whatever remaining attacking troops got to shore would be bombed into very small pieces. The Allies had air superiority before D-Day, which is why the Germans were caught by surprise. ALSO, you do know the channel isn't very wide , right? Your German Armada would be anchored off Dover when you woke up in the morning as even slow boats can cross in 4 to 6 hours, they were going to use barges towed by Eboats and whatever, a destroyer can cross it in an hour, they could round trip twice with a hundred men or more on deck during the dark. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 10:37:43 PM EDT
[#22]
Britain held its own but Germany would have continued to be a problem if not for America. Churchill himself wrote that after the Pearl Harbor attack and America declaring war on the axis “Being saturated and satiated with emotion and sensation, I went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful,” .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 10:42:08 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Op is half right . Spitire and the Hurricane , and Radar . The English Channel was pretty damned important as well . And the Invasion of Russia . Pearl Harbor had Squat to do with it . Hitler really didn’t want to invade England . He wanted them to sign a treaty. An armistice. He thought it merely a matter of time. the timing of Operation Barbarossa was to destroy the USSR before winter and get Britain to concede to a non-aggression treaty. Else the entirety of Wehrmacht would turn back onto Britain after Russia's quick and decisive fall. In theory. Germany had originally planned to occupy Britain and it was to use six Einsatzgruppen commando units operating from London, Bristol, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and Edenborough, run by Franz Six, who would be there to hunt down anti-German elements and trash opposition, as well to terrorize the population into submission, if they had succeeded in defeating England and with invading it. They already had a list drawn up of who to go after- Sonderfahndungsliste, GB- "Special Search List, G.B." they were going to loot and pillage and turn it into a vassal state as well. They were going to take every able-bodied British male between 17- 45 and send them to the Eastern Front to fight the Russians. after the invasion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 10:47:51 PM EDT
[#24]
Just one, US.??
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 10:51:36 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I believe Hitler thought he could still work a deal with the Brits, Battle of Britain fight had very little to do with Sealion. If the krauts could have established a beach head with 3 or 4k troops they could have set up a shuttle with Eboats and other fast craft to ferry troops and armor across the channel. Using subs and mines along with the Luftwaffe they could have kept the Royal Navy away for 4 to 7 days all while shoving as many troops into England as possible. All of Englands weapons were still at Dunkirk and the Home Guard wasn't foing to stop shit. Pick an easily defendable landing area with a harbor and the Germans could have been in London in a week. The last time I looked this up, the UK had produced a lot of tanks by September-October 1940. They were rapidly replacing losses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 10:53:26 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: 1. The Supermarine Spitfire. 2. The Attack on Pearl Harbor. And 3, Winston Churchill |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 11:09:35 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Royal Navy wasn't sailing about in the English channel in 1940 either, they were stuffed in Scapa Flo to keep the hell away from the Luftwaffe. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: A one off event does not change the fact that the RN would have raped the Kriegsmarine in a surface action in the channel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 11:38:41 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Right. WHY was it torpedoed? What was it doing at the time? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: USS Reuben James became first U.S. warship sunk by enemy action in World War II. On Oct. 31, 1941, the Navy destroyer Reuben James was torpedoed and sunk by a German U-boat while on convoy duty off Iceland, with the loss of 100 crew members, including all officers. Right. WHY was it torpedoed? What was it doing at the time? on convoy duty off Iceland which the ship of a neutral country should not have been doing. And what do you think Convoy was carrying? Guns, ammunition, fuel for the RAF? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2022 12:13:05 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It had more to do with some retarded economic theory that western Europe would starve as the east further developed and industrialized. Basically he swallowed the same "shrinking markets" bullshit as the communists even while declaring hatred of them. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: What was the motivation? Was his plan to address Jewish communists around the world first then everybody else? It had more to do with some retarded economic theory that western Europe would starve as the east further developed and industrialized. Basically he swallowed the same "shrinking markets" bullshit as the communists even while declaring hatred of them. In my opinion, it was personal insecurity. Hitler saw himself as the strength and might of Germany. But I really think he had an inferiority complex towards Stalin, and wanted to prove to the world that National Socialism and Adolph Hitler were more powerful than the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin. The thing about it was, if he would have listened to his general staff, then he probably would have done both. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2022 12:52:29 AM EDT
[#30]
Winston Churchill. Herman Goering.
What really saved the British was sloppy German execution. The Germans had poor intel and really no plan, and werent really sure how to go about it. There is a book out called :"The most dangerous enemy" I would recommend. I was stunned to realize the Supermarine plant was in Southhampton. Southhampton! Should have been blown off the map immediately.  Not knocking out radars was a huge issue. Overreliance on stukas another. German tactics were poor. Obviously knocking out the radars should have happened earlier. As was proven in other theaters, to take out airfields and parked planes required low level ground attack, not conventional high level raids that weren't effective and got picked up on radar sooner. The Germans had an experimental unit, Erprobungsgruppe 210, that was very effective, using ME110s in a ground attack mode, similar to what the US would use B25s for in the South Pacific. I would say if you look at the force structure for Barbarossa and focus that industrial capacity for other missions, the GErmans could have ground teh Britiosh down. I also think that better tactics would have made it a closer-run thing then it turned out to be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2022 12:42:54 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And the advice to Invade North Africa first before trying to fight the experienced Germans in Europe. The jet engine was of no consequence for WW2, though. Which was another huge blunder by Hitler, had he not demanded constant changes in the ME-262 and it had come online like originally scheduled this would have changed allot of outcomes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2022 12:54:32 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Radar Bletchley Park Information is highly overrated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2022 1:15:27 PM EDT
[#33]
Looking at the losses and saying “well the Brits lost fewer planes than the Germans so they won” isn’t telling the whole story. One has to look at the types and number of airmen lost. Every He-111 lost was far more valuable than every Hurricane. There is also the aspect of how they were lost,every one downed over London was lost achieving absolutely nothing. One lost bombing an airfield would have at least extracted a toll.
The great unsaid of the sideshows that Germany so loved getting suckered into is putting the 2000 planes lost over England in the air against Russia combined worn everything they pissed away in North Africa and the Balkans. Would this have necessarily ended the war in the east 1941? Perhaps not but the Soviets would have absolutely had a much worse time for certain. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2022 1:25:37 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Which was another huge blunder by Hitler, had he not demanded constant changes in the ME-262 and it had come online like originally scheduled this would have changed allot of outcomes. The war moved too fast for jets to make a difference when tens of thousands of aircraft and ships were being launched to take back Europe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2022 1:53:44 PM EDT
[#35]
In short. One thing stopped Hitlers liberation of humanity from the international banking mafia.
That one thing was The countries that were currently controlled at that time by the international banking mafia Aka the Khazarian Mafia and their Babylon money magic via the House of Rothschild Simple 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2022 1:59:25 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Which was another huge blunder by Hitler, had he not demanded constant changes in the ME-262 and it had come online like originally scheduled this would have changed allot of outcomes. I think the 262 gets romanticised. It's like the Sherman tank anecdote. Xxx may kill yyy amoujt, good thing they made 2yyy amount. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2022 1:59:46 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Whackowhacko88whackowwhackwhak Simple  *plong* |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2022 2:03:52 PM EDT
[#38]
Hindsight being 20/20, the best change for the Germans was 24 May, when Rundstedt and Kluge recommended a 72 hour stop to the pursuit to Dunkirk.
Watching "The Darkest Hour" I think Churchill's power base was tenuous. I dont think he could have survived the loss of 300,000 BEF soldiers. If Guderian's XIX Panzer Korps was directed to attack the British flank, and the British evacuation failed, Halifax would have been much stronger in bidding for a negotiated peace. At that point, a hasty attack with German fallschirmjager and several infantry divisions across the Straits of Dover could have caused a morale collapse. German troops on British soil and a negotiated settlement might have worked. I don't think the Royal Navy was particularly awesome at defending from air attack in 1940. Supplying a German bridgehead would have been very difficult; on the other hand, ripping a 20 mile hole in the British radar network, and putting pressure on the RAF to conduct ground support, could have changed the course of the air fighting. It would have been a Guadalcanal-like campaign with land, sea, and air in a very small space but I think a lot of British politicians would have made a deal. I think destroying the BEF In France would have decreased the number of German units that would be required in an invasion; decreases the logistics footprint, and decreases how much air superiority you might need; encourages Hitler to roll the dice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2022 2:08:31 PM EDT
[#39]
Yep. Brits like to talk all the time about not needing the US to beat Germany. They held out which was awesome. It was mainly due to Germanys tactical blunders and the US shipping them supplies.
UK was not going to all of a sudden take back Europe. They stalled Germany but would have fallen eventually if the US had not acted. The German high command (Hitler, etc) were some of the stupidest tacticians of any war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2022 2:13:26 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hindsight being 20/20, the best change for the Germans was 24 May, when Rundstedt and Kluge recommended a 72 hour stop to the pursuit to Dunkirk. Watching "The Darkest Hour" I think Churchill's power base was tenuous. I dont think he could have survived the loss of 300,000 BEF soldiers. If Guderian's XIX Panzer Korps was directed to attack the British flank, and the British evacuation failed, Halifax would have been much stronger in bidding for a negotiated peace. At that point, a hasty attack with German fallschirmjager and several infantry divisions across the Straits of Dover could have caused a morale collapse. German troops on British soil and a negotiated settlement might have worked. I don't think the Royal Navy was particularly awesome at defending from air attack in 1940. Supplying a German bridgehead would have been very difficult; on the other hand, ripping a 20 mile hole in the British radar network, and putting pressure on the RAF to conduct ground support, could have changed the course of the air fighting. It would have been a Guadalcanal-like campaign with land, sea, and air in a very small space but I think a lot of British politicians would have made a deal. I think destroying the BEF In France would have decreased the number of German units that would be required in an invasion; decreases the logistics footprint, and decreases how much air superiority you might need; encourages Hitler to roll the dice. Quote HistoryQuoted: Hindsight being 20/20, the best change for the Germans was 24 May, when Rundstedt and Kluge recommended a 72 hour stop to the pursuit to Dunkirk. Watching "The Darkest Hour" I think Churchill's power base was tenuous. I dont think he could have survived the loss of 300,000 BEF soldiers. If Guderian's XIX Panzer Korps was directed to attack the British flank, and the British evacuation failed, Halifax would have been much stronger in bidding for a negotiated peace. At that point, a hasty attack with German fallschirmjager and several infantry divisions across the Straits of Dover could have caused a morale collapse. German troops on British soil and a negotiated settlement might have worked. I don't think the Royal Navy was particularly awesome at defending from air attack in 1940. Supplying a German bridgehead would have been very difficult; on the other hand, ripping a 20 mile hole in the British radar network, and putting pressure on the RAF to conduct ground support, could have changed the course of the air fighting. It would have been a Guadalcanal-like campaign with land, sea, and air in a very small space but I think a lot of British politicians would have made a deal. I think destroying the BEF In France would have decreased the number of German units that would be required in an invasion; decreases the logistics footprint, and decreases how much air superiority you might need; encourages Hitler to roll the dice. Don't forget the efforts of the French soldiers;without them, certainly what you posted could have been reality. In the famous speech Churchill stated probably means that any deal or peace treaty would not have been pursued by the Brits: Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2022 2:16:53 PM EDT
[#41]
Sea Lion had no chance for success and was "delayed" (cancelled) 14 months before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2022 2:46:29 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hindsight being 20/20, the best change for the Germans was 24 May, when Rundstedt and Kluge recommended a 72 hour stop to the pursuit to Dunkirk. Watching "The Darkest Hour" I think Churchill's power base was tenuous. I dont think he could have survived the loss of 300,000 BEF soldiers. If Guderian's XIX Panzer Korps was directed to attack the British flank, and the British evacuation failed, Halifax would have been much stronger in bidding for a negotiated peace. At that point, a hasty attack with German fallschirmjager and several infantry divisions across the Straits of Dover could have caused a morale collapse. German troops on British soil and a negotiated settlement might have worked. I don't think the Royal Navy was particularly awesome at defending from air attack in 1940. Supplying a German bridgehead would have been very difficult; on the other hand, ripping a 20 mile hole in the British radar network, and putting pressure on the RAF to conduct ground support, could have changed the course of the air fighting. It would have been a Guadalcanal-like campaign with land, sea, and air in a very small space but I think a lot of British politicians would have made a deal. I think destroying the BEF In France would have decreased the number of German units that would be required in an invasion; decreases the logistics footprint, and decreases how much air superiority you might need; encourages Hitler to roll the dice. Fleming's book Operation Sealion makes the argument that the only chance for a sucessful invasion was immediately after Dunkirk. If the germans managed to get a couple of divisions across then, there was very little to stop them. By August 1940, it was too late. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2022 2:49:22 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Looking at the losses and saying “well the Brits lost fewer planes than the Germans so they won” isn’t telling the whole story. One has to look at the types and number of airmen lost. Every He-111 lost was far more valuable than every Hurricane. There is also the aspect of how they were lost,every one downed over London was lost achieving absolutely nothing. One lost bombing an airfield would have at least extracted a toll. The great unsaid of the sideshows that Germany so loved getting suckered into is putting the 2000 planes lost over England in the air against Russia combined worn everything they pissed away in North Africa and the Balkans. Would this have necessarily ended the war in the east 1941? Perhaps not but the Soviets would have absolutely had a much worse time for certain. Good analysis. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2022 2:50:43 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Germany needed air superiority to mount a successful invasion. They never even got close. Without air superiority, their attacking armada would be located hours before it landed, their ships would be sunk, and whatever remaining attacking troops got to shore would be bombed into very small pieces. The Allies had air superiority before D-Day, which is why the Germans were caught by surprise. They also needed naval superiority, or at least some credible ability to protect an invasion fleet. They never even CONTEMPLATED getting close. Air superiority would not have prevented the British from locating an invasion fleet via air reconnaissance. Air SUPREMACY might have had a chance, but no one in WWII achieved such a level until the allies physically rolled over the majority of airfields used by the enemy. Part of the Allied strategy for deceiving Germany about the invasion involved creating entire phantom armies for the Luftwaffe to take photos of, giving them a target to focus on. There were enough troop concentrations all over southern England that this was possible. Germany didn't have the ability to carry off such a deception, and the palpable THREAT of invasion was intended to be used as a weapon. Germany wanted Britain to sue for peace and be out of the war - they had no particular interest in actually trying to conquer the island, and had other plans for those troops that didn't involve trying to garrison the British Isles. As such, hiding the invasion force would ensure that they actually HAD to use it, which again, they were in no hurry to actually do. Even had Germany been able to achieve local air superiority over the channel, that counted for little at night during WWII, and the Germans couldn't create or field an invasion fleet that could cross the channel during a single day - no matter what, they were going to have to deal with a very determined Royal Navy that vastly outnumbered them in every single category of combatant vessel (including submarines at the time when Sea Lion was being considered). The length of time it took to simply load troops and equipment meant that the fleet would be assembled on the French coast for over a day and night before even setting sail - the British could launch night raids with destroyers and torpedo boats and wreak havoc before it even began crossing the channel, without sacrificing their numerical advantage when attacking the fleet in the Channel. Mike |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2022 5:29:18 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Which was another huge blunder by Hitler, had he not demanded constant changes in the ME-262 and it had come online like originally scheduled this would have changed allot of outcomes. The Me-262 wasn't delayed by Hitler. The ME-262 was hamstrung by a lack of suitable engines. The Jumo 004 engine didn't enter full production until 1944, and had a service life of approximately 25 hours when it did. It is unlikely that any significant number of engines could have been delivered much earlier due to development issues and required design changes. This meant that ME-262 airframes were actually built faster than they could be provided with engines, as the production could not keep up with the new aircraft production as well as replacement engines/parts for operational aircraft. Note that the Jumo 004 was also used in the Arado 234 jet bomber, which also required 2 engines for each aircraft. Building more airframes earlier would simply have increased the backlog, and would have done little or nothing to increase the number of aircraft available to actually fly. Mike |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2022 5:35:50 PM EDT
[#46]
world war 2 is the reason the USA is as wealthy and powerful as it is today.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2022 5:50:57 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, it was a distraction for practical use in ww2. It needed much more development and production work. The war moved too fast for jets to make a difference when tens of thousands of aircraft and ships were being launched to take back Europe. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Which was another huge blunder by Hitler, had he not demanded constant changes in the ME-262 and it had come online like originally scheduled this would have changed allot of outcomes. The war moved too fast for jets to make a difference when tens of thousands of aircraft and ships were being launched to take back Europe. No, had it been allowed to proceed as a fighter it would have been a huge setback for the Allie’s, granted it needed refining and more development but what aircraft didn’t when rushed into service? Was the P-38, P-51, or P-47 perfect when it entered service. When you keep changing the aircrafts role, you effectively stop development. Changing from a fighter to a bomber, then fighter bomber, then when it is finely ready semi ready for service you issue it to bomber squadrons how is it going to fare? It was originally envisioned to take out bombers and fighters. It wasnt a dog fighter, it’s eapons we’re closely mounted cannons in the nose for making slashing runs using speed, then allowing the BF-109’s and FW-190’s to do the actual dogfighting. This would have devastated the allies. By making constant changes it delayed the plane from getting into service, getting pilot feedback, making changes it also put the production off that when it did enter into service and production the critical materials needed were not available, it also led to the use of very inexperienced pilots. German engineers were already working on its replacement and we actually captured the prototype. Ever wonder why the F-86, and Mig-15 so closely resemble each other? We got the prototype, we made copies of the plans but per the Potsdam.agreement those spoils went to the Russians. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2022 5:55:03 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Hurricane did more work than the Spitfire during the Battle of Britian. He's right you know.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2022 6:08:28 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Me-262 wasn't delayed by Hitler. The ME-262 was hamstrung by a lack of suitable engines. The Jumo 004 engine didn't enter full production until 1944, and had a service life of approximately 25 hours when it did. It is unlikely that any significant number of engines could have been delivered much earlier due to development issues and required design changes. This meant that ME-262 airframes were actually built faster than they could be provided with engines, as the production could not keep up with the new aircraft production as well as replacement engines/parts for operational aircraft. Note that the Jumo 004 was also used in the Arado 234 jet bomber, which also required 2 engines for each aircraft. Building more airframes earlier would simply have increased the backlog, and would have done little or nothing to increase the number of aircraft available to actually fly. Mike Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Which was another huge blunder by Hitler, had he not demanded constant changes in the ME-262 and it had come online like originally scheduled this would have changed allot of outcomes. The Me-262 wasn't delayed by Hitler. The ME-262 was hamstrung by a lack of suitable engines. The Jumo 004 engine didn't enter full production until 1944, and had a service life of approximately 25 hours when it did. It is unlikely that any significant number of engines could have been delivered much earlier due to development issues and required design changes. This meant that ME-262 airframes were actually built faster than they could be provided with engines, as the production could not keep up with the new aircraft production as well as replacement engines/parts for operational aircraft. Note that the Jumo 004 was also used in the Arado 234 jet bomber, which also required 2 engines for each aircraft. Building more airframes earlier would simply have increased the backlog, and would have done little or nothing to increase the number of aircraft available to actually fly. Mike See above, Hitler kept making changes to its roll, which caused redesigns which took time, those delays cost it the ability to have the correct materials for the engines. Junkers Jumo 004’s never were pushed until the ME-262 was ready or I should say closer to going into production, Hitler wouldn’t allow the materials or labor to be used until the ME-262 was ready to enter production, the output was very limited at first, or that it was ever really high. It was also supposed to use the BMW turbojet but delays in it caused a redesign to the airframe. Paul Allen proved the Jumos were not a bad engine it was to loss of critical materials that made it unreliable. Paul Allen’s ME-262 has original Jumos with the correct metals used. Yes he spent a ton of money, but he was one who wanted to know the answer. He also wants or wanted to compare a P-80, Gloster Meteor and the ME-262, but sad.y he passed away before those were completed. He did finish the ME-262 though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2022 6:30:09 PM EDT
[#50]
I still say the 2 things that saved the Brits was the channel and the US. No way the Brits could have held the 1940 Germany army back alone.
All we have to do is look at Dunkirk as to how well the Brits would have done on their own without the US and how the channel saved them from being completely overrun like France. Even in 1940 the Brits were living off the US lend lease equipment, US raw materials (to make Spitfires and such) and food supplies. German Uboats had the UK all but cut off ...again if not for the US. So far as the Spitfire, again if not for the channel the Luftwaffe would have soon owned squadrons of repainted Spitfires and used them the same way they used other captured weapons like the Czech 38 tanks and the French tanks/aircraft and engines they captured. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
