Started By
Message

re: WWII hypothetical: could Britain have defeated Germany by itself after June 1940

Posted on 4/26/16 at 12:11 am to
Posted by Jim Rockford
Member since May 2011
106059 posts
Posted on 4/26/16 at 12:11 am to
quote:

I'd remove the 'probably'. While other fighters may have been superior in one area or another, the Mustang scored very high in every area.


Spielberg loved the P51 so much he inaccurately portrayed at as a ground attack aircraft in not one, but two movies-Empire of the Sun, and Saving Private Ryan. The Mustang's liquid-cooled engine made it exceedingly vulnerable to ground fire. The P47, OTOH, could, and often did, come home with individual pistons literally blown out of the engine.
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
96242 posts
Posted on 4/26/16 at 8:23 am to
quote:

The Mustang's liquid-cooled engine made it exceedingly vulnerable to ground fire.


I think they were limited to strafing Luftwaffe airfields coming back from bomber escorts in '44 and '45. You're right, though, because in Korea when 51Ds were pressed into service as traditional ground attack planes - they suffered heavy losses.

quote:

The P47, OTOH, could, and often did, come home with individual pistons literally blown out of the engine.


The Toyota Tacoma of piston aircraft.
Posted by Darth_Vader
A galaxy far, far away
Member since Dec 2011
74595 posts
Posted on 4/26/16 at 9:04 am to
One thing about the P47 that's always struck me was it's massive size. Look at these pictures of the P47 and other fighters from that time. I've picked ones with a person in them to give some perspective of how much bigger the Jug was than other fighters of the time...



P51


BF-109


Supermarine Spitfire


Yak-3


P-40


A6M Zero


F4U Corsair


P-38 Lightning


P-47 Thunderbolt

Posted by ChewyDante
Member since Jan 2007
17232 posts
Posted on 4/26/16 at 9:13 am to
quote:

Can we agree their command and control sucked in the Battle of France? As well as their philosophy of armor deployment?


Of course. I'm referring to French valor. The British were in the same boat as the French in 1940, but they were saved by the Channel and given the opportunity to adapt to the new style of war. France, given her geographic position, was not.
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
96242 posts
Posted on 4/26/16 at 9:19 am to
It was a larger plane, no question, which limited it's operational range. It was extremely heavy running on a single engine. 4 1/2 metric tons, empty. The P-38 was only 5 3/4 metric tons, empty, running on 2 engines. The P-51D was a metric ton lighter than the Jug, and was able to use the high performance (yet fuel efficient) Packard Merlin V-12, while the Jug had to utilize the double wasp radial (of course, the Corsair and Hellcat used the double wasp, too.)

Posted by RidiculousHype
The Hatch
Member since Sep 2007
10992 posts
Posted on 4/26/16 at 9:59 am to
The contributions to this thread have been incredible. Really appreciate all the insight.

One stat I found, the 1940 populations of:

Great Britain 48 million
Germany 70 million

And just out of curiosity

France 40 million
Soviet Union 170 million
USA 132 million

You look at that and go, why in the world would Hitler ever want to invade the Soviet Union?
Posted by therick711
South
Member since Jan 2008
26153 posts
Posted on 4/26/16 at 10:02 am to
quote:

You look at that and go, why in the world would Hitler ever want to invade the Soviet Union?


Remember, he was a winter and an ego-play battle in Leningrad away from icing that front.
Posted by Champagne
Sabine Free State.
Member since Oct 2007
56172 posts
Posted on 4/26/16 at 10:04 am to
quote:

Keep in mind German economy didn't go on a war footing until 1943. Think about that.


It can be argued that Germany NEVER went on a full war footing. The proof is in Albert Speer's book Inside the Third Reich.

Speer said that when he took over as Armament Production chief, he did a surprise visit to a factory that was making ammo. He went at 7pm. The place was deserted. The factory was open only during normal business hours.

Speer talks a lot about how the local Gauleiters never did accept many of Speer's initiatives to put Germany on a full war footing. The Gauleiters each had their own huge building projects that sucked resources from the war effort. Most of these buildings were in Germany and did nothing to help the military situation at the front.

The Gauleiters succesfully resisted Speer's efforts to put women in the workforce. Finally, the Gauleiters were able to use their influence with Martin Bormann to have Speer somewhat demoted later in the war -- demoted and replaced by Goering, who was the main man in charge of Germany's war economy for all but the couple of years when Speer was chief.

Goering rarely left his country estate and was a morphine addict. He was not qualified to run any large organization. He was terrible and his incompetence was reflected in Germany never really achieving its economic potential.

Key point: people interested in WW2 need to read Inside the Third Reich.
Posted by doubleb
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2006
43060 posts
Posted on 4/26/16 at 10:07 am to
quote:

You look at that and go, why in the world would Hitler ever want to invade the Soviet Union?


Hitler's notion that the Germanic people were superior to the Russian people dominated his thinking, that and his belief that the Communist govt. would crumble before him.

All along he thought Germany needed room to grow and the way to get the land to expand was to take it from Russia.

His global strategy was very poor, and even after he conquered France and sent Britain home, he really had no comprehensive plan of what he wanted to do.

He half assed planned for a British invasion, but diverted resources to N Africa and subsequently to the East for his Russian invasion.

If he would have just kept Britain at bay, diverted his efforts to N Africa and the Middle East oil, and left Russia alone; who knows what the eventual outcome would have been. Instead he was spread thin holding Britain at bay, attacking Russia and fighting the Brits and eventually the Americans in N Africa.
Posted by Darth_Vader
A galaxy far, far away
Member since Dec 2011
74595 posts
Posted on 4/26/16 at 10:15 am to
quote:

France 40 million


Two things were at play here. First, the massive loss of virtually an entire generation of males in WWI who by 1940 should have been fathering children. Also, a long term general decline in birth rates that's still going on today.

quote:

Soviet Union 170 million
USA 132 million

You look at that and go, why in the world would Hitler ever want to invade the Soviet Union?




Well, you've got to look at this matter from Hitler's perspective if you're going to try to understand his point of view.

First off, his whole political philosophy was built around the belief that the Germans were a superior race of humans while the Slavs of Russia were viewed as not just inferior, but barely human at all. so while Hitler knew there were far more Russians than Germans, in his eyes these numbers were meaningless because the Russians were "sub-human".

Second, you've got to look at how the Soviet Union was viewed at that point. Basically, Hitler showed how he viewed the Soviet Union when he described it as a "rotten structure" and said all that was needed was to "kick in the door and the whole thing would come crashing down". He knew the USSR had just gone through massive famines that had killed millions. He knew there was a good deal of internal strife and thus weakness in the Soviet Union. But more importantly, Hitler knew that Stalin had been busy for the past several years purging the Red Army. These purges had all but decapitated the Red Army leadership. The Red Army was seen as a leaderless mob that would be crushed in the style of warfare the Germans excelled at better than anyone at that time, namely in great "cauldron battles".

So, you had Hitler looking at the Soviet Union being a land rich in natural resources and farming land, literally "living space" for the German people. He saw this land as being occupied by a disorganized, starving sub-human mob with an army that had been rendered ineffective by it's own leadership. In his mind, the early 40's was the perfect time to strike. The Soviet Union was weakened and he did not want to give them the chance to recover and grow into a real threat. He knew that sooner or later either Nazi Germany was going to crush the communist USSR or the Communist USSR was going to crush Nazi Germany. Best to do it now while the conditions favored Germany. Every day he delayed, was a day the Soviets had to recover from their own self inflicted wounds of the 1920's & 30's. And when it came down to it, Hitler came very close to being right.
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
96242 posts
Posted on 4/26/16 at 10:25 am to
quote:

He was not qualified to run any large organization.


Most of the top Nazis were ideologues and yes men. Very few were good at their jobs. Speer was one of the few men of reason (although I think he pulled somewhat of a fast one at Nuremberg to save his own skin - he knew what he was doing - was way too smart to not have known what was going on in the camps, plus his own use of slave/forced labor). Himmler was outstanding at his job. Heydrich (killed early by partisans) was effective.

But, the army ran on the strength of the (mainly Prussian officers who were 5th, 6th generation military officers tracing family lines back to Frederick the Great's army) officer corps. None of the Waffen SS units had a von Mainstein(Prussian), Raus (Austrian, BTW), Guderian (Prussian) or Rommel (wow - another Prussian ).

Hausser and Peiper (Prussian) were good commanders, but the Waffen-SS can trace its success to the fanaticism of the troops, rather than the genius of the tactical commanders.

The more Hitler relied upon party ideologues and lickspittle yes men, and less on the professional military class, the worse he did.
This post was edited on 4/26/16 at 11:05 am
Posted by ChewyDante
Member since Jan 2007
17232 posts
Posted on 4/26/16 at 10:27 am to
quote:


He half assed planned for a British invasion, but diverted resources to N Africa and subsequently to the East for his Russian invasion.

If he would have just kept Britain at bay, diverted his efforts to N Africa and the Middle East oil, and left Russia alone; who knows what the eventual outcome would have been. Instead he was spread thin holding Britain at bay, attacking Russia and fighting the Brits and eventually the Americans in N Africa.


He also allowed the Luftwaffe to suffer severe losses for very minimal prospects for gain in the Battle of Britain. Once the switch was made to bombing cities the Luftwaffe was getting decimated with no legitimate end in sight because the invasion was never going to happen without breaking the RAF, which they nearly had. The 109's were put at a serious disadvantage by having to run escort for the bombers. Turning fights with Spitfires presented a great advantage to the Spits. They also didn't have the range to effectively carry out this escort role. And the German bombers were simply not adequate to effectively conduct devastating enough area bombing in the first place. It was a colossal misuse of resources and men that could have more effectively been used in the Mediterranean and N. Africa. The British weren't coming across the Channel. The Germans should have shifted to a defensive posture with the British Isles except regarding U-Boat and anti-shipping operations and perhaps a campaign solely targeting the RAF and early warning radar stations. Had they succeeded in forcing the British out of the Mediterranean at this time the British would have had virtually no prospects for legitimately carrying on the war.
Posted by Darth_Vader
A galaxy far, far away
Member since Dec 2011
74595 posts
Posted on 4/26/16 at 10:30 am to
quote:

Hausser and Peiper (Prussian) were good commanders, but the Waffen-SS can trace its success to the fanaticism of the troops, rather than the genius of the tactical commanders.



And "Papa" Hausser was a lifelong career officer from the Heer. Without him I doubt the Waffen SS would have developed it's reputation as a fearsome fighting unit like it did.
Posted by Darth_Vader
A galaxy far, far away
Member since Dec 2011
74595 posts
Posted on 4/26/16 at 10:33 am to
quote:

The 109's were put at a serious disadvantage by having to run escort for the bombers.


One aspect of the Battle of Britain I've always found amusing was that initially the Germans used the BF-110 to escort their bombers but quickly realized they were no match for the Spitfires and Hurricanes of the RAF. They actually resorted to having BF-109s escort the BF-110s which were supposed to be escorting the bombers.
Posted by ChewyDante
Member since Jan 2007
17232 posts
Posted on 4/26/16 at 10:43 am to
quote:


So, you had Hitler looking at the Soviet Union being a land rich in natural resources and farming land, literally "living space" for the German people. He saw this land as being occupied by a disorganized, starving sub-human mob with an army that had been rendered ineffective by it's own leadership. In his mind, the early 40's was the perfect time to strike. The Soviet Union was weakened and he did not want to give them the chance to recover and grow into a real threat. He knew that sooner or later either Nazi Germany was going to crush the communist USSR or the Communist USSR was going to crush Nazi Germany. Best to do it now while the conditions favored Germany. Every day he delayed, was a day the Soviets had to recover from their own self inflicted wounds of the 1920's & 30's. And when it came down to it, Hitler came very close to being right.


This. Popular opinion is that the German invasion of Russia was insane and irrational but that is completely untrue. It ultimately became one of the most significant factors in Germany's eventual defeat but it wasn't destined to failure from the start. The Yugoslavian coup which necessitated German military action to secure it's southern flank significantly impacted the campaign and contributed to pushing the start date back from mid May to June 22. This event alone may have altered the entire course of the war. An extra 5-6 weeks would have permitted the Germans to possibly take Moscow.

And to be fair to the Germans, nobody really knew the actual condition of the Soviet military. And after their poor performance against the Finns, the idea that the Soviet military was weak was reinforced. But that the Soviets had secretly and brutally created a system of production that had been churning out weapons of war was a surprise to everyone.

Had the USSR fallen the British absolutely would have been fricked. And in reality, Hitler's own ideology preferred to see the British Empire reach terms with him and the Soviets conquered rather than vice versa. His personal admiration for the British Empire and desire to achieve racial kinship with them may have had a subconscious impact on his decision making which negatively impacted his choices.
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
96242 posts
Posted on 4/26/16 at 10:51 am to
quote:

The Yugoslavian coup which necessitated German military action to secure it's southern flank significantly impacted the campaign and contributed to pushing the start date back from mid May to June 22. This event alone may have altered the entire course of the war. An extra 5-6 weeks would have permitted the Germans to possibly take Moscow.


Short-sighted, Hitler should have focused 100% effort on Moscow, and invested both Leningrad and Stalingrad by siege. He was thinking Stalingrad was the symbolic target, because he'd made the struggle personal between Stalin and himself. But, seizing Moscow would have split the Red Army in half - the defenders in Leningrad and Stalingrad might have called it a day if that happened.

He went 0fer - and it's difficult to recover from that. The delay was huge, but so was the divided focus. 3 kinds of effort: Main (Decisive), Supporting (Shaping) and wasted. Stalingrad was the costliest "wasted" effort in military history. When you dwarf Napoleon's winter campaign in Russia or Pickett's Charge, you've failed enough to stay in the history books forever.
Posted by Darth_Vader
A galaxy far, far away
Member since Dec 2011
74595 posts
Posted on 4/26/16 at 10:51 am to
quote:

This. Popular opinion is that the German invasion of Russia was insane and irrational but that is completely untrue. It ultimately became one of the most significant factors in Germany's eventual defeat but it wasn't destined to failure from the start. The Yugoslavian coup which necessitated German military action to secure it's southern flank significantly impacted the campaign and contributed to pushing the start date back from mid May to June 22. This event alone may have altered the entire course of the war. An extra 5-6 weeks would have permitted the Germans to possibly take Moscow.


Bingo. Had the Germans arrived at Moscow just a few weeks earlier, they'd have almost assuredly taken it. And with the fall of Moscow, the Soviets ability to establish any viable defensive front before the Urals would be virtually impossible. Moscow was not important just because it was the capital of the Soviet Union. It's real importance was due to it being the central hub of communication and transportation for all of European Russia. With Moscow in German hands the Soviet forces to both the north and south would have been isolated and thus easy to defeat in turn. At that point, it's game over for the USSR as an ongoing concern.
This post was edited on 4/26/16 at 10:54 am
Posted by Tom288
Jacksonville
Member since Apr 2009
21652 posts
Posted on 4/26/16 at 10:54 am to
quote:

peer was one of the few men of reason (although I think he pulled somewhat of a fast one at Nuremberg to save his own skin - he knew what he was doing - was way to smart to not have known what was going on in the camps, plus his own use of slave/forced labor).


Speer should have been executed for war crimes, without question.

quote:

Hausser and Peiper (Prussian) were good commanders, but the Waffen-SS can trace its success to the fanaticism of the troops, rather than the genius of the tactical commanders.


Well, Waffen-SS units were practically always under Wehrmacht command when it came to their operational deployment, however Peiper, Dietrich, Meyer & Mohnke were all very good tactical commanders.



Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
117158 posts
Posted on 4/26/16 at 10:58 am to
quote:

If it was down to Britain and Germany back in 1940, with no external factors, Germany ultimately prevails.


Germany would have never had to attempt an invasion. Without the US convoy system and "Lend/Lease", Britain would have starved and run out of war materials.
Posted by TheSexecutioner
Member since Mar 2011
5264 posts
Posted on 4/26/16 at 11:01 am to
No. Not even close.
Jump to page
Page First 8 9 10 11 12 ... 14
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 10 of 14Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram