- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: WWII hypothetical: could Britain have defeated Germany by itself after June 1940
Posted on 4/27/16 at 9:36 pm to Champagne
Posted on 4/27/16 at 9:36 pm to Champagne
The flip side of this equation is, could the US and Allies have defeated Russia after the fall of Berlin?
I've seen this question asked and debated on here, and the consensus answer is "No, because the Allies were tired of war." Well, I'm sure Russia was tired too.
And they didn't have the mechanization nor the air power of the Allies. The air power in particular I think would have made mincemeat of Russian ground troops. Sure, it would have been a hard battle at first to establish air superiority, but after that???
Russia had no heavy bomber to speak of, and the only mechanized transport they had was what we gave them.
I still think we would have won had we decided to kick them out of Germany.
I've seen this question asked and debated on here, and the consensus answer is "No, because the Allies were tired of war." Well, I'm sure Russia was tired too.
And they didn't have the mechanization nor the air power of the Allies. The air power in particular I think would have made mincemeat of Russian ground troops. Sure, it would have been a hard battle at first to establish air superiority, but after that???
Russia had no heavy bomber to speak of, and the only mechanized transport they had was what we gave them.
I still think we would have won had we decided to kick them out of Germany.
This post was edited on 4/27/16 at 9:40 pm
4
Posted on 4/28/16 at 12:17 am to LongueCarabine
quote:
could the US and Allies have defeated Russia after the fall of Berlin?
Yes, I think so. I have thought about this hypo quite a bit over the years. The Soviet units were very worn out by May 1945. Their units were all quite understrength, both manpower and tank power understrength. Most units with many replacements with almost no training because these replacements were from the western portion of Russia that were recently re captured.
By May 1945, the US Army and air forces were by far the best in the world. Our units were not worn out, they were not understrength. Our air forces were SO far ahead of Soviet air forces.
The British and US armies would have beaten the Soviet armies in Germany and the Balkans. Things would have gotten tougher should the Western Allies decided to push into the Soviet homeland, but, the Allies would have been satisfied simply to kick the Soviets back home.
How could the Soviet armies in Germany been supplied with fuel and ammo once the US and British air forces started strategic bombing interdicting all of the Soviet resupply efforts? The US fighter pilots in P51s with high octane gasoline would make short work of the Soviet air forces.
Soviet infantry didn't have bazookas. They relied on towed anti tank guns, unless some armored fighting vehicle was there to support. The USA had so many tanks stockpiled in depots that tank production was cut down.
What would Stalin do once the Royal Navy and US Navy parked in the Baltic Sea with battleships near Leningrad and started bombardment? What about an Allied aircraft carrier in the Baltic? How would the Red Navy deal with that? They had no aircraft carriers.
This post was edited on 4/28/16 at 12:48 am
Posted on 4/28/16 at 12:44 am to Champagne
The Russians would have done what Russians always do: sustain massive casualties, wait for winter, watch their enemy starve/freeze to death, defeat enemy through attrition and shear force of will.
The allies had the air advantage and naval advantage, but Russia could hit them with so many more troops on the ground, at least early on. If the U.S. And Britain could survive the initial onslaught by the Red Army which had just taken Berlin, superior air power would allow them to encircle the Soviets, cut off their supplies, and reduce the Red Army in Germany to corpses. However, that would only be the beginning. While beating that force would likely allow the allies to begin a rapid push towards across Eastern Europe to Stalingrad, the Russians would have had more than enough time to regroup to defend it. The allies would have to throw everything at Stalingrad so they can use the port to supply their armies on the push to Moscow as well as use the airfields to begin destroying Russian war manufacturing in the Urals. I feel like this is where the Allies fail. Despite having air and naval superiority, the street by street fighting does the allies in like it did the Germans years before. The cover of winter allows Russian reinforcements to close in on the city unmolested by American air power. They surround the allied army and demolish it. Hopefully, at this point, the war ends as the allies sue for peace and the war ends with the ussr returning to the borders it held in 1938. Otherwise, we nuke Moscow, and the war with Russia becomes the endless quagmire to end all endless quagmires.
The allies had the air advantage and naval advantage, but Russia could hit them with so many more troops on the ground, at least early on. If the U.S. And Britain could survive the initial onslaught by the Red Army which had just taken Berlin, superior air power would allow them to encircle the Soviets, cut off their supplies, and reduce the Red Army in Germany to corpses. However, that would only be the beginning. While beating that force would likely allow the allies to begin a rapid push towards across Eastern Europe to Stalingrad, the Russians would have had more than enough time to regroup to defend it. The allies would have to throw everything at Stalingrad so they can use the port to supply their armies on the push to Moscow as well as use the airfields to begin destroying Russian war manufacturing in the Urals. I feel like this is where the Allies fail. Despite having air and naval superiority, the street by street fighting does the allies in like it did the Germans years before. The cover of winter allows Russian reinforcements to close in on the city unmolested by American air power. They surround the allied army and demolish it. Hopefully, at this point, the war ends as the allies sue for peace and the war ends with the ussr returning to the borders it held in 1938. Otherwise, we nuke Moscow, and the war with Russia becomes the endless quagmire to end all endless quagmires.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 6:34 am to kingbob
quote:
wait for winter, watch their enemy starve/freeze to death, defeat enemy through attrition and shear force of will.
You're assuming we would invade the Russian homeland. I agree with Champagne, the only reason to attack the Russians would be to get them out of Germany and Eastern Europe. It would have been foolish to go further than that.
I think getting them out of Germany could and should have been done, thus preventing 50 years of misery for Eastern Europe.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 7:07 am to kingbob
You think our commanders would know how to handle that tactic? They saw what happened to French and Germans. Keep in mind the Swedes kicked their arse once on their home turf as well
Posted on 4/28/16 at 8:02 am to Champagne
quote:
True, but to conquer the UK homeland, Germany would have to invade the homeland with ground forces. Germany had no plan to execute an amphibious invasion of England. Germany hadn't nearly enough seapower to do it. Germany had no trained amphib troops. Germany had no officers trained in such operations. Germany had no equipment designed for the purpose of amphibious invasion.
In short, Germany had absolutely no realistic chance of invading and conquering the UK homeland. Much has been written about Sea Lion, but, it was always a mere bluff and a completely ad hoc and improvised affair.
You're completely ignoring the hypothetical nature of the question, without Barbarossa Germany could have easily invaded and kept up bridgehead with an airborne invasion alone, think Crete on a massive scale.
Germany had nearly 5000 aircraft alone committed to just Barbarossa, can you imagine the force they could have brought to bear? The Germans had pretty much won the battle of Britain anyway until they made the disastrous decision to start bombing cities. Britain had no aircraft reserves left.
I just think everyone is completely disregarding Germany didn't gaf about Britain because they were about to launch the largest military invasion in world history.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 8:10 am to Strannix
You've got to remember that during the Battle of Britain the Germans had not yet began moving forces east. They committed the bulk of their air power against Britian and still lost.
As for launching and invasion, either airborne, seaborne, or a combo of both, the Germans lacked the ability to do either so long as the Royal Navy and RAF were still viable fighting forces. To invade the British isles, both the Royal Navy and RAF would have to be neutralized or the invasion would end in disaster for Germany. And the Germans failed in taking out the RAF, despite giving their best effort. And as for the Royal Navy, Germany didn't have a prayer to take it out.
As for launching and invasion, either airborne, seaborne, or a combo of both, the Germans lacked the ability to do either so long as the Royal Navy and RAF were still viable fighting forces. To invade the British isles, both the Royal Navy and RAF would have to be neutralized or the invasion would end in disaster for Germany. And the Germans failed in taking out the RAF, despite giving their best effort. And as for the Royal Navy, Germany didn't have a prayer to take it out.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 8:28 am to Darth_Vader
No way the Germans make it across the Channel with their scheme of towed barges and small craft. That won't get you a beachhead against the Royal Navy. That would be a target-rich environment, and the Brits had the numbers vs. the German Navy.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 8:28 am to Strannix
quote:
And the Germans failed in taking out the RAF, despite giving their best effort.
To be fair, they may have achieved this for all intents and purposes had they not switched over to the campaign of terror bombing of urban targets. The switch also put their aircraft at a tremendous disadvantage and while not only allowing the RAF to catch it's breath and restore itself, it offered the British a tremendous advantage in the battle of attrition.
One major thing to consider though is that Hitler simply didn't want to invade Great Britain. That was a nightmare scenario. Hitler wasn't aiming at conquering and ruling all of continental Europe, contrary to Western propaganda both then and now, so a campaign to invade the British home islands took tremendous resources away from the ultimate goals of eastward expansion and the destruction of Bolshevism. The ideal outcome was a peace with Britain, which perhaps influenced the decision to engage in persistent terror bombing, even in the face of little military value in respect to a potential invasion. The goal was to force Britain to the peace table without having to invade, but that was something that was simply unattainable by the Luftwaffe at that time.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 8:48 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
And the Germans failed in taking out the RAF, despite giving their best effort. And as for the Royal Navy, Germany didn't have a prayer to take it out.
youre still discussing the BOB as it was, not hypothetically
Posted on 4/28/16 at 9:11 am to Strannix
quote:
youre still discussing the BOB as it was, not hypothetically
Well the reason I'm doing this is the question at hand is if GB could defeat Germany all on its own after June 1940 with the hypothetical part being the war remained only between GB and Germany themselves. Well, during the Battle of Britain, it was a war between just those two powers. The hypothetical question in this thread does not become a point until after the Battle of Britian was over.
This is why I've said had the war remained only Germany and GB, Germany would not have been able to defeat the Brits via invasion. However, if the US had been truly neutral and the Germans never invaded the USSR and instead focused on the U-Boat campaign, it's very likely that by 1941 or 1942 they could have forced Great Britian to accept a negotiated peace.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 9:16 am to LongueCarabine
You forgot we had something called the A bomb shortly thereafter, and the Russians did not.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 9:36 am to LongueCarabine
quote:
The flip side of this equation is, could the US and Allies have defeated Russia after the fall of Berlin?
First off, Champagne answered your question just about perfectly. If a war had broke out between the western allies and the Soviets directly after the fall of Berlin, they would have at least pushed the Soviets back to their pre-war borders and destroyed the bulk of the Red Army in the process. It would have been bloody as hell to be sure. But as Champagne pointed out, the Soviet formations were just about spent by early May 1945 and many of them were so worn down they could barely be considered combat effective.
The Soviets would have put up a stiff fight, at least in the opening phase of such a war. But within a few weeks a combination of allied air power, dwindling supplies, and general exhaustion would have been the undoing of the Red Army.
This post was edited on 4/28/16 at 9:37 am
Posted on 4/28/16 at 11:21 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
a combination of allied air power, dwindling supplies, and general exhaustion would have been the undoing of the Red Army.
Patton would have been totally down with this. He didn't want his last war to end.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 12:43 pm to FightinTigersDammit
quote:
Patton would have been totally down with this. He didn't want his last war to end.
Patton disliked the Soviets a hell of a lot more than the Germans. Based on his writings, it actually appears that he rather liked the Germans and would have been perfectly fine with reconstituting their armed forces and fighting side by side against the Soviets.
Google a few of his quotes on the Russians. He was a man who would tell you how he really felt and you could pretty much kiss his arse if you didn't like his candor.
In respect to the Soviets and our best options for fighting them, he was dead right that the time would never be better than right then. FDR was an absolute disaster for the non-Communist world when we settled for turning over everything east of Berlin to the Soviets. It completely invalidated the entire premise of the war and actually created a far more dangerous world than we had before. Churchill realized this too late and was effectively powerless to do anything about it at that point. FDR had a suspicious sympathy for Communists.
If we iterated the Cold War ten times we might see nuclear Armageddon 5 out of 10 times. The hypothetical decision to give the Soviets an ultimatum to return to their prewar borders or be physically removed possibly could have saved the world from nuclear war. At minimum it would have destroyed the power of Marxism from shaping the world as it did and I think our domestic institutions would be in much better order than today. I still think it would have been the right move personally.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 12:52 pm to LongueCarabine
quote:
The flip side of this equation is, could the US and Allies have defeated Russia after the fall of Berlin?
I've seen this question asked and debated on here, and the consensus answer is "No, because the Allies were tired of war." Well, I'm sure Russia was tired too.
And they didn't have the mechanization nor the air power of the Allies. The air power in particular I think would have made mincemeat of Russian ground troops. Sure, it would have been a hard battle at first to establish air superiority, but after that???
Russia had no heavy bomber to speak of, and the only mechanized transport they had was what we gave them.
I still think we would have won had we decided to kick them out of Germany.
Assuming, Truman doesn't let Alger Hiss pass nuclear secrets to the Russians, I think the Allies sow this one up, too.
quote:
FDR had a suspicious sympathy for Communists.
I'll say. Truman was even worse. After Churchill gave the "Iron Curtain" speech, Truman apologized to Stalin and invited him to the U.S. on the USS Missouri to give a rebuttal speech. WTF!
This post was edited on 4/28/16 at 1:10 pm
Page 14 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News