Did the RN win the Battle of Britain?

[Vassili Zaitzev]

Okay I've found the book. The title is Invasion: The German Invasion Of England July 1940. It was written by retired Major Kenneth Macksey.

[Tony Williams]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

For learning purposes yes it was successful but it was a complete failure therefor it was not successfull...

I was not being serious...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by Tony Williams

Quite so.

Thinking around issues raised in this thread, perhaps the term "Second World War" isn't helpful - it's a portmanteau or umbrella phrase covering several different conflicts.

September 1939 is taken (in most countries) as the starting point because that's when the major west European powers were formally at war with each other. However, that phase was really a Franco-British v Germany war which resulted in the defeat of France.

Then from mid-1940 to mid-1941 it was a Germany/Italy v Britain war - still quite limited in scope, with ground fighting only in N Africa.

The invasion of the USSR kicked off what might be called the Great European War, in which the major players were Germany and the USSR. Several other nations got involved in supporting roles, of which the USA and UK played the most important parts.

The Great Asian/Pacific War was of course primarily between Japan and the USA, with the UK playing an important supporting role.

The question as to whether the USSR could have won without US/British aid (initially Lend-Lease, then strategic bombing, then in the final year with ground troops) is an interesting one, to which there is no definite answer IMO.

Lend-Lease was undoubtedly helpful in the initial phases, when the USSR struggled to replace their initial heavy equipment losses while at the same time relocating their armaments factories far to the east. Could they have hung on without Lend-Lease? Probably, I think, although they would certainly have suffered more. But the country was just too huge, and the environment too brutal, for Hitlers "short-term-dash" military focus to deliver victory.

Once the new factories were in full production, Lend-Lease just became a nice-to-have extra but not critical.

Allied strategic bombing helped the USSR by diverting German resources to the defence of its homeland, and the Anglo-US invasion of Europe also helped. However, I think the Soviets would still have won without either, although it would have taken a year or two longer and the war would have been that much bloodier.

We in the west tend to focus on D-day and all that, and rather forget that in the last year of the war the vast Soviet Army simply dwarfed the US/UK ground forces in Europe. What is quite certain IMO is that, while the question of whether the USSR could have won alone is debatable, the USA/UK could definitely not have beaten Germany without the USSR.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

Good post Tony could not have said it better myself. Well done.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

syscom you can't simply dismiss the Commonwealth's involvement in the CBI as meaningless............

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by Tony Williams

Allied strategic bombing helped the USSR by diverting German resources to the defence of its homeland.

This simple statement totally ignores the massive infrastructure impact on Germany of strategic bombing and interdiction, especially in 1944 and 45. A ridiculous argument is made that strategic bombing was ineffective in that Germany produced more weapons during this onslaught than before. This may be true but totally ignores the amount of weapons Germany could have built if bombs were not falling on their heads everyday and their cities were being burned to the ground. By the time the Russians reached Germany, it was a waste land of bombed-out cities, ruined rail lines, and dry fuel tanks. All compliments of strategic bombing and interdiction.

We in the west tend to focus on D-day and all that, and rather forget that in the last year of the war the vast Soviet Army simply dwarfed the US/UK ground forces in Europe.

I agree. Any invasion would be much later with the Italian campaign playing much more important role.

What is quite certain IMO is that, while the question of whether the USSR could have won alone is debatable, the USA/UK could definitely not have beaten Germany without the USSR.

This makes no sense. The British by themselves outproduced the Germans. Even with a healthy industry, German would quickly fall further and further behind the allies in materiel as the war went on (the US alone produced almost twice the aircraft that Russia produced, nearly three time the Germans), which was the primary reason they lost in the first place. Besides, by the end 1946, the western allies would have had enough atomic bombs to destroy Gemany and Russia combined. Germany would have lost even without the A Bomb. They had an idiot for a leader.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum[/quote]

[Tony Williams]

Originally Posted by davparlr

This simple statement totally ignores the massive infrastructure impact on Germany of strategic bombing and interdiction, especially in 1944 and 45. A ridiculous argument is made that strategic bombing was ineffective in that Germany produced more weapons during this onslaught than before. This may be true but totally ignores the amount of weapons Germany could have built if bombs were not falling on their heads everyday and their cities were being burned to the ground. By the time the Russians reached Germany, it was a waste land of bombed-out cities, ruined rail lines, and dry fuel tanks. All compliments of strategic bombing and interdiction.

That is true, and I was not trying to belittle the Allied bombing effort (in fact, I am usually on the "other side" of the argument, making just the points you have). But while the strategic bombing was making life very difficult for Germany, the fact is that military production was maintained at a high level. The bombing was not going to defeat Germany by itself. To do that required the Soviet Army - if that hadn't existed, Germany could have focused almost entirely on the threat from the UK and USA, making D-day effectively impossible. Germany could also have switched more resources to the air war, making the bombing campaign much more costly (and maintaining a far more aggressive bombing campaign against the UK).

The bombing campaign helped, as I said, but it wasn't decisive. The Soviet Army was.

This makes no sense. The British by themselves outproduced the Germans. Even with a healthy industry, German would quickly fall further and further behind the allies in materiel as the war went on (the US alone produced almost twice the aircraft that Russia produced, nearly three time the Germans), which was the primary reason they lost in the first place.

We have been discussing why Germany could not have successfully invaded Britain - well, this time the boot would be on the other foot. Even with most of the German army on the Eastern Front, with mostly second-line troops stiffened by some good units on R&R in France, and with no air cover whatsoever, all leading to a virtually unopposed landing, the Allies did not have an easy trip through Normandy. Can you imagine what it would have been like if Germany hadn't been fighting the USSR at the same time?

Besides, by the end 1946, the western allies would have had enough atomic bombs to destroy Gemany and Russia combined. Germany would have lost even without the A Bomb. They had an idiot for a leader.

You are right that the atom bomb is the "wild card", although it did in fact take a long time to built up a sizeable stockpile of the weapons. I think that there would have been a very much more intense debate about the morality of dropping the bombs on Germany than there was in the case of Japan - there was a lot of racism involved on both sides of the Asia/Pacific war, which did not exist between the UK/USA and Germany.

Unless the Allies did decide to use the A-bomb, (in which case Hitler would presumably have unleashed his chemical and biological warfare stockpile, and things would have got very unpleasant indeed), I don't see the Allies succeeding in defeating Germany without the Soviet Army on their side.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[Hunter368]

davparlr and Tony,

You both make good points. But I have to say I think the Allies could of beaten the Germans without Russia (if Russia never was in WW2 ever) but it would of been a much much harder fight with many more Allied soldiers killed. Many more civilians would of also died in UK (France and Italy also) and a heck of alot more in Germany would of died.

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by Tony Williams

We have been discussing why Germany could not have successfully invaded Britain - well, this time the boot would be on the other foot. Even with most of the German army on the Eastern Front, with mostly second-line troops stiffened by some good units on R&R in France, and with no air cover whatsoever, all leading to a virtually unopposed landing, the Allies did not have an easy trip through Normandy. Can you imagine what it would have been like if Germany hadn't been fighting the USSR at the same time?

Time was not on Germany's side. With limited men under arms (non-German forces were either mostly not reliable or not as well committed) and not as efficient arms manufacturing or logistic capablity, Germany would soon be significantly out manned (the US had vast amounts of manpower to tap) and out armed. Unlike Germany for operation Sea Lion, the allies would have total control of sea power and probably local control of the airspace due to total quantity of allied airpower available. Every day the Allies would get stronger at a faster rate than the Axis. In a matter of time, the allies could have generated three or four D-Day level invasions with supporting aircraft carriers and warships (Okinawa had 548k troops available, more than D-Day). They would have to defend Italy, Southern France, Calais, Normandy and other places, all silmultaneously against greater number of aircraft, tanks, ships, men, etc. Eventually, the Allies could overwhelm Germany with shear mass. The math is inescapable. Determination, however is something else.

You are right that the atom bomb is the "wild card", although it did in fact take a long time to built up a sizeable stockpile of the weapons. I think that there would have been a very much more intense debate about the morality of dropping the bombs on Germany than there was in the case of Japan - there was a lot of racism involved on both sides of the Asia/Pacific war, which did not exist between the UK/USA and Germany.

I think A-bomb build up would accerate in 46 with desparation. I agree with your comments about the usage. They may have continue to use it against Japan and start negotiations with Germany, who would probably be very interested in ceasing hostilities once the A-bomb had been demonstrated.

Unless the Allies did decide to use the A-bomb, (in which case Hitler would presumably have unleashed his chemical and biological warfare stockpile, and things would have got very unpleasant indeed), I don't see the Allies succeeding in defeating Germany without the Soviet Army on their side.

See above. Also, don't forget the idiot leader.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum[/quote]

[Hunter368]

Agreed 100%

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ***

syscom you can't simply dismiss the Commonwealth's involvement in the CBI as meaningless............

The CBI was meaningless.

The war against Japan was determined by who controlled SE Asia and the central Pacific.

As events proved, it didnt matter how many troops were tied up in China and Burma, because the Japanese didnt have the logistics to support them elsewhere.

[Gnomey]

Yes the Pacific was the main area but I wouldn't call over a million Japanese soldiers in theatre a meaningless theatre of operations but each to his own...

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Gnomey

Yes the Pacific was the main area but I wouldn't call over a million Japanese soldiers in theatre a meaningless theatre of operations but each to his own...

The Japanese didnt have the transport to move them around, little alone supply them.

The IJA in the CBI were essentially useless in the strategic way of things.

[Gnomey]

Originally Posted by syscom3

The Japanese didnt have the transport to move them around, little alone supply them.

The IJA in the CBI were essentially useless in the strategic way of things.

Agreed but they still where there and the still hand to be defeated, they weren't go to surrender on orders from Tokyo necessarily. Still it tied down men that the Japanese (although the couldn't move them) needed elsewhere. What the could move was sunk en-route. Later on to replace/reinforce the Pacific Islands they replaced them with troops from Japan who were without (not all) battle experience. Had they been able to send the divisions in China who were battle hardened, I doubt the ending would of been different but the cost may of been higher.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Gnomey

Agreed but they still where there and the still hand to be defeated, they weren't go to surrender on orders from Tokyo necessarily. Still it tied down men that the Japanese (although the couldn't move them) needed elsewhere. What the could move was sunk en-route. Later on to replace/reinforce the Pacific Islands they replaced them with troops from Japan who were without (not all) battle experience. Had they been able to send the divisions in China who were battle hardened, I doubt the ending would of been different but the cost may of been higher.

Japan still needed troops in China to guard against Russia.

And again, the logistics of supplying troops throughout the Pacific dictated the size of the force. Just putting another 100,000 troops in the Mariana's just means theres 100,000 more troops to feed.

[daishi12]

Syscom, where does the statement about the Pacific come into the argument about whether the RN won the BoB?

Surely the original argument was did the RAF steal all the glory from the RN?

As I see it the RAF managed to deny air superiority to the LW at a local level whilst the RN made Operation Sealion a tactical impossibility.

With regard to number of divisions available to the army, there would have been the 14 infantry divisions and 2 armoured, but there would also have been the Home Defence Force ( "Dad's Army" ), admitedly, they would have been poorely equiped but a bullet from a 1914 issue rifle will kill you as dead as a 1939 issue rifle.

I think it would have been all about whether the Luftwaffe would have been able to prevent the RAF/RN from destroying significant numbers of invasion barges (which where mainly flat-bottomed, low freeboard river vessels). It is probably worth noting that during the majority of Allied landings the landing craft went in from no more than 5 miles offshore, and the troops usually where seasick. I'd like to see a flat-bottomed, low freeboard river vessel trying to go between 12 and 35 miles in even moderate seas without the troops being incapacitated, bombed, shelled, mined or swamped.