[RN7]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

] That's an interesting ... assertion ... the Commonwealth Nations, Australia, Canada and New Zealand ... would have found it ... unusual ... as they believed they were at war with Germany as part of the Commonwealth (or Empire, or whatever you wish to call it).

Certainly Menzies made it plain that Australia was an integral part of it ...

... and the NZ and Canadian governments felt the same.

(Yes, I know all about the Statute of Westminster [1931] etc. But it is not relevant that the Commonwealth was in it under UK leadership)

I don't think Hitler or the rest of Germany gave two hoots about the Commonwealth as they were concerned with Europe not the affairs of British colonies and dominions on other continents. I don't think Hitler lost to much sleep when Menzies declared war on him!

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Indeed. If I had said differently, there might be some point to this statement. Sadly, however, I have never said such, so it is irrelevant in and of itself.)

But you did say......

"And the UK had an Atomic Weapons program and the werewithal to, slowly, bring it to fruition ... the Germans had none, and even their pathetic nuclear power programs were working the wrong direction"

" or, more likely, the UK would have managed an A Bomb (as they had an actual Atomic program, which the Germans really didn't ... and were on the right track, which the Germans patently weren't) by the late 1940s or early to mid 1950s."

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Air Superiority over the English Channel etc. With the RAF, RCAF, RNZAF, RSAAF, and RAAF and probably the RIAF. As they did historically.

All this was achieved all on their own without any help from the USAAC or without the diversion of Luftwaffe air resources to the Eastern Front

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Note: The definition of 'air superiority' is rather different to that of 'air supremacy' which is what I assume you really mean).

!?!

That would be to be superior in the air, to have air superiority, controlling the air to make air attacks on the enemy without serious opposition and be free from the serious enemy air incursions.

Is that clearer?

Originally Posted by aspqrz

German U Boats in North Sea. Well, since this wasn't their prime operational area and was relatively shallow, relatively easily.

No but it would have been in their interest to eradicate U-Boat activity in the North Sea which borders the English Channel and the entire east coast of Great Britain all the same.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

] As for the Western Approaches etc. Clearing the areas of U-Boats is not necessary as long as you are building more merchant ships than are being sunk. Which, overall, the British Commonwealth was until the US entered the war and decided that convoys weren't necessary, and the loss rate went through the roof thanks to that piece of idiocy.

Gee that's some logic. Don't bother clearing the U-Boats from the area as we can just build more ships than they can sink! Where did you read that?

Originally Posted by aspqrz

You might like to read about Operational Research and the weapons and tactics it allowed to be developed that nobbled the U-Boat threat.

And, of course, the allocation of more air power to LR ASW Patrols historically put the final nails in the coffin of any chance the U-Boats had ... and required 25-50 LRBs. Could have been done at any time, except that Harris was too focussed on the Bombing Campaign ... and, really, it wasn't desperately needed until the US stuffed things up.

It's not a topic I am unfamiliar with

Originally Posted by aspqrz

And as for a land invasion of Western Europe with an Army the size of that which took part in Overlord ... where did I ever say that that would happen?

Well you have been banging on about a British Commonwealth victory..


" As for the US winning the war, well, while the UK probably could have hung on, and probably supported the USSR just enough for it to hang on as well, the reality is that, even as weak as the Germans were (economically speaking), the war would have been much much much longer without the direct involvement of the US ... but the 'allies' would probably have won ... eventually ... think the Napoleonic Wars (1789-1812/15)".


" the Commonwealth could not easily have defeated the Germans, either, however, as I noted, on a historical basis, the UK has taken on powers as strong as she is/was and defeated them even if it took decades".

" I do not say, and never did, that the Commonwealth would have had an easy victory - merely that, as shown by the Napoleonic Wars (and the earlier world wars against the French), a continental power cannot defeat a naval power and, as long as the naval power maintains its blockade and foments rebellion and alliances against said continental power, they will eventually win".

" And, of course, you seem to be ignoring, or not grasping, that I have repeatedly pointed out it would not have been an easy Commonwealth victory ... but a slow, grinding, attritional one",

So I'd like to know how exactly it would be achieved without a direct assault on German controlled Europe without US support?

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Or, to put it another way, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

I specifically referred to Britain's efforts in the Napoleonic and 7YW ... which were coalition building efforts, and were won as part of a British encouraged and often paid for coalition and where most of the troops involved were not British.

And, of course, since I made it clear that it would take much longer than with the US, the British A-Bombs come into play alongside with whatever coalition the Commonwealth manages to cobble together.

You won't be see any British A-Bombs before 1950