Who Could Have Won WWII?

[RN7]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

And I'll say it again, too. There is nothing fantasist about it.

The Germans had no way of defeating the Commonwealth ... no, their U-Boat Campaign didn't ever manage it, either, and it is wishful thinking to believe it could have ... 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.

Germany wasn't at war with the Commonwealth, it was at war with Britain in Europe (also in the Atlantic and North Africa) and only fought Commonwealth forces who were deployed in these areas to support British forces. I doubt Germany even had any realistic plans for a war with the Commonwealth that was separate from plans directed against Britain.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

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.

Britain had an atomic weapons programme but it wouldn't have independently produced an atomic bomb before 1950 without American involvement.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Would a Commonwealth/Russian victory have been quick? No. Would it have been easy? Hell no! But there is no evidence that the Germans could have won, and the Commonwealth have that historical track record of sticking to it!

How exactly would Britain have established air superiority over the English Channel and Northern France and Low Countries, and cleared German submarine forces from the North Sea, Western Approaches and North Atlantic, and then assemble an army the size of what was assembled during D-Day and then mount an invasion of Western Europe without the involvement of America?

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Note where it was tested. Certainly wasn't in the UK!!!
Middle of Australia, Woomera to be exact.

India was still in the fight as was Australia and New Zealand, not to mention South Africa as well as a number of other countries of somewhat lesser strategic importance (although able to supply troops and materials). Although at the time there was a great deal of fear that the Japanese would continue southward and roll over Australia and New Zealand, there was in reality little need for them to do that, nor did they really have the available forces anyway. Australia is HUGE. They'd need hundreds of thousands of troops to take it in the 1940s (more today with our greater population), troops they simply didn't have as it turned out.

With the constant threat of German aerial attack it's likely much of the UKs industrial production would be shifted to safer colonies (such as South Africa) with finished products shipped in via convoys. Eygpt and the suez canal would likely have become even more important with Commonwealth efforts against the Axis forces concentrated there while the UK itself carried out only holding actions to prevent invasion. Instead of D-Day landings being in France, the main thrust (when it finally came, likely several years later) may have been up through the middle east in an attempt to link up with the Soviets.

All in all though it's really impossible to say what might have happened, but it is foolish to say the UK would definitely have been defeated without the US.



It was possible. Even with the multiple fronts the Commonwealth were holding their own using substandard equipment (mainly god awful tanks with underpowered guns and dodgy tactics). It may have taken a few years but the Commonwealth may have been able to strangle Germany just enough to force a stalemate, and eventually, after another decade or two, maybe even take back some areas.

It would be a radically different world that which we live in today, one I imagine would somewhat resemble that shown in the George Orwell book, 1984 with war a constant background and the people generally living in poverty.

Although it is doubtful that Germany would have beaten Britain through military invasion, if America wasn't involved in the war and German progress in submarine warfare, jet aircraft and rocket technology had continued at the pace it did in reality there is also a strong possibility that Germany might have beaten Britain into submission.

Relocating British industry to other parts of the Commonwealth to fight on is however wishful thinking. Canada (mainly Ontario and Quebec) were the only part of the British Empire outside the UK that were heavily industrialised before the war, and that is the only place were any continuation of British military and industrial power would remain due to the fact that it is also protected by its proximity to the United States. It is possible to transplant factories and use blueprints to restart war production but only to a point. In WW2 arms and related industrial factories were only built on a limited scale in the British Empire outside of Canada, and that was when the British Empire was allied with and under the protection of the United States. With Britain defeated how long will India and the non-white colonies remain part of the British Empire, or in fact would Afrikaaner dominated South Africa remain British? Also with no alliance with America and Britain knocked out, were will the technical expertise and the finance to support a Commonwealth led British Empire come from?

[RN7]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

My point exactly. And, to other posters, no, I am not trolling and the fact that Historians don't suggest that the Commonwealth could have won alone is unsurprising. Historians document what did happen, generally speaking, and shy away from explaining what could have happened except in the shortest of short terms, maybe medium term if they stretch it.

And, of course, many Historians, even respected ones, don't actually do a lot of (and, in some cases, any at all) original research ... they simply rehash what is available in secondary sources and seldom check to see whether those secondary sources are based on reliable primary sources.

This is one of the reasons why our understanding of the war in the East has so radically changed in the last quarter century ... decades of Soviet lies and misinformation is gradually being chipped away at by people like Glantz (good researcher, terrible writer btw). But even before that by people such as Barber and Harrison in books such as "The Soviet Home Front, 1941-5: a Social and Economic History of the USSR in World War II" and in others of their extensive writings on the Soviet economy.

Unfortunately, this material has yet to make its way into the wider historical context, especially in generalist histories and histories aimed at a non-specialist audience.

So are you implying that the Soviets (and the Germans) lied about the Eastern Front in the Second World War, and that we should discount the forces listed as being present in the campaigns and battles on the Eastern Front and the casualty rates incurred during them?

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Similar material is increasingly available in specialist economic and historical circles that debunks many of the more ludicrous claims about such things as the U Boat campaign bringing the UK to its knees or that it could have defeated her single handedly.

And what should we make of the naval losses statistics during the battle of the Atlantic?

Originally Posted by aspqrz

As for the Japanese - well, as I noted elsewhere, the US and Japanese were on a path to conflict without the UK anywhere. If the Japs decided to steal all the resources they needed because of the US embargoes, they will, indeed, almost certainly go to war with the UK etc. Unfortunately, military reality, and their own unique and not entirely crazy (but always consistent within its own crazy logic) take on reality meant that, to take and secure the resources of Malaya, Borneo, the DEI and elsewhere they needed to take out the US forces in the PI. Which meant war with the US.

Although Japan's actions may have been guided by the fact that Germany had taken control over most of Europe, pinned Britain against the wall and declared war on the Soviet Union.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Now, if the US decides to ignore Europe and simply fight the Japs, the Japs are not a major problem for the Commonwealth for more than a year, maybe a year and a bit ... after all, as we all know, the US put 80% of its war effort into Europe and only 20% into the Pacific. If they had put 100% into the Pacific they would have swamped the Japs at least a year, and more likely 1.5-2 years, earlier ... though without the A-Bomb, of course.

Well the US would have had to have beaten the Imperial Japanese Navy and also mobilise its manpower and industry to create military forces capable of clearing the Japanese from the Pacific which would have taken longer than a year or two.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

And the A-Bomb. Tubealloys provided a lot of the theoretical and engineering underpinning for the US program on the, mistaken, understanding that the US would share the fruits of such ... so the UK didn't expend resources on it. If the US was not involved, then the program would have continued ... granted, much less quickly than the Manhattan Engineering District did, but I never suggested it would.

Well if the UK and US didn't cooperate in Atomic research and Britain went ahead alone I don't think we would have seen Atomic bomb's until the 1950's

Originally Posted by aspqrz

And, of course, I note you completely ignore the historical stick-to-it-ivity of the British Empire at war over the last several centuries and her ability to fund and pay off such wars within extremely short periods of time.

I just get annoyed at people trotting out 'facts' that are now known to not be such in specialist circles and pooh-poohing anyone who disagrees with those disproven assertions.

Not trolling at all.

Phil

Although the relevance of history is important to us all I think the logistics, tactics, technology and cost of mechanised warfare of the mid-20th Century would differ somewhat to warfare and realities fought by the British Empire during the Seven years War and Napoleonic wars, when armies used gunpowder and muskets and navies were dependent on sail and wind.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Probably not. The UK had large underground factory complexes for all sorts of things and, indeed, much of their industry was actually completely beyond the range of German bombers and more was beyond the range of unescorted German bombers (aka 'sitting ducks').

And, as we know from German experiences with the Bombing Campaign, factory buildings are easy(ish) to destroy, but the machine tools in them ... not so much. It was common for 'destroyed' factories to be back in production in days or weeks with, at best, only temporary shelter above the workers heads (if any at all) ... the Russians found much the same with the factories they relocated east of the Urals, they were back in production as soon as the machines were on firm footings, even in winter, and way before anything more than temporary shelter was erected over them.

If the Germans and Russians could manage it, no reason why the Brits couldn't.

Phil

No part of Britain was outside the range of German bombers. The Soviet Union had the vast expanses of Siberia to relocate its factories to, and Germany was geographically larger than Britain and even more so when you add the territory it conquered and annexed in Eastern Europe during the war.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by RN7

Britain had an atomic weapons programme but it wouldn't have independently produced an atomic bomb before 1950 without American involvement.

That's not the interpretation I gained from reading about Britain's nuclear weapons research. In fact it appears completely opposite what you state here. Britain was conducting atomic weapons research in 1940. It sent it's data and it's researchers to the US to encourage and assist the US in building atomic weapons.
The US was supposed to share all its findings with the UK but didn't due to security concerns. Britain essentially rebuilt its atomic weapons programme from scratch without any outside assistance so that approximately five years after wars end, they had working technology.

Edit: for more, refer to my post here http://forum.juhlin.com/showpost.php...5&postcount=97

[RN7]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

If the British had continued their own programme instead of halting it to give their information and their researchers to the US, they likely would have had a bomb available to them around the same time as the Manhattan Project delivered its first weapon and possibly before.

Not a chance.

When America and Britain started to cooperate in 1940 they compared their work, and it was discovered that British research was more advanced and that Britain was spending more on research.

Once America put its full resources into the project the roles soon reversed heavily in favour of America. By 1942 Britain was spending about $2 million on R&D compare with America who was spending about $30 million on R&D, plus another $100 million on construction projects related to atomic research. This unequal balance remained if not increased until 1945. After the completion of the Manhattan Project the US conceded that early British research and scientists were helpful but not vital to the project, and that the US would have built an atomic bomb without British assistance. Although the US also conceded that without ongoing active British assistance they would not have had an atomic device by 1945.

For Britain to have built an atomic bomb without US cooperation it was estimated that it would have cost $12 million in R&D, and a nuclear reactor would have had to have been built (probably in Canada) costing $20 million and taking 5 years to construct, while industrial facilities, heavy water and uranium metal would have cost another $40 million. The project would involve over 20,000 highly skilled workers, half a million tons of steel and 500,000 kw of electricity, and all this during WW2 without any disruption. British participation in the Manhattan Project gave it a lot of data and expertise that it would have taken a lot longer to compile without its cooperation with the US, and even the success of Hurricane in 1952 was not without gaps in technology.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Cdnwolf

GODZILLA WON!

Can we now lock this thread?

Why censor debate? Happens all too often already without yet another thread being shut down just because somebody's ego is bruised.
As long as the insults are kept out of it, where's the problem?

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

It's also worth noting the British had an aircraft more than capable to carrying an atomic bomb several years before the US - the Avro Lancaster.
With a payload of 22,000lbs, it was also capable of carrying nearly a ton more than the US B-29.

True British bombers had larger payloads compared with US bombers, but the B-29 was faster and had a longer range than the Lancaster and also had a greatly superior service ceiling height.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

I also feel that you are cherry picking your objections ... indeed, creating them where they simply cannot stand, as in the matter of Japan in the Far East, ignoring the reality that if they attacked the Commonwealth and her allies they had to attack the US. I am not aware of any mainstream historian who supports that line of thought ... unless they're conspiracy theorists.

They attacked the Commonwealth in Asia/Pacific because they could see that Britain was unlikely to be able to significantly oppose Japanese forces or significantly reinforce the Commonwealth due to being heavily engaged against Germany and Italy in Europe, North Africa and the Med. They were in retrospect very accurate with that assessment, and their major blunder was to seriously underestimate American resolve and resources.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

As far as a non-US WW2 goes, could the Commonwealth have won? Obviously, based on economics, the answer is yes. As I have repeatedly pointed out, and which you still don't seem to have fully understood, such a victory would have been neither fast nor cheap. Would it have caused economic stresses that could have had similar consequences to the American Revolution ... hell yes. Would that change the fact that the Commonwealth could/would have defeated Germany (aka 'won the war') ... IMO, no.

This is obviously where our main point of difference is.

Phil

The British Commonwealth could not have beaten Germany on its own.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by RN7

True British bombers had larger payloads compared with US bombers, but the B-29 was faster and had a longer range than the Lancaster and also had a greatly superior service ceiling height.

True, but the point is the British had the capability, perhaps moreso than the US and certainly earlier. The range difference wouldn't have been much of a factor in Europe although speed may have.

[Legbreaker]

Lets look at this from another angle.

Could the US have won without the Commonwealth. My money is firmly on "not a chance in hell".

Also, could Germany have won if a) they didn't have to bail out Italy in Africa, and/or b) they left the USSR alone for another year?

What if Spain had joined in on the side of the Axis?

What if Japan had coordinated their submarine war with Germany?

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Lets look at this from another angle.

Could the US have won without the Commonwealth. My money is firmly on "not a chance in hell".

Also, could Germany have won if a) they didn't have to bail out Italy in Africa, and/or b) they left the USSR alone for another year?

What if Spain had joined in on the side of the Axis?

What if Japan had coordinated their submarine war with Germany?

I don't believe that the U.S. or the Commonwealth could have the war without each other's support.

Could Germany have won the war if they hadn't had to intervene in Africa? Tough to call, since Africa would later prove to be essential for air and sea bases as well as a logistical base for later operations in Italy and Southern Europe. Without invading Russia, the Germans should have been to send in additional troops and support making the British operations much more difficult...hmmm how would Eighth Army performed against one of the first line field marshals?

I doubt that Spain would have able to enter the war as Franco was still rebuilding after the civil war, if he did enter the war, Gibraltar would have been besieged and almost certainly taken, sealing the Mediterranean at one end and making it far more likely that Malta would have been invaded.

Japan's submarine offensive would be harder to pull off, IJN doctrine had its subs primary mission as anti-warship, would they have modified their doctrine?

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

True, but the point is the British had the capability, perhaps moreso than the US and certainly earlier. The range difference wouldn't have been much of a factor in Europe although speed may have.

But they had to have an atomic bomb to load on a Lancaster.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Lets look at this from another angle.

Could the US have won without the Commonwealth. My money is firmly on "not a chance in hell".

It would have been difficult for them to do so in the early part of the war without Australia in the Pacific, and near impossible in Europe without Britain.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Also, could Germany have won if a) they didn't have to bail out Italy in Africa, and/or b) they left the USSR alone for another year?"

It would have been easier for them to do so but the more likely outcome would have been that the Germans reached an armistice with Britain in Europe and the Med.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

What if Spain had joined in on the side of the Axis??"

It would have created problems for the Allies in North Africa and the Med, but more to do with enabling German forces to use Spanish ports and airbases than any great threat from Spanish forces. The Canary Islands and Spanish North Africa wouldn't last too long from Allied invasion and they would have been useful as bases against the Axis. Gibraltar probably would have been invaded but Spain would also have been wide open to attack and invasion from the Med and may have been an easier route to an Allied invade Europe than Italy and the South of France.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

What if Japan had coordinated their submarine war with Germany?

It would have undoubtedly caused some problems but anti-submarine tactics used in the Atlantic could have countered it. Japanese submarines in the Atlantic and German U-boats in the Pacific might have been interesting.

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by RN7

No part of Britain was outside the range of German bombers. The Soviet Union had the vast expanses of Siberia to relocate its factories to, and Germany was geographically larger than Britain and even more so when you add the territory it conquered and annexed in Eastern Europe during the war.

Really.

Possibly true, depending on where said German Bombers were based.

Utterly misleading, however.

As I noted in a previous post, IIRC, unescorted German Bombers could reach most of the UK.

Unescorted German Bombers = dead meat.

55% of the RAF was north of the maximum range line for escorted German Bombers ... which is, also, one reason why the Germans were never going to be able to win the Battle of Britain with the resources they had available.

Phil

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by RN7

Germany wasn't at war with the Commonwealth, it was at war with Britain in Europe (also in the Atlantic and North Africa) and only fought Commonwealth forces who were deployed in these areas to support British forces. I doubt Germany even had any realistic plans for a war with the Commonwealth that was separate from plans directed against Britain.

]

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 ...

Fellow Australians, it is my melancholy duty to inform you officially that, in consequence of the persistence of Germany in her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war upon her, and that, as a result, Australia is also at war. No harder task can fall to the lot of a democratic leader than to make such an announcement. Great Britain and France, with the cooperation of the British Dominions, have struggled to avoid this tragedy.

... 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)

Originally Posted by RN7

Britain had an atomic weapons programme but it wouldn't have independently produced an atomic bomb before 1950 without American involvement.

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.

Originally Posted by RN7

How exactly would Britain have established air superiority over the English Channel and Northern France and Low Countries, and cleared German submarine forces from the North Sea, Western Approaches and North Atlantic, and then assemble an army the size of what was assembled during D-Day and then mount an invasion of Western Europe without the involvement of America?

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

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

Phil

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by RN7

So are you implying that the Soviets (and the Germans) lied about the Eastern Front in the Second World War, and that we should discount the forces listed as being present in the campaigns and battles on the Eastern Front and the casualty rates incurred during them?

You seem hell bent on telling me that I said things that I most patently did not say.

I mentioned nothing about whether the Germans lied about their experiences on the Eastern Front at all, ever, anywhere.

As for the Soviets lying. Have you read Glantz and other, less well known, post-89 historians of the Eastern Front?

Did the Soviets dissembled, obfuscate, mislead, misdirect, fabricate and outright lie about much of what actually happened on the Eastern Front and in Russia during the war?

Hell yes.

Originally Posted by RN7

And what should we make of the naval losses statistics during the battle of the Atlantic?

Um. That the U-Boats, overall, weren't sinking enough tonnage to exceed the build/repair rate? Or not until the US entered and insisted that Convoys weren't necessary? And that even the US were eventually forced to realise that they actually were? And that thereafter the losses dropped back way below dangerous levels?

Yep. That would cover it.

Phil

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by RN7

The British Commonwealth could not have beaten Germany on its own.

Indeed, that is correct ... but not in the way I strongly suspect you mean it.

What I suspect you mean is that 'The British Commonwealth could not have beaten Germany without active US intervention.'

The US was already selling arms to the UK, even before Lend Lease, and was rearming herself because she saw the Axis as a threat. Even if they do not enter the war one can reasonably assume that they will continue to sell to the UK out of simple self interest ... making money, stripping the Commonwealth of as much as they can.

As for the rest, well, as I have noted, you need to compare a non-US WW2 with the Napoleonic and 7YW ... where Britain built a series of coalitions that eventually won those wars. And that is what would likely have happened again.

So, yes, the Commonwealth would have had to build a coalition to win ... but not necessarily with the US ...

Phil

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by RN7

German U-boats in the Pacific might have been interesting.

You realise, of course, that there were German U-Boats in the Pacific? Operating out of Penang?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsun_Gruppe

And that Japanese Subs operated in the Atlantic?

(Well, a Sub, and 'operated' in a loose sense ... the I-8)

Phil

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Could Germany have won the war if they hadn't had to intervene in Africa? Tough to call, since Africa would later prove to be essential for air and sea bases as well as a logistical base for later operations in Italy and Southern Europe. Without invading Russia, the Germans should have been to send in additional troops and support making the British operations much more difficult...hmmm how would Eighth Army performed against one of the first line field marshals?

There are, as they say, only three things that matter in War.

Logistics, Logistics and Logistics.

For a good understanding of why the Germans simply could not have done better (or supplied more troops) in North Africa than they did historically, read Van Creveld's "Supplying War" which details all the insurmountable problems.

Some of which include ...

* Inadequate Port Facilities throughout the operational area. Not enough wharf space, not enough harbour space etc. Even in the main ports. And that applied both in Italy (it could take over a month to load a Merchant Ship in the ports the Italians were using) and in North Africa ... and was vastly worse in North Africa. The main Italian port could handle, IIRC, 4-8 ships at a time ... and there was usually in excess of a month backlog to unload cargoes.

* Inadequate Merchant Shipping. The Italians lost something like 60% of their Merchant Marine (which was tiny, anyway) at the outbreak of the war ... and almost all of their tankers.

* Inadequate Fuel. The reason the Regia Marina did damn all was because it had no oil. What it did have had to be, and this had to be ordered by Hitler directly, taken out of Kriegsmarine Stocks ... most Italian ships had barely enough bunkerage to keep their engines ticking over in port. This, of course, had an impact on their merchant ships (they took oil away from the navy) and on escort availability.

* Inadequate Coastal Lighterage. To supply the front, use of small, extremely limited capacity, coastal ports was needed ... and the Germans and Italians didn't have more than a fraction (20% or less, IIRC) of the required tonnage of shallow draft small capacity coastal craft that could use those ports.

* Inadequate Motorised Transport. The DAK was provided with the same amount of motor transport as the Grosstransportraum of an entire Army Group on the Eastern Front ... unless you want to strip, say, Army Group Centre of its motor transport to help out the DAK, there is no more transport.

These trucks could barely supply the DAK when it was close to its supply heads ... the closer they got to Egypt, the worse the supply situation. They wore out quickly, too, as the road net was virtually nonexistent and, worse, the Germans used something like 2000 (yes, that's right, two thousand) different makes and models of trucks, many of them war booty, which made maintaining them a nightmare.

* Inadequate Air Support. The DAK did its best work when Hitler redeployed an entire Luftwaffe Air Group from Russia (or from reinforcing Russia) ... but it had to be withdrawn for use in Russia. After that it was all downhill.

There's more, but read 'Supplying War' of the more recent 'The Lifeblood of War' by Thompson and you'll get the full skinny, not the 'Rommel was a genius' coffee table book version.

Phil

[Legbreaker]

I think it's also worth noting that the US Navy and Coast Guard were so utterly woeful at ASW that the Canadians with their tiny, obsolete navy had to step in and protect them (the coastline from New York northwards, including NY harbour itself).
Also, the UK sent ships over to protect the east coast of the US (because the US simply had no idea how, nor the equipment to do it), even though they were under great pressure at home. The UK considered it a "rescue mission". Makes you think doesn't it.

With regards to Africa, I should have made my question a little clearer - what if (and I know it's a stretch) the Italians had actually been capable of looking after themselves and achieving their goals without Germany military assistance? How would that have effected the other fronts?

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

With regards to Africa, I should have made my question a little clearer - what if (and I know it's a stretch) the Italians had actually been capable of looking after themselves and achieving their goals without Germany military assistance? How would that have effected the other fronts?

The problem remains the same. Logistics. Logistics. Logistics.

The Italians, apart from not having many trucks and, indeed, not having many motorised/mechanised units anyway, suffer from the exact same problems.

Made worse by the fact that ...

* Mussolini was a clewless fool. Of the first water. And didn't have a clew what his strategic aims were ... or what they should be if they were to be achievable with the resources available.

* The Italian army was, largely, a joke ... poorly led, poorly trained, with a huge social gulf between officers and men ... and riven with political problems ... and the Fascist Militia Brigades and Divisions were, if possible, worse, as their officers were chosen for political pull and reliability.

* The Italian air force had only obsolete or obsolescent planes, and didn't have the capacity to produce many anyway.

* The Regia Marina was actually quite good. On Paper. In action? Badly commanded and badly organised. And, of course, almost no fuel ... barely enough to keep the boilers ticking over in port.

* The Italian High Command, and the Commander of Italian forces in North Africa ... well, they bring a whole new meaning to the phrase 'grossly incompetent.

The problem is that the Italians had no solutions to any of those problems once they went to war. None.

The only way the Italians could win WW2, in North Africa or anywhere else, is if she had remained neutral ... even siding with the Allies, until probably 1943 or so, would have been a bad choice.

Unfortunately that requires Mussolini to be Not Mussolini and the entire Italian senior military, political and industrial leadership to be lined up against the wall and shot ... and for the shooting to continue until they find someone competent. Probably a Lance Corporal somewhere.

(For anyone who may be interested, this sort of thing is regularly dealt with over at soc.history.what-if on Google Groups ... where I've been arguing back and forth with the denizens there since the early 90s so I have picked up a thing or two)

Phil

[Legbreaker]

While I agree with all your points completely, what I was asking was, assuming the Italians sorted themselves out, how would the war go elsewhere given the Germans didn't need to even glance in that direction?

Africa was only a sideshow for the Germans as far as manpower and resourced dedicated to it (compared to the other fronts), but still a big headache for them. Without having to worry about that area, and with the ability to redirect those resources, would there have been a significant impact on the other front(s)?
Would Operation Barbarossa have kicked of on time, thereby enabling the Germans to secure Moscow before the snows?
Could more resources have been devoted to the U boats allowing more allied shipping to be sunk and possibly forcing the UK to negotiate?
Could more time and effort be devoted to ironing out the problems with say the Tiger tanks (amongst other technological advances)?

[RN7]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Really.

Possibly true, depending on where said German Bombers were based.

Utterly misleading, however.

As I noted in a previous post, IIRC, unescorted German Bombers could reach most of the UK.

Unescorted German Bombers = dead meat.

55% of the RAF was north of the maximum range line for escorted German Bombers ... which is, also, one reason why the Germans were never going to be able to win the Battle of Britain with the resources they had available.

The Battle of Britain occurred in 1940

Distance from Berlin to London: 933 km
Distance from Berlin to Glasgow: 1,205 km
Distance from Berlin to Cardiff: 1,140 km
Distance from Hamburg to London: 721 km
Distance from Hamburg to Glasgow: 949 km
Distance from Hamburg to Cardiff: 920 km

Heinkel He 177 heavy bomber range 1,540 km.
Arado Ar 234 jet bomber range 1,556 km, maximum speed 742 km/h.

The principle escort fighter for Allied bombing raids on Germany was the P-51 Mustang, an American aircraft. The P-51 escorted USAAC bombing raids during daylight not RAF bombers who preferred night bombing. RAF bombers when accompanied by escort fighters were escorted by the Mosquito night fighter. The Luftwaffe would have had had similar concerns to the RAF about heavy air defences during daylight.

The He 219 night fighter had a range of 1,540 km.
The Bf110F-4/G-4 night fighter had a range of 2,410 km.
The Me-262 jet fighter which was used as a day and night fighter had a range of 1,050 km which was superior to a de Havilland Mosquito F Mk. II and about the same as a Hawker Tempest V without drop tanks but a lot faster.

[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

[RN7]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

You seem hell bent on telling me that I said things that I most patently did not say.

Well you said "decades of Soviet lies and misinformation is gradually being chipped away at by people like Glantz"

Originally Posted by aspqrz

I mentioned nothing about whether the Germans lied about their experiences on the Eastern Front at all, ever, anywhere.

But the Germans were fighting the Soviets so they might be better placed to judge whether the Soviets were spinning lies.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

As for the Soviets lying. Have you read Glantz and other, less well known, post-89 historians of the Eastern Front?

I like to read but I also like to analyse what I read and reach my own conclusion.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Did the Soviets dissembled, obfuscate, mislead, misdirect, fabricate and outright lie about much of what actually happened on the Eastern Front and in Russia during the war?

Hell yes.

So what were the Soviet lies? Were they deceiving everyone about the size of the forces involved in the campaigns on the Eastern Front, their war production figures, their dependency on Lend Lease or their casualty rates?

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Um. That the U-Boats, overall, weren't sinking enough tonnage to exceed the build/repair rate? Or not until the US entered and insisted that Convoys weren't necessary? And that even the US were eventually forced to realise that they actually were? And that thereafter the losses dropped back way below dangerous levels?

Yep. That would cover it.

And which year are we talking about and does this relate to what actually hapended or some hypothetical scenario about the Commonwealth.

If we are talking about what actually happened then.....


Commonwealth ship building
1940: 880,000 tons
1941: 1,276,500 tons
1942: 1,990,800 tons
1943: 1,136,804 tons
1944: 2,139,600 tons
1945: 535,400 tons

Allied Shipping losses in Atlantic
1940: 3,654,500 tons
1941: 3,295,900 tons
1942: 6,150,340 tons
1943: 2,170,400 tons
1944: 505,700 tons
1945: 366,800 tons

So its a good job the Americans were building so many ships.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Indeed, that is correct ... but not in the way I strongly suspect you mean it.

What I suspect you mean is that 'The British Commonwealth could not have beaten Germany without active US intervention.'

No I mean that the British Commonwealth could not have beaten Germany on its own

[RN7]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

You realise, of course, that there were German U-Boats in the Pacific? Operating out of Penang?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsun_Gruppe

And that Japanese Subs operated in the Atlantic?

(Well, a Sub, and 'operated' in a loose sense ... the I-8)

It's not a secret. And were the German U-Boats in the Pacific operating in wolf packs off the coast of California and Pacific entrance to the Panama Canal were they could have done the most damage?

[Legbreaker]

Just because escort fighters may have had the theoretical range, doesn't mean they would. Fighters tend to use a LOT of fuel in a dog fight, and, depending on the plane and armament, usually only carried somewhere between 5 and 20 seconds of ammunition (maximum of about 40 bursts if the pilot was careful, more likely about 20 or less). I'm sure there's a few rare exceptions to that general rule, but they're not all that relevant for the point I'm making.
Therefore it would be suicidal for fighters to fly out to anything like their maximum range, especially if they might need to fight their way back home again.

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by RN7

The Battle of Britain occurred in 1940

Indeed it did.

Originally Posted by RN7

Distance from Berlin to London: 933 km
Distance from Berlin to Glasgow: 1,205 km
Distance from Berlin to Cardiff: 1,140 km
Distance from Hamburg to London: 721 km
Distance from Hamburg to Glasgow: 949 km
Distance from Hamburg to Cardiff: 920 km

Heinkel He 177 heavy bomber range 1,540 km.
Arado Ar 234 jet bomber range 1,556 km, maximum speed 742 km/h.

Heinkel He-177: Aka Luftwaffenfeuerzeug ('Luftwaffe Lighter') because, like the B-29, it kept bursting into flame at exactly the most embarrassing moments possible.

Only available after September 42 as a semi-usable aircraft, and only in small numbers (~600 built in the next 20 months, about 30 per month, and from then to August 44, when production ceased, the rate was around ~34 a month ... as a comparison, ~7300 Lancasters were produced from 1941, and ~11400 Wellingtons from 1936, and ~6100 Halifaxes from 1940.

Arado Ar-234: Only 210 produced, and only operational from September 1944. They were also hangar queens ... 'The Jumo 004 engines were always the real problem; they suffered constant flameouts and required overhaul or replacement after about 10 hours of operation.'

Why? The problem with the Nazi jet engine program is well known - lack of tungsten. Something they could. not. get.

And, oh. deer. The actual operational radius (the 'there and back' range for non-suicide non-one way missions) for the Ar-234 was 800 klicks, not ~1500 (that's the one way suicide mission range).

The Commonwealth managed to produce 26,000+ bombers to the piddling 1000 you think are so great.

Originally Posted by RN7

The principle escort fighter for Allied bombing raids on Germany was the P-51 Mustang, an American aircraft.

Which wasn't worth spit until it was fitted with BRITISH RR Merlin engines.

Originally Posted by RN7

The He 219 night fighter had a range of 1,540 km.
The Bf110F-4/G-4 night fighter had a range of 2,410 km.
The Me-262 jet fighter which was used as a day and night fighter had a range of 1,050 km which was superior to a de Havilland Mosquito F Mk. II and about the same as a Hawker Tempest V without drop tanks but a lot faster.

HE-219: Only 300 built, from mid 43. Mincemeat during the daytime.
Bfe-110: ROTFL! A worthless aircraft except as a Night Fighter ... where, quite properly, it remained over Germany.
Me-262: Operational from April 44, ~1400 produced. Another hangar queen ... for the same reason. Worse, in fact, did you know that the Jumo engines had a tendency to, without any warning whatsoever, catastrophically self destruct and shed turbine blades ... which is why they were mounted under the wings (to provide some protection for the pilot) ... and they were, like the jets in the Arados, good for about 10-12 hours before needing a complete rebuild, then another 10-12 hours before they were junked ... if, of course, they didn't catastrophically fail first.

Bf-109: Rather more common than any of the above. Operational Radius = 850 klicks.
Fw-190: Again, more common than any of the above. Operational Radius = ~835 klicks.

Operational Radius = This is the 'there and back again' range ... half the maximum combat range, in effect ... and this is the actual maximum escort range. Practically, escort range will be much much less than half the operational radius because, oh, y'know, there's an actual need to have fuel to fight off those attacking RAF fighters?

The Brits produced ~132,000 aircraft, a large proportion of which were complex multi-engine types. Canada produced another ~16000.

The Russians built ~158,000.

Germany built ~120,000 and the Italians ~18,000. Mostly simpler single engine types.

And British jet engines didn't catastrophically fail or need to be junked after 20 flight hours.

So your point is, what, exactly?

Phil