I am a young film maker from Bournemouth University and am researching historical technological triggers that could have turned the tide of World War II against the British. In essence, is there one single technological development that could have lead to a ground invasion of the British Isles? For example, if radar had been invented by the Nazi's and not the British could the Blitz have continued to ravage London for a more prolonged period, and lead to a greater demise in the RAF? Would there have been a snow ball effect? Any intelligent, or creatively intelligent suggestions would be very greatly appreciated.
The only thing I can really think of is if the Walter type U-Boat was developed sooner. This is the one that was faster below the surface than above, and able to remain submerged for long periods. As long as the submarine was more surface ship than submarine it was always going to be venerable to surface ships and aircraft. The Walter might have turned the tide against Britain.
The Germans did have radar and in many ways it was more advanced than the British systems. What they did not have an answer to was the British integrated air defence systems which received information from both radar and ground observers and sent directions to the fighters. And of course radar was mainly useful for defence. It was not any use to attacking bomber formations. The Germans did have some fairly advance beam guidance systems, which they used to good effect during the blitz, but these systems were not decisive on their own, because the Luftwaffe, only designed to be a tactical airforce, lacked the capacity to deliver really heavy raids of the type later delivered by the RAF Bomber Command main force. And for that matter RAF bombing was not a decisive factor as it turned out.
I would also back the U-boat theory. Had the Germans devoted more resources to submarines in place of prestige pieces such as battleships (and, arguably, the V-rockets) and thereby had greater numbers in service throughout - far cheaper in terms of construction and manning - and the quicker introduction of the advanced Type XXI U-boats, it would have been a far greater task to deal with them effectively. Richard
Originally posted by DirtyDick@May 25 2005, 03:47 PM I would also back the U-boat theory. Had the Germans devoted more resources to submarines in place of prestige pieces such as battleships (and, arguably, the V-rockets) and thereby had greater numbers in service throughout - far cheaper in terms of construction and manning - and the quicker introduction of the advanced Type XXI U-boats, it would have been a far greater task to deal with them effectively. Richard [post=34782]Quoted post[/post] I would vote for an atomic bomb, which the Germans were working on frantically throughout the war. While it may not have aided an invasion of the UK, successful deployment of such weapons could have led to a British surrender and avoided the necessity of an invasion. Doc
Germany was quite a few years from an atomic bomb....Even with Resources as from my understanding.....they just didnt have the know how to do it quick enough.
Originally posted by Doc@May 27 2005, 03:23 PM I would vote for an atomic bomb, which the Germans were working on frantically throughout the war. [post=34822]Quoted post[/post] Sorry, I don't think I would go along with this. For much of the war, the Germans were doing some fairly basic nuclear research in a fairly half heated way, with nothing like the the level of staffing and funding you would need to produce a viable bomb. Come 1945, they were not even close to having a sustainable basic reactor, let alone a bomb, in spite of some recent rather ridiculous press reports that they did have a weapon.
I think the kicker for the Germans would have been if Enigma did not have that weakness of a letter never being itself. If their communications had been encrypted better, the British would not have been able to deploy defenses properly. Enigma was critical.
I would opt for Strategic bomber and descend long range fighter escort. Forget Ju88 and He111, they should build He277 or even 377. Massive load of TNTs and incendiaries escorted with squadrons of long range 190s or 109s over every corner of britain, might done the Island.
Originally posted by fraser83@May 24 2005, 11:21 PM In essence, is there one single technological development that could have lead to a ground invasion of the British Isles? For example, if radar had been invented by the Nazi's and not the British could the Blitz have continued to ravage London for a more prolonged period, and lead to a greater demise in the RAF? Would there have been a snow ball effect? Any intelligent, or creatively intelligent suggestions would be very greatly appreciated. [post=34770]Quoted post[/post] The few instances where large chunks of wartime history turned on small factors generally related to events, not newly-invented technology. You could say the Battle of Britain was won by the British because of a failed radio. You could say the Bismarck was found on its way to Brest because someone noticed that a morse code 'handwriting' had changed. You'd need something pretty far out, like the Me262 available for participation in the Battle of Britain, to have changed the way things fell out. For a technology to be effectively deployed in a war requires political will and economic priority as well as technical expertise, and the Nazis believed that the capitulation of Britain was just a question of time, and that they might as well knock over Russia while they were waiting... Let's face it, with 20/20 hindsight, it's hard to see another result. Regards, MikB
Originally posted by fraser83@May 24 2005, 03:21 PM I am a young film maker from Bournemouth University and am researching historical technological triggers that could have turned the tide of World War II against the British. In essence, is there one single technological development that could have lead to a ground invasion of the British Isles? For example, if radar had been invented by the Nazi's and not the British could the Blitz have continued to ravage London for a more prolonged period, and lead to a greater demise in the RAF? Would there have been a snow ball effect? Any intelligent, or creatively intelligent suggestions would be very greatly appreciated. [post=34770]Quoted post[/post] What the Germans needed was an understanding of the role technology played in the RAFs' ability to detect aircraft and then guide fighters to interception. Until the Germans' destroyed Fighter Command, no invasion of Britian would have been possible.
The Germans also lacked a decent landing craft. They would have to had transported troops across the Channel on barges. If they had something similar to the Higgins boat, it would have made a landing a lot easier. But that is if they get to the landing; they would have to defeat the RAF and RN first.
Lets look at at a deferent angle. What if the germans built aircraft carrier like japan did? after all japan did not have the industrial strengh Germany did. i'm sure they would had been equal to the U.S carriers.........Maybe even better.
Originally posted by Perf@Aug 2 2005, 10:35 PM Lets look at at a deferent angle. What if the germans built aircraft carrier like japan did? after all japan did not have the industrial strengh Germany did. i'm sure they would had been equal to the U.S carriers.........Maybe even better. [post=37183]Quoted post[/post] Well, the Germans tried. They came pretty close to finishing the Graf Zeppelin, and the Luftwaffe assigned and trained squadrons of Me 109s and Ju 87 dive-bombers to her. They were tailhook-equipped and Luftwaffe crews, but I don't know if they trained on the tailhooks. But Graf Zeppelin and her sisters were never finished. What was needed was the commitment to finishing the carriers, training the airmen, and committing them to action...and developing the doctrine to make use of them.
Originally posted by BrianP@Jul 8 2005, 09:51 PM The Germans also lacked a decent landing craft. They would have to had transported troops across the Channel on barges. If they had something similar to the Higgins boat, it would have made a landing a lot easier. [post=36272]Quoted post[/post] I agree that quite clearly the Germans would have been better placed than they were if they had a fleet of purpose built craft. But if you take the specialist invasion vessels the allies had in 1944 - and there were many different types, not just or even mainly Higgins boats - they were the result of lessons learned from experience in North Africa, Sicily, Italy and the many landings which were taking place in the Pacific. The same applies to tactical lessons and specialist equipment such as AVREs. The Germans of 1940 had not had an opportunity to perfect their seaborne landing techniques. They could not use Norway as an example to learn from - it was conceptually quite different in scale and method from an invasion of Britain.
