Most Important Battles Of Wwii?

Discussion in 'General' started by Vanilla Coke Kid, Jan 8, 2005.

  1. morse1001

    morse1001 Very Senior Member

    Did we know that at the time for sure? Was it certain they didn't have the "Air Assets" or was Hitler holding them back for his "Barbarossa"? Sure they did not replace their aircraft quickly enough however it must have been touch & go together with a bit of luck.

    the problem is that many authories are now saying that Sealion was only a diversion for the build up to barrbarossa
     
  2. Cheshire Yeomanry

    Cheshire Yeomanry Junior Member

    But, given the actual experience of the Americans at the Pacific, I don't think Germany would have remained undisturbed in Europe, even with a conquered Great Britain

    Just how and why would the US get involved?

    It would have no hope of defeating a German occupied western Europe, the logistics were stacked against it
     
  3. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    Originally posted by Cheshire Yeomanry@Jul 14 2005, 09:38 AM
    But, given the actual experience of the Americans at the Pacific, I don't think Germany would have remained undisturbed in Europe, even with a conquered Great Britain

    Just how and why would the US get involved?

    It would have no hope of defeating a German occupied western Europe, the logistics were stacked against it
    [post=36437]Quoted post[/post]

    With respect to you Friedrich H, I must concur in this instance with Cheshire Yeomanry.

    The thread got to a situation where the theoretical defeat /capitulation of Britain IF Hitler had continued his assault on Airfields. I must say I trust emphatically Hugh Dowding's assessment of the Air Crisis. Whilst Britain were winning in the Air the rest of the scenarios become theoretical and you have presented historical theorem to support your argument.

    HOWEVER

    You are also discussing if it did happen America would not sit idle!

    IF Britain was defeated in BoB, the landscape of WW2 would have altered inexplicably to an indeterminable future.

    We must consider here that this was August 1940 (Hugh Dowdings 3 weeks) and if air superiority WAS lost, British Troops would have fought however a sue for peace COULD have occured (not likely, granted) however you must concede that loss of that Air Superiority would have changed the outcomes in more ways than could be imagined or envisaged.

    THE AMERICAN PUBLIC STILL DID NOT WANT TO ALLOW THEIR TROOPS TO FIGHT A EUROPEAN WAR.

    PEARL HARBOUR WAS 16 MONTHS HENCE.

    STALIN STILL HAD A NON AGRESSION PACT WITH HITLER

    THE BARBAROSSA INVASION AS YOU HAVE SAID (RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY) HAD NOT YET BEEN PLANNED AND WAS 10 MONTHS HENCE IN JUNE 1941

    THE JAPANESE WERE STILL IN MANCHURIA AND CHINA.

    THE ITALIANS WERE IN AFRICA, ALTHOUGH THEY HAD DECLARED WAR ON BRITAIN IN JUNE 1940

    THE FRENCH VICHY - REGIME WERE IN AFRICA

    FRENCH INDO CHINA WAS STILL CONTOLLED BY FRENCH PUPPETRY UNDER THE VICHY - REGIME


    What would have been the repercussions to the free world of a BoB loss??
     
  4. Friedrich H

    Friedrich H Senior Member

    Just how and why would the US get involved?

    It would have no hope of defeating a German occupied western Europe, the logistics were stacked against it

    Simply. The consequences of a Japanese-German ruled Eurasia meant a very dangerous threat not only to the United States' interests (cultural, political, economic, military), but to the nation as a whole. Also, the advantages of victory were too great to be left aside (the opportunity of rapid and unstoppablee economic recovery, the military strenghtening of the armed forces and the creation of a world-wide economic empire at the expense of the defeated and war-weary nations).

    No hope? Why? The Germans were the ones with no hope at all to defeat anything, except smaller ill-prepared countries like Poland and France. The US almost single-handed defeated Japan with about 45% its military strenght and without having reached its full potential.

    Also, if Germany defeats the USSR and the UK (something very, very unlikely, if not impossible), everything ends in summer 1945, when Berlin gets vaporised by a B-29 flying from Iceland.

    Besides, actual facts do prove that the US could have performed a single-handed invasion of Europe without Great Britain as a base:

    - The Pacific Theatre as a whole, which saw the largest and most sophisticated supply naval network across the largest ocean on Earth.
    - Most American troops used at Operation 'Torch' were embarked at the US, not at Great Britain.

    With careful planning and a gigantic buildup, it could be done, no doubt. Air cover? Remember the 20+ heavy aircraft carriers the US could throw in. :rolleyes: Even with Japan still in the game.

    The thread got to a situation where the theoretical defeat /capitulation of Britain IF Hitler had continued his assault on Airfields. I must say I trust emphatically Hugh Dowding's assessment of the Air Crisis. Whilst Britain were winning in the Air the rest of the scenarios become theoretical and you have presented historical theorem to support your argument.

    We must consider here that this was August 1940 (Hugh Dowdings 3 weeks) and if air superiority WAS lost

    Air superiority lost? No way. Losing 120 planes for 20 British on September 15th is not achieving air supperiority. Bombing air fields NOT related to fighter command for incompetent intelligence is not achieving air superiority. Forcing 11 Group's fighters to leave a couple of air fields to use some grass strips 1.000 yards away is not achieving air supperiority.

    And even if that is achieving air supperiority, for how long could the Luftwaffe hold it, considering the far greater losses in pilots (permanent losses most of the time) and planes, and the awkward and insufficient replacement methods of men and planes?

    And even if they could hold such 'superiority', how on earth were they going to cross the Channel with their pathetic fisher barges and with their silly destroyers (the very few left after the Norwegian disaster…)? :rolleyes:

    Your what-if scenario is just that, a what-if. In autumn 1940 there was nothing the bloody Krauts could do to crush the Brits once and for all. Unless, of course, they had had 1.000 FW-190 and 3.000 4-engined bombers…

    But, if my uncle was a woman, she’d be my aunt! :rolleyes:
     
  5. morse1001

    morse1001 Very Senior Member

    Air superiority lost? No way. Losing 120 planes for 20 British on September 15th is not achieving air supperiority.

    So Stuffy Dowding, the man who fought both the actual battle in the air and the political battle in the background was wrong?
     
  6. morse1001

    morse1001 Very Senior Member

    Forcing 11 Group's fighters to leave a couple of air fields to use some grass strips 1.000 yards away is not achieving air supperiority.

    Squadrons from 13 group were commuting from Scotland to take part in the battle.
     
  7. Friedrich H

    Friedrich H Senior Member

    So Stuffy Dowding, the man who fought both the actual battle in the air and the political battle in the background was wrong?

    Since when memoirs and personal accounts are 100% reliable?

    In that case, field marshal Von Manstein, the man who fought the Battle of Kursk, and his claim that Germany could defeat the USSR in 1943, is to be regarded as true? :rolleyes:
     
  8. morse1001

    morse1001 Very Senior Member

    [
     
  9. Friedrich H

    Friedrich H Senior Member

    How do you define 'air superiority'?

    For me, air superiority is doing as you please without the enemy even bothering; like the Western Allies in North West Europe prior, during and after the Normandy campaign, like the Germans in Poland or 'Barbarossa'.

    Therefore, the Western Allies did not have air superiority over the German Reich nor did the Germans had such over southern England in autumn 1940 (they were very, very far from that).
     
  10. GUMALANGI

    GUMALANGI Senior Member

    Air superiority lost? No way. Losing 120 planes for 20 British on September 15th is not achieving air supperiority

    'on 31 August, fighter command's casualties were the highest on the battle.. Fighter command was approaching crisis level. On paper the numbers appeared sufficient for the task, but in reality it was the lost of experienced and flight commanders that was causing major concern. While fresh unit - lacking of combat experience - were being decimated by the 109s within one or two weeks,..

    on 15 of september use of fast 88s escorted by large number of 109s failed to to stem lost of 60 german aircraft (not 120)....'

    In autumn 1940 there was nothing the bloody Krauts could do to crush the Brits once and for all

    ' The luftwaffe had had every opportunity to bring Britain to her knees but failed, because there had been no firm continous policy of attack..'

    I really want to tell on what is my resources,... but how can i explain this;
     
  11. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    Originally posted by Friedrich H@Jul 20 2005, 04:51 AM
    So Stuffy Dowding, the man who fought both the actual battle in the air and the political battle in the background was wrong?

    Since when memoirs and personal accounts are 100% reliable?

    A couple of quotes are from the website below which is quite informative and written in "plain english"

    http://www.whatifyou.com/ww2memorial/wwii_contents.htm

    This is why Dowding was concerned!!!!!!!

    "Winston Churchill, incensed at the attack on non-military targets in London ordered the RAF to bomb Berlin, a hazardous long-range task for the aircraft then available. Of the 81 twin-engined bombers that took off for the raid on the night of August 25th, only 29 reached the German capital, (the remainder got lost on the way) and the actual damage done was comparatively slight when compared with the loss of the eight RAF men who were killed and the 29 that were wounded. But Hitler, who had been specifically promised by Goering that no enemy would bomb Berlin, was put into a towering rage, and made the first of many emotional and ill-conceived strategic decisions that were against Germany's military interests. Forgetting the strategy of concentrating all Luftwaffe effort on the annihilation of RAF Fighter Command, he ordered that London be subjected to airborne Blitzkrieg , as Warsaw and Rotterdam had been before. The preparation for this campaign of terror bombing, and the raids themselves, which began on September 7th and continued for 57 appalling days and nights, dispersed Luftwaffe effort, and took the pressure off RAF Fighter Command.

    In fact, after a bad start during the August 13th-17th period, when Germany lost 255 aircraft, the Luftwaffe had been set to win the battle from the 24th onwards. Although more German aircraft than British were being lost daily, the Luftwaffe had started from a better base (1,137 fighters against 620 Hurricanes and Spitfires), and many of the planes that were being lost were bombers. Hence, the fighter strength of the Luftwaffe by comparison with the RAF was becoming greater as the 1,000 pilots with which the RAF was left by the end of the third week of August became progressively more tired. For as long as Goering could keep up the pressure on the airfields of the South East corner of England, there was little doubt that the RAF would go under eventually. Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding, head of Fighter Command, accepted that this was the case, and was on record as informing Churchill of the fact. Perhaps this contributed to his being relieved of his command shortly after his pilots had won their heroic battle."

    Don't forget that with the release by HM government in the past few years of all the "actual" daily reports by each of the RAF bases there was a lot of exaggeration by the RAF on "kills" also.

    I suppose that what both Morse1001 & myself and the quote above are saying is that there was a likelihood of British defeat in the air had the German targeting not altered.

    This change did occur, and as history shows, it allowed the RAF the respite it required.

    Consider also, that it was a fairly "clean" war up until that time however with the civilian targetting, the British people would never have settled for a resolution with Hitler even if Halifax was Prime Minister at the time.
     

Share This Page