Even with the relatively small numbers of German forces deployed in North Africa the U.K were almost defeated. Had the Germans not invaded Russia then the war in North Africa would have been total failure for the U.K and commonwealth. Imagine the much higher numbers of German forces available, the U.K and commonwealth forces would have been overrun in a matter of weeks.

Also I think a lot of people underestimate the Russians. Prior to any meaningfull lendlease deliveries the Russians stopped the Germans in late 1941 and had actually launched a pretty successfull counterattack in winter 1942. Lendlease was definately a massive help and the Russians would have found it much harder to defeat the Germans. They were not helpless without it, they proved that beyond all shadow of a doubt.

Well, you can build theories....

It would have been like this if Hitler would have not have the famous "Dictator syndrom" to attack Russia :

No landing in the UK in 1940 -1941 anyway. The Kriegsmarine was just unable to fight against the Royal Navy and it's nonsens to think they could.

HOWEVER, no war in the east would have meant that Germany would have been able to ship way more material in North Africa to support the italians against the Brits. What would have been the result in North Africa if Germany had sent 3 or 4 more PD to help the 21st Panzer Division ?

Besides, the Luftwaffe would have been redeployed massively in the Balkans and in Italy, giving a decent aircover to the Reggia Marina and thus considerably disturbing the royal navy in it's job to intercept convoys to supply North Afrika and the DAK.

For the war in the Atlantic, Germany could have started first to finish their aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin, thus giving cover to their fleet while operating in the Atlantic. The Tirpitz would have made totally different sorties and the Royal Navy would have been forced to keep way more forces to keep the atlantic lines safe. Especially when you think that the Bf109 T would have been a better opponent against the Swordfishs of the RN that just the AA guns of a battleship.

So let's assume that the forces would have been more equal in North Africa, that Germany would have put a bigger pressure on the Mediteranean Sea and against Malta, thus rendering the supply of this Island even more difficult and the supply of North Arican allied Armies harder.... Then a victory from the DAK in North Africa becomes something possible, even probable, when you see the results that Rommel had with his small forces against the british army in 1941 - 1942. The capture of the Suez Channel, plus the capture of english oil fields in the middle east would have been VERY problematic for the UK.

Of course, the USA would have still continued to supply them, but then all the supply would come from the USA throught the Atlantic, diminuing the ways to that the UK could use to get supplies, thus making it easier for the Germans to watch. The other solution for the UK would be to get their supplies shipped from their colonies all around Africa, making very long delays to get their supply.

The big question would then be : What would Germany do when the Japanese attack Pearl Harbour ? Would he declare war against the USA ? I guess he would, being sure to defeat them, but would be totally unable to fight them with no adapted forces to strike them. Then it would be a run against the clock for both powers. There is no way Germany could put an attrition war against the USA, and Germany would have to be really careful not to suffer an attrition war either. The only way to avoid the USA to be a real threat would be to land in the UK to avoid the americans having a close base from where they can launch an invasion, forcing the germans to keep large amounts of forces to keep western Europe safe for them.

What we can say in the meantime is that the Luftwaffe would have been able to contain night bombing better by not having fighter forces in the east, allowing them to put much more cover over western Europe. Protecting the German industry would have been a key point for the German capacity to fight in a better way. Besides, the germans would have been able to put much more experten on the frontline against the UK. You would have 500- 600 fighters to cover western europe, and maybe 300 over north africa, making it a lot harder for the british army to launch any kind of counteroffensive. French Vichy would be also a key point. What would have been their reaction if the UK was totally defeated in Africa and in the Middle East, making the Mediteranean Sea a sea "Royal Navy free", given the fact that except Gibralter, the UK would have no more bases for their ships ? Vichy would have surely have to "accept" a German presence in Morrocco like they did with Indochina when the Japanese "offered" to protect them by deploying large forces in the French Indochina.

So, here would be the situation in mid 1942 :
- Defeated british armies in North Africa, with supply lines cut between UK and Malta.
- No more fuel supply coming from Irak and certainly an occupied Saudi Arabia by Italian or German forces.
- A German Navy with certainly more aircraft carriers (converted cargos first and then designed ships), learning from the experience of the Bismarck.
More U Boots to fight in the atlantic against supply convoys for the UK.
- More bombers and torpedo bombers in the Atlantic to prevent the Royal Navy to make sorties.
- RAF short in fuel to prevent Luftwaffe sorties over the Atlantic EXCEPT if the german submarine war is failing.
- USA unable to find a decent base from where to lauch a landding.

I would say in 1943 we would have one major interrogation : What would be Stalin's reaction ? As far as I read from historians, Stalin wasn't dumb. He knew his army was in a restructuration period in 1941, and wanted at all price to avoid the fight against the German Army he was scared of seing the major successes the Wehrmacht had in 1939 - 1940 - beginning 1941. He knew his army need at least 2 to 4 years more to be prepared for a fight against the Germans that he knew was coming eventually. The opposition between the two ideologies were just too strong to avoid such a fight. Staline was counting on a fight in 1944 - 1945 against Germany, and not really before.
In 1943, would he have started a "preventive war" against germany to use the fact that the Wehrmacht was busy elsewhere to try to defeat them ? Would he have waited one year more to get all the best cards before striking ? We will never know. But what we can guess is that between 1941 and 1943 - 1944, Staline would have not received the slightiest help from the Allies, so the Red Army would be approximatively as mobile as in 1941 IRL, the USA not sending them any trucks or tanks or airplanes.
The T34 would be massively used in the Red Army. But german spies would have surely found about them in 2 - 3 years, not like they did when they invaded the USSR in 1941. That would have give them the time to reequip their army with better tanks than the Pz II or III they still used in number in 1941.
Bad point for the red army, more of their military chiefs sent to the Gulags would have had time to die there before being massively released to lead the Red Army against the germans. The lack of competent officers would be even worse that IRL, with Stalin's obsession of controling the Army totally.
Inbetween, German officers would have 2 - 3 years of fight experience more, givig the Wehrmacht an even bigger advantage that they had in 1941, especially about supply lines seeing the campain in North Africa where logistic was a real issue. The german would have better organized the transport of their supply in Russia, with immediately standardising the space between the rails of the russian railroads, etc... Lend lease for the russians would be much harder for the westerna allies given the fact that the middle east would be under German influence. What would be Turkey's choice too ? They nearly entered the war with Germany IRL, would they do it if Germany promised them to rebuild the Otoman empire that they lost in WWI and had defeated the UK and France's influence in the Middle East?

So.... Speculations, speculations...

But at the end..... Berlin would surely have been nuked while V3 or V4 would be destroying New York and Washington.... Possibly nuking them too....

So, I prefer history as it is.

The Luftwaffe was never defeated in the East, as was the German Army. This is an important distinction. The bulk of the fighter Gruppen needed to fight for air superiority over parts of the Eastern battle front (neither side could ever wrest air superiority over the entire Eastern Front---physically impossible) had been moved west to defend the homeland by early 1944. The critical bomber Gruppen were disbanded in mid-1944 except for the jet bomber units in training. The bomber pilots were retrained to fly fighters or ended up with the rest of their crews in Luftwaffe Field Divisions. What destroyed the Luftwaffe was the loss of their secure rear area for training due to the marauding swarms of long-range P-51s in mid-1944, the deaths of the bulk of their remaining skilled fighter pilots in the winter of 1944 defending German airspace against American bombers with their fighter escorts, and the loss of the Ploesti oil fields, Hungarian oil fields, and the loss or destruction of most of the synthetic oil plants in Germany which grounded the still sizable number of German fighters available in 1945. The massive fighter force they sent to Normandy after D-Day was soundly beaten by Allied fighters. After this disaster Galland could only assemble a force of poorly trained fighter pilots led by the remaining Experten. This last reserve was thrown away in the Bodenplatte fiasco on 1 January 1945. I ascribe to the view it was primarily the American long-range fighters that destroyed the Luftwaffe by denying it a secure base upon which to operate.

What defeated the Germans was this:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8I3zCQzZx68

Very well thought out post. But there are even more what ifs! What if Hitler seized Gibralter?
What if Afrika was taken, then the middle east thus putting German forces right under the Russian oil feilds? What if Rommel succeded and met up with Paulis in Stalingrad?

quote:

Originally posted by leitmotiv:
What defeated the Germans was this:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8I3zCQzZx68

quote:

Originally posted by joeap:

quote:

Originally posted by stalkervision:
In general yes the Russians did the most to defeat the germans. No doubt about it. Just ask yourself this question if you don't believe it. What would the war have been like had the germans honored the non-agression pact with the Soviets?

Absolutely, no question at all. I think most recognise it.

That's not what Avro is asking (maybe a comment I made inspired him to write this thread?). He's asking who did the most to defeat the Luftwaffe, or where did the LW lose the war? I don't think any one front really did IMHO. The LW was the only branch that really switched between different fronts during the war while the German Army was always focused against the USSR from 1941 to 45. The Kriegsmarine of course was focused aginst the UK.

I think the air war was the area that the Western Allies gave the most direct help to the Soviets. Otherwise the help was indirect, Lend Lease and the resources the Germans spent on u-boats, air defence etc. The Soviets of course were irritated as the direct help they wanted was to force the Germans to pull out divisions from the east, and in fact they won there big victory in Stalingrad with their own resources.

However, I still think a case can be made that the Soviets pushed the Germans out more quickly with the Western Allies assistance (much more mobility as someone mentioned) than otherwise.

This is not to denigrate the VVS as they did help the Red Army a great deal and get the medal for "most improved armed branch". Also it should be noted that a fair amount of air assets were sent to the Asia-Pacific theatre by the Allies which might have been used in the ETO.

IMO luftwaffe was attritted by the Russian's to a significant and important extent before the Allies finished the job but certainly they didn't finish the luftwaffe alone.

quote:

Was the Luftwaffe Defeated on the East Front and Not the West

Does it really matter? As in terms of overall contribution...what decisive impact did any nations Air Force have on the overall outcome of the war?
As the old joke goes...two Russian Field Marshalls meet in the Reichstag at the end of the war one syas to the other "So...who won the air war?"

quote:

Originally posted by Freiwillige:
Very well thought out post. But there are even more what ifs! What if Hitler seized Gibralter?
What if Afrika was taken, then the middle east thus putting German forces right under the Russian oil feilds? What if Rommel succeded and met up with Paulis in Stalingrad?

Well, if Turkey had entered the war with Germany, then it would have been a bit harder for the russians because they would have had to separate their forces to hold a second front. Besides, with countries under influence or control of Germany all around the black sea and the italian navy, Germany could have lead sea operations against Crimea way faster than they did with the romanian navy. Turkey would indeed have given them 2 big advantages : A secured friendly country as a base for offensives, with no partisans to watch, and most of all, a lot of manpower for the axis armies.
In 1942, Türkey had a good and well trained army thanks to the politic led by Atatürk. The only bad point was the lack of modern equipment. But with an undisturbed german industry the germans would have been able to reequip them...

2 bad points however :
- as for the Wehrmacht, the reequipment would have taken years. THe türkish army would have need time to be fully operational. Especially when you need to standardise one army to the equipment of another. But for logistical reasons, it's one of the key of the plan to success.
- 2nd bad point is the front with russia... It's manly mountains. And to win by going through mountains, you have to be well equiped, well trained and have surprise.

I think that the easiest way for the german though would not have to rush towards Stalingrad from the south, but to rush through the East to reach the oil fields at Baku and cut the russian army from his vital supplies.

quote:

Originally posted by jasonbirder:

quote:

Was the Luftwaffe Defeated on the East Front and Not the West

Does it really matter? As in terms of overall contribution...what decisive impact did any nations Air Force have on the overall outcome of the war?
As the old joke goes...two Russian Field Marshalls meet in the Reichstag at the end of the war one syas to the other "So...who won the air war?"

quote:

Originally posted by jasonbirder:

quote:

Was the Luftwaffe Defeated on the East Front and Not the West

Does it really matter? As in terms of overall contribution...what decisive impact did any nations Air Force have on the overall outcome of the war?
As the old joke goes...two Russian Field Marshalls meet in the Reichstag at the end of the war one syas to the other "So...who won the air war?"

...so all the resources spent building planes, training pilots etc. was a waste of time I suppose.

The effects of air war are definitely overestimated by popular historians, but are in no way small. They had a definitive impact on how the war went, or more at what pace the war went from 1944 on.

quote:

Originally posted by stalkervision:

quote:

Originally posted by leitmotiv:
What defeated the Germans was this:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8I3zCQzZx68

Hehe, you got me watching more of that, I really havent seen much of it before, only short clips.


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vlmGknvr_Pg&feature=related

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TSqkdcT25ss&feature=related

Funny stuff

quote:

Originally posted by jasonbirder:

quote:

Was the Luftwaffe Defeated on the East Front and Not the West

Does it really matter? As in terms of overall contribution...what decisive impact did any nations Air Force have on the overall outcome of the war?
As the old joke goes...two Russian Field Marshalls meet in the Reichstag at the end of the war one syas to the other "So...who won the air war?"

cough,,,, id say that air power played THE decisive role in the pacific war.


heck most of the land battles on the islands in the pacific were just for the purpose of gaining more air bases.

not to mention that in nearly all the decisive naval battles were fought by carrier airpower.

quote:

Originally posted by Von_Rat:

quote:

Originally posted by jasonbirder:

quote:

Was the Luftwaffe Defeated on the East Front and Not the West

Does it really matter? As in terms of overall contribution...what decisive impact did any nations Air Force have on the overall outcome of the war?
As the old joke goes...two Russian Field Marshalls meet in the Reichstag at the end of the war one syas to the other "So...who won the air war?"

cough,,,, id say that air power played THE decisive role in the pacific war.


heck most of the land battles on the islands in the pacific were just for the purpose of gaining more air bases.

not to mention that in nearly all the decisive naval battles were fought by carrier airpower.

You cant compare the ETO with the PTO. in the vast pacific theres mostly...water. You can tpopulate, hold, defend or attack...water. Only small patches called "islands" could serve people. The plane was the ultimate tool. It had the range, mobility, speed and weapons to cover all the water in order to control land.

Continental Warfare is much different. Land CAN be populated, defended and all that without planes. Land does not have to be bypassed on a large scale on your conquests.

Im not saying air warfare is useless when fighting on continents. It is just not the only or most important part of war but it plays a lesser role then over vast oceans.

So both are right, Rat and Jasonbirder, but it cant be compared what they refer to.

I'm pretty it were the Marines that captured Iwo Jima, not some fancy planes.

The Allied bombing campaign certainly reduced production and caused havoc throughout Germany, so it certainly had a large effect.

But you need to support the air campaign with ground battles.

quote:

Originally posted by JtD:
I'm pretty it were the Marines that captured Iwo Jima, not some fancy planes.

You are not pretty.

How do you know?

Maybe it helps if I add a "certain".

quote:

The Allied bombing campaign certainly reduced production and caused havoc throughout Germany, so it certainly had a large effect.

Allied bombing had no significant impact upon German production until Autumn 1944 - when the heavy bombers returned to "Strategic" targets after offering support at more of an operational level in the run up and immediate aftermath of D-Day.
Is there really anyone that believes that at that point the outcome (or even the timing give or take a few months) of the war was still in doubt?

quote:

so all the resources spent building planes, training pilots etc. was a waste of time I suppose

More than a waste...a definate hinderence in terms of the overall outcome...Manpower quality in Allied ground Forces was markedly low because they came last in line when it came to choosing personnel...The british never fielded a capable tank and the Americans took until late 19944/1945 to field a tank in significant numbers (76mm Shermans) that was the equal of the Long 75 PzIVs the Germans had been using since 1942...