PDA

View Full Version : Invasion of Britain vs Invasion of Russia



XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 06:14 PM
Saw a prog the other night on channel 5 (UK) about Partisan activity planned should Hitler have incaded britain.

Got me thinking as to whether or not we had a capable war winning aircraft like the IL-2 in the pipeline, or if we had the means to withdraw industry in the same way the Soviet authorities and the people did in Russia?

The program was presented in a mock Pathe news way giving reports on German progress, which i found quite entertaining. I suppose our tanks were outclassed compared to the panzers and our Army (depleted from Dunkirk) might have been a bit poorly trained, like the Russian armies only in FAR fewer numbers. Would we have capitulated? Would the Americans have joined the war in Europe at all?

Wondering what everyones' thoughts are?

XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 06:14 PM
Saw a prog the other night on channel 5 (UK) about Partisan activity planned should Hitler have incaded britain.

Got me thinking as to whether or not we had a capable war winning aircraft like the IL-2 in the pipeline, or if we had the means to withdraw industry in the same way the Soviet authorities and the people did in Russia?

The program was presented in a mock Pathe news way giving reports on German progress, which i found quite entertaining. I suppose our tanks were outclassed compared to the panzers and our Army (depleted from Dunkirk) might have been a bit poorly trained, like the Russian armies only in FAR fewer numbers. Would we have capitulated? Would the Americans have joined the war in Europe at all?

Wondering what everyones' thoughts are?

XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 06:27 PM
had the UK been conquered, Pearl Harbour would probably have gone ahead anyway, bringing the USA into the war with Japan. Without the UK to deal with, Hitler would have had MORE reason to declare war on the US.

Then it would have been a straight up fight between the Russians and the Germans, Americans versus Japanese, with the US supporting Russia in terms of logistics, materiel and possibly even sending troops there (where else?).

of course, with britain mostly out of the war (there would be 'free british' and the empire much like there were 'free french' but neither would have been particularly effective)

Moreover with britain out of the war, north africa and the middle east with all its oil would have been the Nazi's plaything... no pressing need for the eurasian oil fields, so no need for a 3 instead of 2 pronged attack into russia... so perhaps the russians could not have resisted (even with american help) if a 2 pronged, stronger attack with more fuel and momentum had been carried out by the Nazis.

course, im not expert, and this is purely conjecture, so feel free to pick away at my argument.

XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 06:28 PM
I dont think the germans would have had the Naval strength to mount a amphibios(spelling?)landing in the UK. Although they were turning barges into landind craft and planning a sea/air invasion.

If they did manage to invade i'm sure we would have been up Sh$t creek without a paddle. The Americans werent really interested in getting involved at that point and lets face it without a clear advantage in troop,tank and plane numbers the german army was unbeatable.

Maybe a gurilla war based in the highlands would have been our last stand and hopefully we could have held out until Pearl Harbour and the American could have bailed us out as usual.

Cheers
Tartan_67th

XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 06:53 PM
Saw program too, excellent stuff. One thing it`s made apparent is that without England`s resistance, the US would not have become involved and the world would have been very different today!

XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 07:25 PM
The United States was worried of the possiblity that the UK might fall, or at least become unusable as a base of opperations.

That's the main reason why they started developement of the B36

"In 1941 when Britain's survival appeared doubtful, the AAF outlined a requirement for a bomber capable of bombing European targets from the Western Hemisphere. From this evolved the giant Convair B-36. Due to the improving war situation and a lowered priority of the B-36 development program, the XB-36 did not make its first flight until Aug. 1946."

http://freepages.family.rootsweb.com/~pknox/b36/hourclub.html

XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 07:48 PM
Dont forget germany was winning against and advancing large margins of territory, until the us came into it

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 09:46 PM
Just think, if instead of bombing Pearl Harbor and invading the Philipeans, Japan had attacked Siberia...

...a two front war may of killed off the Russian bear.

With the US congress so against the war, I doubt we would of gotten involved until it was to late, if at all.

By then Germany and Japan would have access to all the stratigic resourses they would need.

-Clay

XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 10:30 PM
Yes, it would have been grim for the USSR.It is in my opinion that Germany would have even won a 1 on 1 with the Soviets if they had secured West.

I find it interesting that Japan didnt break their treaty with Stalin from their defeat at Khalgon Gol.They would have had better results after Germany attacked them in 1941.Even Hitler was expecting Japan to attack Siberia(supposedly not knowing of the treaty).



I have always made the argument that the USSR did the most to beat the Germans,but i must say that if the States had not entered.. the Axis would have certainly won.

Operation Sea Lion is on of WWII greatest "what ifs".

XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 11:10 PM
llamy llamy latin american oil and resourses, dont forget it

"Never forget the past so we dont make the same mistakes in the future"

XyZspineZyX
07-05-2003, 12:14 AM
Fwiw, I don't think the Germans were ever that serious about invading Britain.

Germans could have won Barbarossa in summer '41, were it not for Hitler's decison to divert Army Group Centre to Ukraine, which on a strategic basis was a very bad idea and on a tactical basis he had no need to do.

After that, they could have brought Britain to the 'negotiating' table without need for invasion.

But the thought is chilling nontetheless. How long would have resistance lasted, who would have collaborated?

Interesting and valid questions.

XyZspineZyX
07-05-2003, 12:42 AM
Salute

The Germans lost their chance to invade Britain when they lost the Battle of Britain... That's what that famous battle was all about folks!

The Germans were attempting to destroy the RAF and establish air superiority so they could deploy their Stukas and Twin engined bombers to attack the British fleet when it sortied versus their landing force.

Without complete air superiority, the Royal Navy would have gotten among the landing craft and support vessels and sunk them.

In Norway the Germans learned their lesson. They invaded both at Oslo, within range of German aircraft, and also at Narvik, out of their range.

The result was success at Oslo, but at Narvik, the units there were isolated when the Royal Navy sortied from Scapa Flow. The British sunk the entire German Invasion force of 10 destroyers and a number of merchant ships. The German invasion force was then driven out of Narvik and it was reoccupied by French and British units.

It wasn't until the Germans established air bases in the south and pushed north with their Oslo invasion force that they were able to drive the British out.

The British Royal Navy then began to suffer heavy casualties as they had no land based air support, and their carrier based support was Gloster Gladiators etc.

In a German invasion of Britain, the crucial supply line across the channel would have to be maintained. But with the number of British Destroyer flotillas available, their would be constant sorties against the German ships maintaining this line. And the Kriegsmarine could not sortie with its Capital ships, as it was not capable of standing up to the Royal Navy in an all out battle.

The Germans needed total air superiority over the channel.

They didn't get it, so they called off the invasion.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
07-05-2003, 12:46 AM
It was a partisan war in Yugoslovia that kept the Germans from attacking the USSR in May instead of June if memory serves me.

An ealier strike would have been more deadly like planned.The Russian Winter at the gates of Moscow wouldnt have been as dealdly,they would have got there ealier.Also the likelyhood of Siberian troops arriving in time for the counter-attack would be less.

XyZspineZyX
07-05-2003, 01:14 AM
lazio5 wrote:
- It was a partisan war in Yugoslovia that kept the
- Germans from attacking the USSR in May instead of
- June if memory serves me.
-
- An ealier strike would have been more deadly like
- planned.The Russian Winter at the gates of Moscow
- wouldnt have been as dealdly,they would have got
- there ealier.Also the likelyhood of Siberian troops
- arriving in time for the counter-attack would be
- less.
-
-

Perhaps you are referring to the reverses suffered by the Italians in their campaign against the Greeks? This prompted Hitler to divert some key elements south through the Balkans to secure Greece (and thus his Southern flank). Barbarossa did not 'kick off' until those assets returned north - the overall delay was around a month (IIRC) - long enough for the stubborn defenders of Moscow to be reinforced by General Winter [Moscow - being the hub of the Russian rail system was arguably a far more pivotal target than Stalingrad].

Cheers

Athos

"Then the soldier, Full of strange oaths, and bearded like the pard, Jealous in honor, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation even in the cannon's mouth" W.S

XyZspineZyX
07-05-2003, 01:56 AM
Sealion didn't really stand a chance. Hitler wasn't ever serious about invasion, as he has doubts about it's chances of success. It was a huge ploy to bring pressure on the British to come to the table and sue for peace. His intent was always against Russia.

The preparation for Sealion was amateurish. The Luftwaffe commanders had no real idea of how to conduct an aerial battle against the the most effective fighter defense the world had ever seen and who's most important commanders were hard bitten professionals who knew exactly what they were doing. The Luftwaffe was unable to gain air supremacy and suffered heavy irreplaceable losses in experienced aircrew. The RAF on the other hand had more pilots and aircraft available to it at the end of September than in July though of course they too had lost many experienced pilots.

Raeder was justifiably anxious about the Royal Navy which controlled the seas and was a superior force in terms of numbers and weight to the Kriegsmarine.

Thus a plan, half baked, involving converted barges and all sorts of craft improvised into troop and armour carriers setting sail into seas controlled by the Royal Navy, under skies swarming with RAF fighters and bombers would have led to utter disaster for the Wehrmacht.

Contrast that with the D-day landings of 1944 which were 2 years in the planning involving huge quanties of men and machinery transported in purpose designed craft, heavily escorted through seas and sky both controlled by the allies.And even then success was by no means certain! That shows what is neccessary to mount a successful seaborne invasion against a defended shore. Contrastthat with Sealion in 1940 and you can see it was never going to succeed even if it was meant in earnest.

"If I had all the money I've spent on drink....I'd spend it on drink!"

XyZspineZyX
07-05-2003, 02:03 AM
Winston Churchill's greatest achievement: persuading the British to fight on after Dunkirk, when it would have been so easy to have negotiated a peace with Hitler.

Winston Churchill's second greatest achievement: persuading President Roosevelt to fight against Germany as well as Japan, when it would have been much easier for the USA to leave it until the war in the Far East was finished.

Just my (well-reasoned) 2p.

Cheers.


Edited for dodgy smileys. Wah!

<CENTER>


<IMG SRC="http://www.apqa16.dsl.pipex.com/sig5.jpg"


'The problem with the world is that everyone is a couple of drinks behind' - Humphrey Bogart

Message Edited on 07/05/0302:09AM by Dunkelgrun

XyZspineZyX
07-05-2003, 02:08 AM
Churchill wrote in his memoirs that he would have gassed the Germans had they landed on the beaches of England.

Intersting that England would have used gas to stop an invasion but neither the Russians nor the Germans did even at the bleakest moments.

Go Winston!


Message Edited on 07/05/0301:08AM by Beirut