Warbird Information Exchange

'Fatherland' was quite good too, can't remember the author of hand

Dave

Scott, I suspect the F-86Es and F-84Fs were at least as fast as the German jets and had a hard time maintaining contact with a B-36. Plus the 20mm cannons would have given them some pause for thought. The P-82 was developed for the Pacific theater and used Allison engines so maybe, maybe not on that point. As for air to air refueling the first attempts in the early 30s were all prop. I figure the drogue and probe system with retractable probes mounted on the wingtips would have evolved for the fighters although the flying boom would have worked on the multi-engined birds(KB-29s and KB-50s refueled B-29s and B-50s with both systems) I think the war would have been won by 1947 or 1948.
Seig Heil!

ages ago I saw a wargaming group go the whole route from operation sealion through to the point of germany falling after a sucessful operation sealion.

what was done was development of a series of fighter/bomber bases along the aleutians and along the seaboard of russia extending down into china and air coverage for convoys to russia right up close to there.

the concentration of airpower, seapower and manpower to crush the japanese without any diversion to europe, well, minimal to say the least effectively blockaded her and had her on her knees by early 1945. that allowed the usage of a sectioned front to push west from russia, splitting into the occupied african territories where the second front opened up dividing the german empire into european and african campaigns using south african and other local forces as well as american forces etc, utilising american and canadian and australian etc forces as well as russian ones.

btw in their scenario malta and gibralta fell and the mediteranean became an italian lake with them providing garison troops behind the germal fighting forces

I think the time frame they worked to, memory might be wrong here, ended the game in mid 1946 with full surrender by Germany.

no nukes involved at all.



wouldn't the F86 have been a bit longer in development due to the lack of german research into swept wing technology to work with? not to mention the loss of the development teams in england dealing with jet propulsion.

i have limey blood wot??? my grandmumum was born in in london in 1896. brits favor warm beer or ale bloke!!! warm beer is enough to gag a maggot, unless the ice melts in the cooler while i'm fishing & if i'm that desperate.... well so be it!!! otherwise forget it!!

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!

Even if the Germans staged Operation Sea Lion in September 1940, I doubt England would have collapsed in 1940. The fighting could have gone on well into 1941...perhaps even long enough for Pearl Harbor to happen.

But....if it did happen...The Royal Navy would not have surrendered their ships. Rather, they would sail west to the Canadian ports. On America's entry into the war, they would have joined alongside U.S. Navy task groups. I think you would have seen much more carrier activity in the Atlantic. Royal Navy carriers would be outfitted with American carrier planes or even U.S. Navy squadrons as the Navy carriers would still be occupied in the Pacific.

With England out of the war, there would not have been a Peenemunde raid, and the Germans would have nukes, too. It's quite possible that World War II would have ended with a nuclear exchange with the Germans taking out New York & Washington, at least, and the U.S. taking out Berlin & Hamburg. In the end, I believe the U.S. would have triumphed. However, the human cost would have been much, much greater.

In short, Churchill was right in saying "Never in the course of human history has so much been owed by so many to so few" when describing the gallantry of Fighter Command during the summer and fall of 1940. They not only saved England, they may have saved the world.

The fact is

The Wehrmacht had to cross the ditch in the teeth of the stongest Navy in the world at that time.

Sealion was never going to succeed , I think Hitler relaised that by August. Certainly by Adlertag.

On the subject of Deighton Books, Fighter is a good analysis of the battle.

XPD is another one I'd recommend reading. Incidentally, the story started out as a fiction in true Deighton style. But, as the plot became publicised all sorts of strange things happened, including Galland refusing to be interviewed over a certain time frame etc.

Well worth a read.

_________________
So there I was , with nothing on the clock except the makers' name, and that was in Hindustani and fast disappearing...

Assuming the RAF was wiped out in the Battle Of Britain which was the precursor of a successful invasion attempt, the Royal navy would be hard pressed to defend against the German invasion that had Aerial Superiority over the channel. How well would the Royal navy do against determined Ju 87 bombers and He 111 torpedo planes?


As for the B-36's. why was it difficult to intercept them? Altitude?

_________________
Scott Rose
Editor-In-Chief/Webmaster
Warbirds Resource Group - Warbird Information Exchange - Warbird Registry

Be civil, be polite, be nice.... or be elsewhere.
-------------------------------------------------------
This site is brought to you with the support of members like you. If you find this site to be of value to you,
consider supporting this forum and the Warbirds Resource Group with a VOLUNTARY subscription
For as little as $2/month you can help ($2 x 12 = $24/year, less than most magazine subscriptions)
So If you like it here, and want to see it grow, consider helping out.



Thanks to everyone who has so generously supported the site. We really do appreciate it.

Excellent thread, and a great timewaster!

The Royal Navy would be hard hit by Stukas, if there was no air cover - see the Med. However how close ALL the RAF was to annihilation is a moot point; if invation had been attempted, everything would have been thrown in to attacking them, and the German invasion boats and specialised equipment was ropey to say the least. An un-callable bloodbath I'd say.

Saxman's scenarios sound viable to me; the only riff was the raid by the SOE on the Heavy Water plant in Norway by the SOE in 1943(?) which really tripped up the German nuclear plans.

And it's not been said (though I'm sure many remember) that Russia was not at war with Japan, until 1945. A slightly different play in the northern Pacific unless the Japanese attached an 'ailing' USSR - and then they'd have a two front war - both Russia and Japan. Big invasion forces in NW USA / Canada anyone?

Cheers!

Tom,
One of my grandfathers was born in England. He left. I've lived there 30 odd (very odd) years. It's a strange, strange place, and a grandparent doesn't entitle you to the tartan. Every native (called 'John' - as in 'Ullo, John got a new motor?') has a collection of happy Yank claiming kinship stories. Just don't. It's really un-8)

Cold lager is to UK beer what alcopops are to wine. Simple, alcoholic sweeties for those without developed tastes. (Now, I have to come clean - I NEVER touch either. Champagne for me, ta.)

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Without question the RAF would have responded with everything they had, but if England lost the battle of britain then most likely the bulk of its fighter forces would have been destroyed. The remaining strength would most likely be a collection of light and medium bombers which however valiant would have had a hard time of it over a beachhead supported by the bulk of the Luftwaffe fighters in Europe. And yes, the German assault gear was dodgy at best but then again they would be landing against relatively unfortified beaches (compared with the Atlantic Wall and certain Japanese Islands). Another area, of which I admit total ignorance, is the fighting strength of the British Army in 1940. What was its manpower? What army did it have? Artillery? How dimished was it, if at all, in terms of equipment after Dunkirk?

As for the Royal Navy, I agree that the Royal Navy would have gone to Canada. But the Royal Navy, and infact the U.S. Navy would be hard pressed to operate in the north eastern Atlantic without land based airpower for protection. Keep in mind that in 1940 barely a dozen aircraft carriers, of any class, were available between the two fleets. Would this be enough to defend the fleets in the Atlantic, assuming you stripped the USN carriers from the Pacific fleet? Without the Coastal command to guard the seas around England the U-boat threat would be even more horrendous than it was since almost no restrictions on entering the Atlantic would be placed on the Kreigsmarine.

Something else to consider, if Germany invaded Britain would the Russian invasion have happened in 1941? If the Wermacht was tied up in England for the winter of 1940-1941 I doubt it would have been fully geared up for a June invasion. In our timeline the order was given in December and commenced in June. I could see the invasion being delayed until Spring 1942. How different would the invasion of Russia have been?

Another aspect to that would be with the fall of Britain the Afrika Corp would overrun North Africa. With little or no serious opposition the Germans could make a thrust northward through Lebanon and Iraq in to Russia from the south. Turkey was neutral in our timeline but was more or less pro-Germany. If Turkey jumped on the bandwagon then an invasion staged through them to coincide with a European invasion would have left the Russians hard pressed to defend both fronts.

I know I am speculating on these alternate future events but it is doubtful that dates and actions of our timeline would remain unchanged with such dramatic alteration such as the fall of Britain.

_________________
Scott Rose
Editor-In-Chief/Webmaster
Warbirds Resource Group - Warbird Information Exchange - Warbird Registry

Be civil, be polite, be nice.... or be elsewhere.
-------------------------------------------------------
This site is brought to you with the support of members like you. If you find this site to be of value to you,
consider supporting this forum and the Warbirds Resource Group with a VOLUNTARY subscription
For as little as $2/month you can help ($2 x 12 = $24/year, less than most magazine subscriptions)
So If you like it here, and want to see it grow, consider helping out.



Thanks to everyone who has so generously supported the site. We really do appreciate it.

Hi Scott,
Very good! Problem is, once you start pulling one or two cards out the deck of real history collapses rather fast, as you've explored!

As to the Battle of Britain - the nadir was when the southern RAF bases were hard hit and the squadrons exhausted. What is overlooked is that the midlands and nortern bases and squadrons were unafected and rested (for the most part). Dowding was ready to go on fighting. IF the Germans had landed, there was quite a bit more RAF Fighter Command to come forward. Now, we can't guess if the Germans wouldf have been able to suck those into a meat grinder and win, or if the RAF would have been able to the same to the Luftwaffe. But if you postulate a German occupied Kent, then the Germans wouldn't be able to bring their a/c forward into the UK as they'd wrecked the airfields, while they would have advanced their forces towards the existing Group 12 and other airfield who whold be able to attack. A long fight up Britain with a sea-saw of air superiority is perfectly possible.

At worst there would have been a rump of resistance escape Britain, plus a lot of 'Stay Behind' sabouters (Peter Flemming, brother of James Bond's creator was a prime mover in this area) and another problem German garrison country. Not to negate your excellent points, but just spotlighting 'Britain 1940' again.

Cheers!

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

What percentage of the RAF's fighter strength was not ivolved in the Battle Of Britain. I was under the impression that the bulk of the forces were involved with the exception of the Northern squadrons which from what I have read were mainly training units and exhausted squadrons rotated out of the southern area. Also, what was strength of RAF bomber command?

I think if a concerted effort to invade England was done the then it would have initially been successful but a stong guerilla movement would have commenced, probably on par with the VC in South Vietnam more than the Resistance in France. This would have certainly drained manpower from the Wermacht but would it have been significant enough to influence the invasion of Russia? Troops in France weren't merely garrison troops, there were counter-unvasion troops and armor there as well. Assuming the counter-invasion troops would garrison England, the armor units would move to the East. My interpretaion of the Eastern front was less about lack of troops and more about a shortage of mechanized and air units.

A question, what was the reason for Germany accepting the French surrender and establishing a puppet government (Vichy) rather than occupy the whole country. Also, what were the real potential for the Germans to acquire the French fleet?

One of the problems with wargaming, either with paper and minatures or computer based is that they follow rules. In this scenario a game would be hard pressed to adapt to the shifting structure of power and logistics in anything but a very broad way. It doesn't allow for creative thinking or general weirdness such as what happens in reality. (an example I can think of is Rommels capture of a french infantry unit with a pistol and a scout car).

The point of this discussion for me is to think of the various scenarios that would have evolved from the initial subject, in this case the fall of Britain.

I appreciate everyones input, I am enjoying this discussion immensely.

_________________
Scott Rose
Editor-In-Chief/Webmaster
Warbirds Resource Group - Warbird Information Exchange - Warbird Registry

Be civil, be polite, be nice.... or be elsewhere.
-------------------------------------------------------
This site is brought to you with the support of members like you. If you find this site to be of value to you,
consider supporting this forum and the Warbirds Resource Group with a VOLUNTARY subscription
For as little as $2/month you can help ($2 x 12 = $24/year, less than most magazine subscriptions)
So If you like it here, and want to see it grow, consider helping out.



Thanks to everyone who has so generously supported the site. We really do appreciate it.

And what if Hitler was stupid enough to go on to invade Ireland?

That would have slowed down to a dead stop. They had been playing that game for the last several hundred years.

_________________
www.tailhookstudio.com

I've read (and discorvery channeled) that postwar analyisis showed that the germans basically had very little going on nuke wise. They were working on it, but had yet to solve most of the fundamental problems with it. In the end, that raid made little to no difference in the viability of their program. They just didn't have anything worthwhile. All of their brainiacs were in Los Alamos and Chicago. Even in the best of conditions, they were probably a decade away for a workable nuke. One of the side effects of their pogrom.

_________________
DEEP THOUGHTS BY KIDS:
"If we could just get everyone to close their eyes and visualize world peace for an hour, imagine how serene and quiet it would be until the looting started. Age 15 "


Deep Thoughts,
Jack Handy

I can't confirm this but a friend suggested that one of the stumbling blocks they had was that they were on track to develop the hydrogen bomb, missing the atomic bomb step which is a necessary part of the sequence.

_________________
Scott Rose
Editor-In-Chief/Webmaster
Warbirds Resource Group - Warbird Information Exchange - Warbird Registry

Be civil, be polite, be nice.... or be elsewhere.
-------------------------------------------------------
This site is brought to you with the support of members like you. If you find this site to be of value to you,
consider supporting this forum and the Warbirds Resource Group with a VOLUNTARY subscription
For as little as $2/month you can help ($2 x 12 = $24/year, less than most magazine subscriptions)
So If you like it here, and want to see it grow, consider helping out.



Thanks to everyone who has so generously supported the site. We really do appreciate it.

I dont claim to be a military history expert but I feel some responses in this thread are very overoptimistic. With Britain and Ireland out of action as a naval and aviation base for the allies, the Nazis can exploit Europe's resources and pick their moment to invade the USSR. Even if the USA were physically able to bomb Nazi targets in Europe, this would have dragged them into a war that they may never win. Would the US public have supported this? And would the Nazis have had ICBMs, (nuclear or not by 1944)? The endgame? Limited partisan war in Europe, stalemate in USSR with the Nazis not interested in advancing beyond the Urals, USA in a "cold war" with Nazified europe. Only wild card is the Pacific. My guess is Japan would win with the British Commonwealth effectively out of that war. Imagine the future as a boot stamping on a human face for eternity!