Wed Jan 12, 2005 9:38 pm
How good is this thread?
The comparison between Britain falling and what really happened in France opens more worm cans than we currently have worms to fill. Hitler wanted his puppet government so he didn't get tangled in a ground war that consumed his forces. The threat of razing Paris to the ground was enough to force Vichy to agree to German terms. It was a hard call for Petain and the bitterest of all pills.
But, what terms would the British have been on had they been conquered? France ordered all overseas colonies to remain 'neutral' but some forces fought for Germany. Many units prefered to flee to Britain instead of complying. I have a friend who's father flew LeO 451s against Commonwealth forces in Syria on behalf of Vichy. A few months or so later, the entire escadrille flew to Britain and they ended up fighting alongside the Americans during 'Torch.'
Would Germany have forced the capitulation of the British colonies as well? That would have meant surrendering Gibraltar and Singapore among others. Without the need to fight the British, the Japanese could have turned their entire strength against the USA and Australia in the Pacific.
Presuming that the USA gave the recovery of Britain priority, would there have been any US forces available for the defence of Australia? If not, we wouldn't have held out. Without northern Australia and PNG for bomber bases, the whole picture changes quickly.
Walrus-San
The comparison between Britain falling and what really happened in France opens more worm cans than we currently have worms to fill. Hitler wanted his puppet government so he didn't get tangled in a ground war that consumed his forces. The threat of razing Paris to the ground was enough to force Vichy to agree to German terms. It was a hard call for Petain and the bitterest of all pills.
But, what terms would the British have been on had they been conquered? France ordered all overseas colonies to remain 'neutral' but some forces fought for Germany. Many units prefered to flee to Britain instead of complying. I have a friend who's father flew LeO 451s against Commonwealth forces in Syria on behalf of Vichy. A few months or so later, the entire escadrille flew to Britain and they ended up fighting alongside the Americans during 'Torch.'
Would Germany have forced the capitulation of the British colonies as well? That would have meant surrendering Gibraltar and Singapore among others. Without the need to fight the British, the Japanese could have turned their entire strength against the USA and Australia in the Pacific.
Presuming that the USA gave the recovery of Britain priority, would there have been any US forces available for the defence of Australia? If not, we wouldn't have held out. Without northern Australia and PNG for bomber bases, the whole picture changes quickly.
Walrus-San
Thu Jan 13, 2005 12:21 am
Hi Jeffrey,
I didn't intend assume that the F-84 and F-86 familys of fighters would have been available. I agree with you that without german technology our swept wing fighters would have been far to late in developing. I only used them to demonstrate the difficulty that the early jet fighters, especially the straight winged variety, had in intercepting the B-36. Although not faster than those early jets, her speed was compairable and she could reach a max. altitude of aprox. 45,000 ft. That WAS with the four jet engines("D" model), however the "C" model, which was never fully developed because the J-47s were considered a better option, also had similar specs. on just six experimental versions of the R-4360s, reconfigured as tractors instead of pushers. I think this version would have been developed.
I didn't intend assume that the F-84 and F-86 familys of fighters would have been available. I agree with you that without german technology our swept wing fighters would have been far to late in developing. I only used them to demonstrate the difficulty that the early jet fighters, especially the straight winged variety, had in intercepting the B-36. Although not faster than those early jets, her speed was compairable and she could reach a max. altitude of aprox. 45,000 ft. That WAS with the four jet engines("D" model), however the "C" model, which was never fully developed because the J-47s were considered a better option, also had similar specs. on just six experimental versions of the R-4360s, reconfigured as tractors instead of pushers. I think this version would have been developed.
Thu Jan 13, 2005 4:40 pm
Why was the B-36 hard to intercept?
I just read a reference to an encounter between a F2H Banshee and a B-36. The Navy was fighting for its right to wield nuclear weapons during a time when they were exclusively Air Force. The B-36 was the USAF's big stick and was the backbone of thier nuclear delivery system and was supposedly invulnerable, in part this caused the cancellation of the super carrier USS United States. An "unknown" navy pilot in a photo recon Banshee intercepted a B-36 and flew undetected for several minutes directly under the tail of the Peacemaker before moving off the wing and taking pictures. This encounter was used to show the vulnerability of the B-36 and thus led to the AJ Savage program and the eventual construction of the first super carrier eventually named USS Forrestal.
So is it a altitude thing that made the B-36 hard to intercept? I can't see it being speed or manueverability.
Now I don't know the validity of this story and would like to hear more information about it
I just read a reference to an encounter between a F2H Banshee and a B-36. The Navy was fighting for its right to wield nuclear weapons during a time when they were exclusively Air Force. The B-36 was the USAF's big stick and was the backbone of thier nuclear delivery system and was supposedly invulnerable, in part this caused the cancellation of the super carrier USS United States. An "unknown" navy pilot in a photo recon Banshee intercepted a B-36 and flew undetected for several minutes directly under the tail of the Peacemaker before moving off the wing and taking pictures. This encounter was used to show the vulnerability of the B-36 and thus led to the AJ Savage program and the eventual construction of the first super carrier eventually named USS Forrestal.
So is it a altitude thing that made the B-36 hard to intercept? I can't see it being speed or manueverability.
Now I don't know the validity of this story and would like to hear more information about it
Thu Jan 13, 2005 6:41 pm
1940. RAF defeated. Britain invaded.
1941. Britain surrenders. Scotland declares neutrality. Is invaded anyway. Germany expands Eastward. Signs pact with Japan to provide oil etc. and relieve pressure from the USA. Pearl Harbour does not happen.
1942. Huge casualty cost of the UK invasion stuns Hitler. Postpones plans to invade Russia while V weapons are developed further.
1943. Germany expands into Vichy France and Sweden.
1944. USA reopens trading links with Germany. Russia gets nervous, pushes Westward to create a larger buffer zone. Germany convinces USA of communist threat. German scientists cooperate with US scientists to create nuclear bomb.
1945. First atomic bomb test shocks Russians.
1946. Long range German bombers nuke Moscow. Long range Japanese bombers nuke Pearl Harbour. Nagasaki and Hiroshima destroyed in response. Before any further weapons can be produced, New York is nuked when a U-boat surfaces in the harbour - and explodes shortly afterwards. U-boats surface off LA and other major US cities. USA surrenders to Germany/Japan without a single German or Japanese soldier landing on US soil.
1947. German rule of the USA. Beginning with a fairly light hand, most do not object as their way of life changes little. Those who do object, die.
1948. Massive nuclear strike on the USSR by joint US/German/Japanese forces.
1949. Japan entirely destroyed by joint German/US nuclear strike. USA only slightly damaged in response.
1950. Germany invades China.
1956. After a prolonged campaign involving much use of nuclear weapons, China finally surrenders.
1960. Parts of USSR habitable once more.
1970. Hitler dies peacefully in his sleep. His son succeeds him, which is bad news, because he really IS a psycho.
2005. The 'thirty years war' finally ends. German control now extends across a battle scarred planet, only 5% of which is now habitable. Moon Base Alpha carries the hopes of the Reich onward.
2010. Extra terrestrials arrive on Earth. Begin helping with the clean-up.
2011. Germany invades Alpha Centauri.
1941. Britain surrenders. Scotland declares neutrality. Is invaded anyway. Germany expands Eastward. Signs pact with Japan to provide oil etc. and relieve pressure from the USA. Pearl Harbour does not happen.
1942. Huge casualty cost of the UK invasion stuns Hitler. Postpones plans to invade Russia while V weapons are developed further.
1943. Germany expands into Vichy France and Sweden.
1944. USA reopens trading links with Germany. Russia gets nervous, pushes Westward to create a larger buffer zone. Germany convinces USA of communist threat. German scientists cooperate with US scientists to create nuclear bomb.
1945. First atomic bomb test shocks Russians.
1946. Long range German bombers nuke Moscow. Long range Japanese bombers nuke Pearl Harbour. Nagasaki and Hiroshima destroyed in response. Before any further weapons can be produced, New York is nuked when a U-boat surfaces in the harbour - and explodes shortly afterwards. U-boats surface off LA and other major US cities. USA surrenders to Germany/Japan without a single German or Japanese soldier landing on US soil.
1947. German rule of the USA. Beginning with a fairly light hand, most do not object as their way of life changes little. Those who do object, die.
1948. Massive nuclear strike on the USSR by joint US/German/Japanese forces.
1949. Japan entirely destroyed by joint German/US nuclear strike. USA only slightly damaged in response.
1950. Germany invades China.
1956. After a prolonged campaign involving much use of nuclear weapons, China finally surrenders.
1960. Parts of USSR habitable once more.
1970. Hitler dies peacefully in his sleep. His son succeeds him, which is bad news, because he really IS a psycho.
2005. The 'thirty years war' finally ends. German control now extends across a battle scarred planet, only 5% of which is now habitable. Moon Base Alpha carries the hopes of the Reich onward.
2010. Extra terrestrials arrive on Earth. Begin helping with the clean-up.
2011. Germany invades Alpha Centauri.
Thu Jan 13, 2005 6:51 pm
Lookout ...SPACE NAZIS 
Dave
Dave
Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:40 pm
I haven't heard that story, Scott. I have read a number of stories were the early jet fighters had a difficult time reaching the B-36 at altitude(over 40,000ft). They would intercept from a frontal direction and zoom climb to attack. I just checked my references and I am wrong about the F-86 and the late model F-89s and F84s, but some of the earlier versions of these and other early jets had a lower sevice ceiling than the B-36 and less that 100 mph speed advantage. Once they were in a tail chase it was very difficult to reach an attack position again. And No I'm not trying to start the whole Carriers Vs Bombers thing again 
Thu Jan 13, 2005 8:19 pm
DamienB wrote:1940. RAF defeated. Britain invaded.
1941. Britain surrenders. Scotland declares neutrality. Is invaded anyway. Germany expands Eastward. Signs pact with Japan to provide oil etc. and relieve pressure from the USA. Pearl Harbour does not happen.
1942. Huge casualty cost of the UK invasion stuns Hitler. Postpones plans to invade Russia while V weapons are developed further.
1943. Germany expands into Vichy France and Sweden.
1944. USA reopens trading links with Germany. Russia gets nervous, pushes Westward to create a larger buffer zone. Germany convinces USA of communist threat. German scientists cooperate with US scientists to create nuclear bomb.
1945. First atomic bomb test shocks Russians.
1946. Long range German bombers nuke Moscow. Long range Japanese bombers nuke Pearl Harbour. Nagasaki and Hiroshima destroyed in response. Before any further weapons can be produced, New York is nuked when a U-boat surfaces in the harbour - and explodes shortly afterwards. U-boats surface off LA and other major US cities. USA surrenders to Germany/Japan without a single German or Japanese soldier landing on US soil.
1947. German rule of the USA. Beginning with a fairly light hand, most do not object as their way of life changes little. Those who do object, die.
1948. Massive nuclear strike on the USSR by joint US/German/Japanese forces.
1949. Japan entirely destroyed by joint German/US nuclear strike. USA only slightly damaged in response.
1950. Germany invades China.
1956. After a prolonged campaign involving much use of nuclear weapons, China finally surrenders.
1960. Parts of USSR habitable once more.
1970. Hitler dies peacefully in his sleep. His son succeeds him, which is bad news, because he really IS a psycho.
2005. The 'thirty years war' finally ends. German control now extends across a battle scarred planet, only 5% of which is now habitable. Moon Base Alpha carries the hopes of the Reich onward.
2010. Extra terrestrials arrive on Earth. Begin helping with the clean-up.
2011. Germany invades Alpha Centauri.
That is too danged funny Damien.
Fri Jan 14, 2005 9:17 am
I hate Illinois Nazis
Fri Jan 14, 2005 4:01 pm
TimApNy wrote:I hate Illinois Nazis
Especially ones that drive pintos
Old but interesting question
Sat Mar 01, 2008 9:04 pm
Scott,
If Germany had sucessfully taken out England a full year, or more, BEFORE Pearl Harbour, then the war would have taken a much different path.
No England, no Reuben James. No England no Convoys. No England, possibly no lend lease to the British Empire.
Most importantly, no England, no Aircraft Carrier Britannia.
And; just possibly Hitler would NOT have declared war on the US. Remember after Pearl Harbour the US ONLY DECLARED WAR ON JAPAN!.
So; think about this for a moment. After Pearl Harbour, the US would not have been in a position to invade England/Europe, or North Africa.
The American People needed to strike back NOW after Pearl Harbour. A long campaign starting in South Africa and going North would not have been too poplular with the American People.
Most likely then we would have been consumed with defending the Phillipeans and Wake.
The development of the B-29 would have occurred at a much faster pace. NOt only because of the need in the Pacific, but; also because eventually we would have had to make LONG bombing missions from Africa to Europe.
I also see an increased need for night fighters and long rang escorts.
The Alison would probably seen more development, though it would be interesting to see if the Canadians would lend thier examples of the Merlin to us. Because even with the occupation of England, we probably would have still been allied to the remnents of Empire, even if it were only the Aussies and Kiwis.
Remember also that the Turks were very close to allying with their WW1 Allies; the Germans. Without an Allied occupied North Africa. The Turks might well have proceeded in thier plans for a Pan Turkic state, including the elimenation of the remaining Armenian lands.
With Turkish/Axis control of the Oil Reserves of the Arabian Gulf and Caspian Sea the Russians would have been in a far worse state logistically. No oil, no fuel, no Tanks.
It is likely that the Russians facing the FULL undivided attention of the Germans would have been overun in the west.
Especially if the Turks had had any success in getting the 'stans to rebel against the USSR
IF Western and southern Russia were taken fast enough then there might have been anything for the US to ally itself to in that part of the world.
The Germans would have gained a breather and might have been able to develope some of their longer range weapons and Bombers.
Another question. IF the Brits were overrun, would the Empire have fallen suit? Like Vichy France? I can see the non threatened parts of the Empire following orders,but; would the Austrailians? Would the Japanese left Austrialia alone then? And; if so would we have had to contend with Japanese Air bases in Melborne?
Joe
If Germany had sucessfully taken out England a full year, or more, BEFORE Pearl Harbour, then the war would have taken a much different path.
No England, no Reuben James. No England no Convoys. No England, possibly no lend lease to the British Empire.
Most importantly, no England, no Aircraft Carrier Britannia.
And; just possibly Hitler would NOT have declared war on the US. Remember after Pearl Harbour the US ONLY DECLARED WAR ON JAPAN!.
So; think about this for a moment. After Pearl Harbour, the US would not have been in a position to invade England/Europe, or North Africa.
The American People needed to strike back NOW after Pearl Harbour. A long campaign starting in South Africa and going North would not have been too poplular with the American People.
Most likely then we would have been consumed with defending the Phillipeans and Wake.
The development of the B-29 would have occurred at a much faster pace. NOt only because of the need in the Pacific, but; also because eventually we would have had to make LONG bombing missions from Africa to Europe.
I also see an increased need for night fighters and long rang escorts.
The Alison would probably seen more development, though it would be interesting to see if the Canadians would lend thier examples of the Merlin to us. Because even with the occupation of England, we probably would have still been allied to the remnents of Empire, even if it were only the Aussies and Kiwis.
Remember also that the Turks were very close to allying with their WW1 Allies; the Germans. Without an Allied occupied North Africa. The Turks might well have proceeded in thier plans for a Pan Turkic state, including the elimenation of the remaining Armenian lands.
With Turkish/Axis control of the Oil Reserves of the Arabian Gulf and Caspian Sea the Russians would have been in a far worse state logistically. No oil, no fuel, no Tanks.
It is likely that the Russians facing the FULL undivided attention of the Germans would have been overun in the west.
Especially if the Turks had had any success in getting the 'stans to rebel against the USSR
IF Western and southern Russia were taken fast enough then there might have been anything for the US to ally itself to in that part of the world.
The Germans would have gained a breather and might have been able to develope some of their longer range weapons and Bombers.
Another question. IF the Brits were overrun, would the Empire have fallen suit? Like Vichy France? I can see the non threatened parts of the Empire following orders,but; would the Austrailians? Would the Japanese left Austrialia alone then? And; if so would we have had to contend with Japanese Air bases in Melborne?
Joe
Sat Mar 01, 2008 9:53 pm
You guys talk about the B-36...but what about the XB-19? Had Britian fell...the XB-19 was already flying so maybe production orders would have been given?
Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:49 pm
The main defense of the B-36 was altitude. The pre-jet versions might have made it to 40k ft, but the jet-assisted versions could make it into the mid and upper 50k's, given time. The idea being that even if the airplane is only climbing at 50 fpm, if you climb at that rate for a couple of hours, that's another 6,000 feet under your wings.
Anyway, the B-36's other defenses included the fact that at altitude it could turn inside the fighters, and once a fighter overshot the turn, recovering to a firing position would be a struggle, because the fighter's speed advantage wasn't much, and it had very limited maneuverability at that altitude. Beyond that, if the fighter wasn't pressurized, the pilot would have been pressure breathing oxygen, for a while, which is a tough thing to do. Finally, the -36 did have armament (even the featherweights kept the tail gun), and against a fighter at high altitude (i.e. one that couldn't maneuver), the tail cannon would have been pretty effective.
In a revisionist WWII scenario, I'd have used the -36 at night. I would think the aircraft would have been almost invulnerable at night against the Me-110's, Ju-88's, and any other prop twins the Germans could have brought to bear.
Anyway, the B-36's other defenses included the fact that at altitude it could turn inside the fighters, and once a fighter overshot the turn, recovering to a firing position would be a struggle, because the fighter's speed advantage wasn't much, and it had very limited maneuverability at that altitude. Beyond that, if the fighter wasn't pressurized, the pilot would have been pressure breathing oxygen, for a while, which is a tough thing to do. Finally, the -36 did have armament (even the featherweights kept the tail gun), and against a fighter at high altitude (i.e. one that couldn't maneuver), the tail cannon would have been pretty effective.
In a revisionist WWII scenario, I'd have used the -36 at night. I would think the aircraft would have been almost invulnerable at night against the Me-110's, Ju-88's, and any other prop twins the Germans could have brought to bear.
Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:58 pm
DamienB wrote:1940. RAF defeated. Britain invaded.
1941. Britain surrenders. Scotland declares neutrality. Is invaded anyway. Germany expands Eastward. Signs pact with Japan to provide oil etc. and relieve pressure from the USA. Pearl Harbour does not happen.
1942. Huge casualty cost of the UK invasion stuns Hitler. Postpones plans to invade Russia while V weapons are developed further.
1943. Germany expands into Vichy France and Sweden.
1944. USA reopens trading links with Germany. Russia gets nervous, pushes Westward to create a larger buffer zone. Germany convinces USA of communist threat. German scientists cooperate with US scientists to create nuclear bomb.
1945. First atomic bomb test shocks Russians.
1946. Long range German bombers nuke Moscow. Long range Japanese bombers nuke Pearl Harbour. Nagasaki and Hiroshima destroyed in response. Before any further weapons can be produced, New York is nuked when a U-boat surfaces in the harbour - and explodes shortly afterwards. U-boats surface off LA and other major US cities. USA surrenders to Germany/Japan without a single German or Japanese soldier landing on US soil.
1947. German rule of the USA. Beginning with a fairly light hand, most do not object as their way of life changes little. Those who do object, die.
1948. Massive nuclear strike on the USSR by joint US/German/Japanese forces.
1949. Japan entirely destroyed by joint German/US nuclear strike. USA only slightly damaged in response.
1950. Germany invades China.
1956. After a prolonged campaign involving much use of nuclear weapons, China finally surrenders.
1960. Parts of USSR habitable once more.
1970. Hitler dies peacefully in his sleep. His son succeeds him, which is bad news, because he really IS a psycho.
2005. The 'thirty years war' finally ends. German control now extends across a battle scarred planet, only 5% of which is now habitable. Moon Base Alpha carries the hopes of the Reich onward.
2010. Extra terrestrials arrive on Earth. Begin helping with the clean-up.
2011. Germany invades Alpha Centauri.
That IS CLASSIC!! .... Now stop smoking that dope .... haha ....
Re: Old but interesting question
Sun Mar 02, 2008 4:10 am
Interesting. I thought this thread was ancient history itself, now.
We'll gloss over the 'only' Aussies and Kiwi's remark.
Unlike much of the necessary speculation in these threads, this one can be answered. No, the independent countries of the British Empire and Commonwealth would have continued to prosecute the war; the colonies of France had no independent say. How effectively they could fight on might be debated.
Additionally, a total British surrender was unlikely, with plans for the Royal Family, gold reserves and even (sadly) politicians to be evacuated to Canada. The parallel would be the Pole's situation, with government in exile and fighting forces still active with allies equipment.
Australia believed it was threatened by Japanese invasion. We now know the Japanese did not intend to invade (as the Pacific war developed in reality). The reasons against invasion essentially stay the same if even the UK had fallen as well as Singapore, so no, Japanese bases in Australia aren't likely, while Australia, South Africa, Canada and New Zealand would not have sued for peace. In addition there would have been plenty of Britons fighting on, almost certainly under a government and King in exile.
Let's be grateful it never came to that.
We'll gloss over the 'only' Aussies and Kiwi's remark.
jmkendall wrote:Another question. IF the Brits were overrun, would the Empire have fallen suit? Like Vichy France? I can see the non threatened parts of the Empire following orders,but; would the Austrailians? Would the Japanese left Austrialia alone then? And; if so would we have had to contend with Japanese Air bases in Melborne?
Unlike much of the necessary speculation in these threads, this one can be answered. No, the independent countries of the British Empire and Commonwealth would have continued to prosecute the war; the colonies of France had no independent say. How effectively they could fight on might be debated.
Additionally, a total British surrender was unlikely, with plans for the Royal Family, gold reserves and even (sadly) politicians to be evacuated to Canada. The parallel would be the Pole's situation, with government in exile and fighting forces still active with allies equipment.
Australia believed it was threatened by Japanese invasion. We now know the Japanese did not intend to invade (as the Pacific war developed in reality). The reasons against invasion essentially stay the same if even the UK had fallen as well as Singapore, so no, Japanese bases in Australia aren't likely, while Australia, South Africa, Canada and New Zealand would not have sued for peace. In addition there would have been plenty of Britons fighting on, almost certainly under a government and King in exile.
Let's be grateful it never came to that.
Sun Mar 02, 2008 11:31 am
Some things come to my mind. One's been covered, but I'll add my 2 cents. I've always understood that the B-36, as it burned off fuel, progressively gained altitude so by the time it was over its target, it was above opposing fighters' altitudes. The MiG-15 was usually mentioned, as well as various US & other Allied jets. One thing I didn't see mentioned & I may have just missed it, is the possibility of Germany's jet engine development being spied on & their technology stolen, also stolen by recovery of downed or captured German jets, & reverse engineered. It's happened before......... I also agree that the XB-19 would probably have been further developed, & probably, under the circumstances, the B-29's competition, the unbuilt XB-30, XB-31 would probably have been built just as the B-32 was built. Don't forget the big transports too, the C-74 & later C-124, the C-99, C-118, C-121, the Lockheed Constitution, I can't recall its designation. I think the B-29s would have been improved upon, up to & past the B-50, to include the B-54 proposal. Lockheed was developing its own jet engine, so I suspect that would have sped up. I think the Allison used in some of the P-82s were about the max development of the the V-1710, (around 2000 horses, I think) so maybe the P-40 (the P-40Q was pretty hot, IIRC, as were some of Curtiss' P-60 line) & P-38 & even P-39/P-63 would have put what became the Mustang to shame. ISTR reading in a mag or a book that the P-51 started out as a redesign of the P-40, so we may have ended up with the P-51 anyway, only powered by an improved Allison all the way thru.