What If..... Britain Fell in 1940

Scott Rose · **Posted:** Mon Jan 10, 2005 2:37 am

Alright you history buffs, i have a topic of conversation for you. Suppose England fell in 1940 to the Nazi's. How do you think the development of American aircraft, specifically fighters would have been effected? Why?

stuart murdoch · **Joined:** Tue Sep 14, 2004 12:05 am **Posts:** 73

Scott,

Not that I'm any kind of expert, but I think, jet engines and radar are two that come to mind immediately.

Vorsprung durch technic, mon ami

Stuart

DamienB · **Posted:** Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:32 am

Well, they'd have black crosses on them for a start... or maybe red stars :twisted:

Digger · **Posted:** Mon Jan 10, 2005 8:18 am

Scott,

for starters we'd all be driving on the same side of the road!, beats me how you lot can drive on the wrong side anyway!!!!!

I agree that jet development and probably as a spin off to that the development of long range missiles too. WE know the Germand had already started with some early testing of various jet and rocket systems at that time and, don't for get Einsteins letter to Rooservelt in I think 1939 or 1940 about the Germans developing atomic technology......

But wasn't there a group of Hollywood people who were pro Nazi anyway.......or did I read that ina comic somewhere???

Digger

Scott Rose · **Posted:** Mon Jan 10, 2005 10:01 am

My thinking was that without Merlin engines and the original British design order for the Mustang that the P-51, as we know and love her, would probably not come about, at least not for some time. If you take the Merlin out of the equation how would have the piston engined fighters of the era have developed?

Also, with the fall of Britain jet developement in the Allied world would hae been severely curtailed and probably would have become reactive to the arrival of the Me 262.

Also, without the constant drive of developing better and better aircraft to fight British and American air assets would the Luftwaffe have developed new types as quickly with only Russia as a serious opponent?

Without British land forces North Africa would have fallen to the Afrika Corps almost instantly. Leaving us without bases in the European theater.
Would this prompt development of B-29 types sooner or at all?

I don't think the fall of Britain would have meant the fall of the U.S., most likely we would still be at war or at least a cold war with the Third Reich.
Trying to mount a modern invasion of the United States would take quite a bit of effort and I doubt we would sit there and watch a massive build up of conventional forces. And I think with the shifted timelines I could see the Germans developing nukes in parity with us so I doubt Nuclear weapons would have a tremendous impact on the outcome, unless they had a TREMENDOUS impact and then we would be discussing the first fighter of cockroach design.

mrhenniger · **Posted:** Mon Jan 10, 2005 10:41 am

Interesting topic.

How about many more R2800 powered airframes and much larger drop tanks. Seriously.

I think that the B-36 which was on the drawing board would have be given a much higher priority. Perhaps the B-36 would have been built in much larger numbers.

The fall of Britain would have significantly change things from the history we now.

Mike

Cees Broere · **Posted:** Mon Jan 10, 2005 10:47 am

Eeh, we would al speak German then. And instead of having the Halifax as favourite aircraft type I would be collecting for a Heinkel or Junkers cockpit probably. :oops:

Gesundheit

Cees

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11336

Scott WRG Editor wrote:

Suppose England fell in 1940 to the Nazi's. How do you think the development of American aircraft, specifically fighters would have been effected? Why?

I'm not sure that the Germans would have had the resources to mount an invasion of Britain. Look at what it took on D-Day. The Germans were stretched pretty thin as it was, and were wasting valuable resources on the bombing of London.

But to answer your question, when Britain fell, in my opinion the US would have had more time to develop aircraft as there would have been no near-term threat for the Germans to invade the US. Without the P-51 and the Merlin, I think that the P-38, P-40, and P-47 would have been further developed with additional emphasis placed on a turbocharger or a multi-stage supercharger for the P-40. The laminar flow wing had already been under development, and would have likely been adapted for use on other aircraft. Conceptually, I'm sure that North American had been thinking of the Mustang- even before the British got involved, so it might have come about anyhow.

Of course a few Merlins would have made it over here, so maybe they would have been license built anyway and/or the two stage supercharger would have been sooner adapted to the Allison.

More assets could have been alloted to the war with Japan, so maybe the European war would have taken a second seat to the Pacific war.

There would have been more development of ultra-long range bombers.

The same problems the Germans would have had invading the US would then have been true for us during D-Day. Maybe more emphasis would have been put on landing craft and amphibious tanks as well. The Hughes Hercules would have been needed to carry the troops and equipment!

Here is a question for you:

If the Germans took Britain, where would D-Day have then been (if at all)? Was there a good place to group assets in preparation for the invasion, or would the invasion have been staged from New York City? Not much of a chance for surprise then!

Scott Rose · **Posted:** Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:25 pm

bdk wrote:

Here is a question for you:

If the Germans took Britain, where would D-Day have then been (if at all)? Was there a good place to group assets in preparation for the invasion, or would the invasion have been staged from New York City? Not much of a chance for surprise then!

This would depend on several things. Did Russia fall? Did we defeat or isolate Japan?

If Japan was neutralized then I can see India being a good starting point. If under German control the Australia to Vietnam to Burma to India.

If Japan is still a threat I can see committin to a two pronged attack in Africa. Create a beachhead in South Africa or the Ivory Coast with a second attack a little later in Morroco.

I think the overall effect is that the U.S. would develop more Naval type aircraft with a much bigger commitment to twin engine bomber types like the AJ-1 Savage and probably bigger aircraft carriers or at least more Essex class carriers. Also shore based patrol aircraft would be developed dramatically since U-boats would probably be roaming the east coast in larger numbers and doing so far later in the war than they did in our timeline. The USAAF would probably develop the B-29 and B-36 with the fighters being developed more along Interceptor lines to deal with German long range high altitude bombers and less in the escort role. In that case i see the emphasis placed on P-40 development or even XP-77 or XP-55.

Pat Carry · **Posted:** Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:52 pm

wasnt the B-36 intially developed because of fears that Britian might fall? If so the B-36 or similar variant would have eventually been bombing the Nazi empire from bases here in the US.

hairy · **Posted:** Mon Jan 10, 2005 2:23 pm

In regards to Naval a/c the development of the angled flightdeck and steam catapult would have been affected as the British were the main driving forces behind these innovations. The delay in these two aspects of carrier aviation would have then had a flow-on effect on the development of carrier bourne jets, hence more emphisis on new and interesting prop fighters. (with real engines - big round ones)

Scott Rose · **Posted:** Mon Jan 10, 2005 2:26 pm

Pat Carry wrote:

wasnt the B-36 intially developed because of fears that Britian might fall? If so the B-36 or similar variant would have eventually been bombing the Nazi empire from bases here in the US.

How effective could a B-36 be using conventional bombs? Could we build enough of them? Would they be viable without fighter cover? Would the FiCon concept be an option?

And of course the reverse would be true. I doubt the Germans could produce enough Me 264 or Ju 488 bombers to carpet bomb the U.S. and with the Luftwaffe habitually unarming its bombers defensively I doubt they could sustain any bombing effort for long. With the additional manufacturing capability of a secured Europe, they might be able to have the production necessary though.

I also see the Graf Zepplin becoming a German Langley as new and more powerful German carriers come into being. Germany would have to develop a blue water navy, which we know they could have done, in addition to its "raider" forces.

O.P. · **Posted:** Mon Jan 10, 2005 2:50 pm

If Russia was still alive and kicking, even with the added resources available to the germans, the occupation of England would suck most of them up, the germans would still lose. They had no idea the russians moved all of their stuff east. Their thinking , aircraft wise anyway, was all tactical. Their nuke program was many years behind. The combination of russian counterattacks and a progressive nuking, would be the end of them. It would take longer and be more destructive, but it would happen. An interesting question in the same vein, would be, what would postwar europe look like with little to no allied presence there immediatly after hostilities ceased? Pretty grim I'd imagine.....

Scott Rose · **Posted:** Mon Jan 10, 2005 3:04 pm

O.P. wrote:

If Russia was still alive and kicking, even with the added resources available to the germans, the occupation of England would suck most of them up, the germans would still lose. They had no idea the russians moved all of their stuff east. Their thinking , aircraft wise anyway, was all tactical. Their nuke program was many years behind. The combination of russian counterattacks and a progressive nuking, would be the end of them. It would take longer and be more destructive, but it would happen. An interesting question in the same vein, would be, what would postwar europe look like with little to no allied presence there immediatly after hostilities ceased? Pretty grim I'd imagine.....

It was a near thing with Russia. I'm not up on my Eastern Front history but I bet the addition of several Luftwaffe Squadrons and armored unit would have had an impact. Occupation of Britain would have taken manpower more than aircraft or armor. In addition, without the aid sent to Russia by the allies would they have been able to hold out long enough for the production by the newly moved factories to have an impact? If Moscow fell would the eastern front dissolve into guerilla warfare or remain cohesive?

And yes, the Luftwaffe was primarily tactical minded but showed later that they could develop long range four engined bombers. They just lacked an overwhelming reason to do so early in the war, and later on it didn't matter. In this scenario they would probably have developed them sooner and put more resources into them.

mrhenniger · **Posted:** Mon Jan 10, 2005 3:51 pm

I think we all may be missing the obvious. It only would take one or two bombs make the point. It worked in Japan, and I suspect Germany could have been made to see reason if all of Europe was under the threat of the A-bomb. It is a dark possibility to consider, but not out the realm of possibilities.

Mike

Warbird Information Exchange

What If..... Britain Fell in 1940

Who is online