Feb. 26, 1935: Radar, the Invention That Saved Britain

For me, it would depend on if I was the pilot, or the air marshall…

Pilot - BF109. The later spits outperformed the later bf’s, but 1940, in a straight dogfight, the 109.

BUT…
If I was looking at it and commanding at the high level, the hurricane. Easy to fix, easy to produce, fast turn around for reload/refuel, easier to train on, fighting over your own territory with a full tank. Yep - the hurricane.

Very cool, reminds me of the efforts to catalog and examine all the fortifications and pillboxes of the Invasion Scare era.

Germany had essentially two options here. 1) Capture the city quickly, before the defenses could be built up. 2) Capture it via siege.

I don’t think that creating an urban combat situation, in which Germany attempted to capture the city street by street, would have been viable. In typical combat situations German soldiers had a 3:1 or 4:1 advantage in combat effectiveness over their Soviet counterparts. But in urban, street-to-street fighting the ratio was about 1:1. Germany could not afford anything even remotely approaching that 1:1 ratio, which is why something other than street-to-street fighting was necessary.

Von Manstein wrote that during the Barbarossa operation of '41 there had been a perfectly good opportunity to take Leningrad. But that this was wasted, allowing the Soviets to fortify it.

The other option would have been to do a better job of putting it under siege. This would have entailed tightening the cordon around the city, preventing just about anything from making it through. I think there was a case when Germany attempted exactly that. However, at the same time the Soviets were attempting to break the siege, so each side’s offensive encountered the other’s. From a tactical view there may have been more Germany could have done. But I think the real problem was strategic: the Soviet Union had too much military strength. A discussion on how to address that problem is probably outside the scope of this thread.

@ABWorsham:

Churchill proposed an invasion of Northern Norway and Sweden in 1939 to remove half of Germany iron ore. As a new leader he did not have credibility to get this invasion quickly planned before the Germans reacted.

How does the war progress if the Allied Expeditionary Force invades Norway and Sweden?

I was reading this over again. I don’t think it would be possible with an Allied invasion during 1939. Since the mountains are pretty much impassable during winter, which is from October to April, the invasion would have to be done from the start of the war in September and finished before October. This was not likely to happen. The first window of opportunity opened in November when Russia attacked Finland. But in the case of Finland, snow and ice was a necessity for a successful campaign, since that part of Finland is impassable swamps and marshes during summer. In Norway it is the other way around, since mountains are impassable during winter. And that give Britain a first possible D-day on April 8th 1940, the day before Germany did actually attack Norway.

The reason Britain did not attack on April 8th is IMHO that they got reports of a German breakout into the sea, so they ditched the infantry already onboard, and sailed to intercept the German fleet. But as w know, the Germans had then walked down the gangway in all major Norwegian ports. And they could do so because the ports were not defended. But here comes the twist. Next day Britain sailed in 25 000 troops bound for the Narvik area, but they was not able to kick out the 1900 Germans, because at that time Britain lacked landing ships and landing crafts. And you can not amphibious assault a defended coast without landing crafts, as proven in the Normandy landings 1944.

So basically the 25 000 Allied troops sat in the port of Harstad waiting for landing crafts to be build and this took 7 weeks, before they ware able to invade Narvik late in June , by then defended by 40 Germans. In the meantime 10 000 Norwegians equipped with winter gear and trained in mountain warfare, were pushing the bulk of the Germans towards the Swedish border.

I figure, if the Brits had landed in Narvik April 8th 1940 and walked down the gangway as friends, the Germans would for sure be cut of from the iron ore. But if the Norwegian socialist government had declared war, then I cant see how the Brits could have been able to break out from Narvik and cross the mountain range over to Sweden. None of the total 35 000 Brits, French and Polish soldiers in Norway 1940 had winter equipment nor training in mountain warfare. The last blizzard was in may, and they would be stuck in Narvik until then, surrounded by a Norwegian mountain division. And on the other side of the border, 320 000 Swedish soldiers, also trained in winter and mountain warfare, would wait for them, protecting the iron mines. So Churchills plan could only work if Norway and Sweden did cooperate volunterely

to me it would have to the junkers ju-87…that sound it made when coming in for the attack was deafening and it would terrify you on the ground

Great points - this is not the version of history I was taught in school, but thankfully with access to the internet and the benefit of hindsight we are able to learn some of this untold history now.

1 of the battle of britain games:http://www.arcadeprehacks.com/game/10312/Spitfire-1940.html This version is hacked. If you want, you can play it unhacked

@Dylan:

@Octospire:

@Dylan:

@allboxcars:

@Dylan:

If the Battle of Britain went well for Germany, do you think the US and USSR could still win against Germany and Italy.

If Britain made peace with Germany in 1940 (on whatever terms take her out of the fight), US wouldn’t have been at war with Germany in 1941.

#607

Germany might still declare war on them.

On the U.S or on the British?
The Americans would of never gone to war with the Nazi’s had the British been defeated they would of had no place to refuel the American ships on the European side of the Atlantic, no place to land their aircraft for strategic bombing. Had Germany got a peace treaty from the British that would of been it, game over for the Americans even before the war started. Britain was the launching point for all the allied invasions of North Africa, Italy and France so without it reclaiming those areas from Nazi control would of been impossible. Also American isolationist policies would of not of been changed if Pearl Harbour wasnt attacked and I dont think the Japanese would be stupid enough to go to war with the U.S and the British empire all on their own.

Had Britian made peace with the Germans it would not of been a “surrender” as such it would of been considered the meeting of two equals to forge a peace and no doubt at Hitlers insistance an Anglo-Germanic alliance just like he had envisioned and pressed for in the 1930’s. Germany was now the equal of Britain and the Nazi’s would make sure they were treated in that way. The only reason there wasnt an alliance between Germany and Britain because Britain had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo while the Germans wanting to expand their empire had other ideas entirely. Its not that hard to imagine a joint German and British army formation with RAF and Luffwaffe planes roaring overhead attacking Moscow and mopping the floor with the Soviets.

Many people in Britain did not considered Hitler and the Nazi’s to be their enemy, yes they were the enemy of the continental european powers but not their enemy. At the time before the bombing of British citys in the “phoney war” Stalin and the USSR was seen as the much greater threat to British interests in the future. Hitler was very reasonable to the British he offered them peace as equals that allowed Britian to keep her empire and his only clause was that the Nazi’s have free reign in Europe.

But Germany might force the issue on the US.

I doubt it, going to war with the United States would require a foothold in the America’s and allies like Mexico and other Latin American countries. It would of taken probably at least a decade to pacify Europe under Nazi rule and then who knows, especially if Hitler got his Alliance with the British. With the industrial might of the France, Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union at their disposal, the British and Latin Americans as allies and the massive technological advantage they would of had over the U.S its possible that if they wanted to they could win a war against the United States.

Although I think its doubtful that the British if Allied with Germany against the Soviets would of turned on the Americans, If a Anglo-Germanic alliance had of happend following a ceasefire in 1940 and then crushed the Soviet Union I think that Hitler/British would of been happy to rule Eurasia and Africa. Like another poster said in another thread its much more likely that following a Nazi alliance victory in Europe that a facist party would come to power in the United States in order to drag their country out of the depression.

What has to be remembered is that the U.S was still in the economic doldrums right up until their involvement in WW2 without the war its possible that the economic stagnation may of continued for another decade possibly more its hard to tell, it depends on the party in power and the president at the times idea on how to deal with the crisis.