Have to disagree with you on that one. When Operation Barbarossa began in June 1941 Russian factories were either overrun or evacuated to east of the Urals mountains so production was certainly drastically effected. However, Britain was strictly limited in the amount of aid she could send and the United States would be neutral until Dec 7th 1941. By that time Hitler's armies had already ground to a halt before Moscow and were shortly to begin losing ground to the first Russian winter counteroffensives. Even then it took a long time to get convoys and overland routes established. Russia certainly benefitted from Western aid, especially in trucks, food and uniforms as the war went on but she won the critical phase pretty much alone. Russia also tended to look askance at some of the second line equipment she was sent preferring to use her own. British and American tanks and planes often got sent to secondary fronts and training units.

Hitler wanted to expand the living space to the east long before he came to power. And after taking power and winning the war in the west in 1940 he was itching to turn east. This was his main goal all along.

The myth of the RAF was only weeks away from being defeated is wrong. On the 5 September Air Vice-Marshal Park commander of 11 Group spoke to his Chief Controller Lord Willoughby de Brooke " I know you and the other controllers must be getting worried about our losses" Park said "Well I've been looking at these casualty figures, and I've come to the conclusion that at our present rate of losses we can just afford it. And I'm damned certain the Boche can't. If we can hang on as we're going, I'm sure we shall win in the end"

On the 7th September the Luftwaffe bombed London

The RAF had been badly hit, especially the aircraft and airfields of 11 Group, but only rendered marginally effective on a temporary basis. It took less than an 8 day respite from Luftwaffe air raids for all of 11 Group's airfields, their compliment of aircraft and pilots to be brought back up to a full, 100% operational capability status. That doesn't sound like a group that was ever in any danger of being wiped out by overwhelming numbers.

The Battle of Britain was a stupid move by Germany as this was to pave way for the invasion the German build up was a joke. Here’s my post from the General Topics Forum -

Operation SeaLion 1940 (Final Conclusion)

Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:02 am Post subject: Operation SeaLion 1940 (Final Conclusion)

Just to inform everyone this issue is closed military experts today made a study of the military academy Sandhurst re-enactment in 1974 with veterans from England and Germany and those who were part of the planning of SeaLion, would have ended in a military defeat for Germany, the invasion area Dover they would have only got 18 to 20 miles in land and after a week of fighting forced to withdraw.

well if it was a Myth, then alot of RAF pilots bought into it. I have seen many programs and read material that all said the same thing. "Thank God the Germans switch to the cities, gave us a needed breather."
There were plenty of aircraft for the British, However they lacked experienced pilots, The replacements were rushed into combat and most died on thier first or 2nd flight.. If the Germans had kept up the pressure. The RAF would have broke. No Question.

As for the invasion, To launch in sept. 1940. I agree it would have failed. However if Postponded until the spring of 41 . It had a chance to to successful. More time for the Germans to prepare and to have soften up military targets, naval assets etc. Even if landings went ok. It still would have been a long and drawn out affair.

That is the commonly believed myth.

if you look at the amount of available pilots and immediately available single engined fighters (in reserve) in RAF fighter command they both stayed consistently high.

Fighter command was not on its 'last legs', frankly the Luftwaffe could not defeat the RAF - had the RAF been heavily damaged, they just withdraw to the north (out of fighter range) and come back to dominate the invasion.

Actually you are ignoring the fact that, in that timeframe the Brits were busily wasting vast amounts of long ranged bombers in bomber command (exporting bombs in the general direction of Germany) - if the U-boats were having a serious effect, you would expect a major diversion of resources from bomber command to coastal command and suddenly the Germans are facing exactly what defeated them in real life - major long ranged airpower.

Thats why you don't ask front line troops about the strategic situation - they simply don't know.

As noted above, the Brits had plenty of reserves that could be brought into play - in the entire BoB the amount of immediately available spare fighters never dropped below 191 and at the start of the BoB fighter command never dropped below the amount it started with (in fact it increased by almost 500 pilots over the battle).

Rubbish, the Germans were losing pilots faster than the Brits - the Brits got many of their shot down pilots back, the Germans got almost none back.

The Luftwaffe had no ability to sustain such an offensive, so it would have been just a longer disaster for the Luftwaffe than the BoB historically was, throw in the fact that the Kriegsmarine had no ability to support an invasion and the Army had no credible plan to execute an invasion and it would have been a fiasco.

Sorry no the R.A.F would had pulled back at best and only for a short time. Before returning to their southern bases.



England was well defended by the army the home guard along with saboteurs, strong points defensive lines and that was in 1940.
By 1941 even stronger defence SeaLion was dead in the water no hope at all.

Even Stalin has been quoted as saying that Russia would never have won if it weren't for the convoys and the supplies that came in from the US and the UK.

Combat a/c production 1940

Ge - 6201

USSR - 8145

Tanks + SP guns production 1940 (excludes light tanks)

Ge - 1643

USSR - 2794

Arty (inc AT + AA) production 1940

Ge - 6730

USSR - 15300


I don't doubt that the convoys helped a lot, but clearly the USSR was producing enough BEFORE the convoys to get the job done.

BTW, production for the USSR went up quite steeply in all categories once the war started (Arty production in 1943 for example was 130,300 guns - Gemany only made 46,100 in the same year ).

What about quality versus quantity?

Although later Russian armor was formitable.

Nor was the lend-lease material exactly the cream of the crop! (the US kept the best stuff for themselves, expectedly enough) :yep:

A little goes a long way though. I don't doubt the extra supplies had been a key help at moments, but I think the Soviet production was ultimately able to be self-sufficient.

Exactly...

If Hitler didn't think that was able to conquer in weeks his idiology arch-enenmy (communism)... The war in other front (UK then US) would be very bloodiest one.

But Germany required resources and a possibility for US to enter the war made pression... and no better country for resources... Russia.

That made Hitler to think about conquer his comunist "allied". He migh have tought... Germany get them in weeks, the Reds were not prepared and their army isn't equiped.

But like Napolion, Hitler forgot Russia's wheather and a blitz campain that was for weeks took months and end-up with a backslash until the doors of his bunker.

Again "what if", if Hitler avoided another combat front at east of Germany... I really doubt that we would live in the world of today.

But again it was a necessity to attack Russia and their vast resources to support the war on the other side against UK and US... without that Germany were doomed and this is what happened.

Credible Academic Work on German Success
 

There was a book written by a professor that made the talk show rounds around 6-9 yrs ago that presented a credible scenario where Germany could have won the war. It mainly centered around holding the Mediteranean. There was discussion on the History Channel about it.

Posters here might find it interesting.

A genuine degreed librarian at your local library might be able to help someone find it.

Does anyone remember the name of the book just a few years ago about the dive team that discovered, and explored a Type VII wreck off the New England coast? Sounded intriguing.

Actually a lot of early Russian armour was quite formidable. Certainly a good portion of the pre-war Soviet tank fleet was composed of light models like the BT-5 and the T-70. However, it also included the revolutionary T-34 and the hulking KV-1. Tanks which dumbfounded the Germans as their armor was virtually inpenetrable by anything less than the rather immobile 88mm AA gun. Plus, the T-34 with it's wide tracks was much better in cross-country performance then the German MK IIIs and Mk IVs. The later German Tiger and Panther tanks were born in a crash program to try and match these Russian tanks in quality. That being said the quality of German tank crews and generalship did a lot to compensate for the inferiority of German tanks through much of 1941-42. Actually you could make the same comment about France 1940 as many of the Allied models were superior there too.

i think im not getting this one right. ur saying that the brit could have switched their bomber forces to asw duty, anytime they want? this is a bit far out imho, but still another interesting what if.