"What If" #1: The Battle of Britain.

Cool idea. Hard to say. I think the bombing of London would have been inevitable. Hitler had done the same with Warsaw and Rotterdam, and got the quick surrender he was looking for. I think the RAF could have held out long enough to see this come to pass, even if it took an extra month or 2. The main obstacle the Luftwaffe faced in all their campaigns was not the enemy per-se, but Goring himself. His ignorance and laziness was the major downfall of the Luftwaffe. He couldn't focus on the task at hand and couldn't adapt to new and changing tactics and situations. They came close though, in early Sept, when Fighter Command was on their knees though, I'll admit that.  

I agree with you that the bombing of London (and Berlin) were inevitable.  I honestly think the German's were going to lose this part of the war no matter what.  Dowding was a shrewd man and new that his job was not to stop German bombers from destroying targets in Britain....that would just have been impossible even if he HAD had enough resources.  He knew as well as the German Army and Navy (and Hitler) that the as long as fighter command existed no invasion would be attempted.  So Dowding just had to keep fighter command alive until the invasion "season" had passed.  Couple this with the fact that while Hitler appeared to go through the motions of Sea Lion I don't think his heart was ever really in it.  I think worse comes to worse Dowding could have pulled his fighters back from the main fighting area, which would have meant a longer intercept time (and a different general strategy) and more bombers getting through, but would still have kept fighter command intact long enough to stave off an invasion.  Even if he did decide not to go that route I think they may have just held on long enough, though who knows how many more casualties would have been taken by Fighter Command, or who truly close to the end they may have come.

Either way, I always take my hat off to the RAF boys of the time.  They did a hell of a job!

I dont consider myself an expert but I have done some reading in the area. I don't think fighter command was a close to collapse as is some times said. They where running out of pilots I agree but that was more a product of the recuitment process, only gentlemen can be officers etc. If this had been removed - as it should have been - I think the outcome would have looked different. To back up my point look at the success gained by the free Polish airmen, also a great increase in the number of pilots would have removed some of the strain from those fighting, two missions a day then someone takes your plane over and fights on. Dowding was against using "lower Class" people as he was a product of the firts world war idea that fighter aircraft where a replacement for cavalry and so required a gentlman.

Also I agree the Sealion was nohting more than an exercise to bring Britain back to the negotiation table. Hitler said on many occasions that he liked the British and if we had negotiated then he could have turned will  all his forces toward Russia and that would have been a different story again

Phil

its kind of a moot point because even if they won the bob they knew theyd never get control of the channel long enough to launch an assault regardless of air superiority.

they wouldve harrased the royal navy but any invasion by sea wouldve been blown to pieces

bob was a close run thing and VERY tough for both sides

Good point eatthis, but I think without the United States involved directly I think Germany could have controlled the channel if everything else(ie airsuperiority over the channel and southern England, and the weather) fell into place. I mean the U-boats almost controlled the Atlantic until the U.S. and Britian came up with the tactics and technology to hunt them.

german navy never stood a chance in a stand up fight and they knew it.

thats why they developed submarine warfare to attack merchant shipping

they never controlled anything at sea what they DID do very well was harass and nearly cut off the supply chain to britain

even the mighty bismark and tirpitz were commerce raiders they had orders to avoid fighting the royal navy at all costs

im fairly sure thats why germany lost ww1 we succesfully starved them into submission via a naval blockade

I'll definately agree that the German Battleships were poorly put to use and suffered from Hitler's lack of Naval expertise.

battleships in general were misused (as were battlecruisers)

battleships were designed to be used in big fleets facing off against each other (like jutland)

ww2 forced britain to use them alone or in pairs due to commitments all over the world. this was far from ideal

guys, keep in mind that the first bombing of London was not intentional....

F-8fanatic

guys, keep in mind that the first bombing of London was not intentional....

Yep. But what I was getting at was I would guess that sooner or later the Luftwaffe would have been ordered to bomb London, thus, still giving the RAF airfields a much needed rest.

F-8fanatic

guys, keep in mind that the first bombing of London was not intentional....

Yup, as Nathan said,  while the first time London was bombed it was unintentional (though, of course the Brits did not know that it was an accident at the time) it was inevitable that Berlin was going to be bombed at some point, and we already know what Hitlers response to that would have been/was.  While I can't say I have read a whole lot about Sir Arthur Harris, it is pretty clear his concept of Bomber Command was going to be what it was indeed eventually used for, to bomb in a manner to break both civilian spirit, morale and the workforce's backbone.  I will refrain from commenting on the morality as such since in war the game can not necessarily always be played nicely.  But suffice to say, Harris intended all along to bomb Germany's civilian centers, thus it was inevitable the German rsponse to this.

And I do think Goering and Hitler really may have deluded themselves into thinking that the Luftwaffe could really bring Britain to their knees alone.  The blitzkrieg lulled them into thinking their air fleets were superior, but as Michael Korda points out in his wonderful book "With Wings Like Eagles" the problem with the comparison is that cities like Warsaw were much smaller than London, and also relatively undefended.  Churchill himself stated along the lines that London was like a great beast that could suffer many a pin ***, yet continue to survive and take many blows.  And frankly, like they (the Germans) themselves should have known, the British knew how to take hardship very well.  In the end bombing, both of German and of British civilians, never speeded any perceptible end to the war.  The British kept fighting on even with V bombs falling on them, and in the end it took the Russian Army turining Berlin almost to dust to finally put an end to German resistance.

Also, Phil makes a good point about some of the problems the Brits faced were of their own making.  Again, Korda noted that for a long time the British government was either fiercely against war arms, or when they started to cotton on a good majority of debate was placed on whether they should build bombers or fighters (since the thinking of the time was that bombers would make fighters obsolete).  In the end the fighter advocates won since they could use the reasoning that fighters were both defensive, not offensive (which placated the anti-war folks) and much more cheaper to build than bombers (which placated those griping about the economics of it all).  But while all this was going on it kept hampering the overall effort to get pilots trained and battle ready in time.  Not to mention that when war did start Churchill, against Dowding's loudest protests, sent his precious pilots and fighters off to France in what really was a futile effort, and as such only hurt them in the long run.

The V-1  flying bomb  COULD been  used by the  English AGAINST  the Deutsch.
(FRENCH inventor Georges Marconnet patented his valveless pulsejet engine in 1908!!!)

All credible historians agree that Fighter Command was on the ropes. Continued, focused attacks would have eliminated them from the equation and allowed German airpower the free movement that brought them so much success in the previous campaigns. I would have to say that even with the achievement of total air superiority, an invasion would have been an unlikely occurrence. Remember, Russia was a far greater priority to Hitler. Just the promise of no Western aggression would have been enough, thus allowing him free hand to march East.

While it seems we can all agree that any real invasion across the channel wold have been a non starter not just because of Hitler looking more to the west the resistance wold have been fierce, as a country we Brits have always been known as a "problem" country to control going back even to the Romans.

I also think we are always very slow to pick up on some of the great inventions we have. Whittle had a working turbo jet in 1937, we invented the tank and pretty much the battleship. If we had had the funding of a larger nation and to be honest the people in positions of power had the brains to let engineers develop their own ideas in 1939 there would have been no way Germany would have even started the war.

Phil

germany never wanted a war with britain in the 1st place

they outclassed us man for man at the start but certain elemnts we were superior ie navy.

the spitfire was a match for the 109/190 all throughout the war bot types having advantages and disadvantages over the other.

the lee enfield was probably the best bolt action rifle ever made

the mg34 and 42 were just obscene weapons

the german tanks were gennerally far superior to ours including the sherman which won because they overwhelmed them with numbers.

russia was a viscious war of attrition and stalin was every bit as bit as hitler (worse imho because he commited genocide against his own people! he was like hitler but without his good bits)

P mitch

I also think we are always very slow to pick up on some of the great inventions we have. Whittle had a working turbo jet in 1937, we invented the tank and pretty much the battleship. If we had had the funding of a larger nation and to be honest the people in positions of power had the brains to let engineers develop their own ideas in 1939 there would have been no way Germany would have even started the war.

I wouldn't necessarily say it was just the Brits who were slow to pick up on technology.  Willy Messerschmitt's Bf-109 was mocked by the old school world war 1 generals who laughed at it's enclosed cockpit and thin wings.  Only after it seriously humiliated it's competitor in trials did anyone take it serious.  And in America our biggest failure was to look at bombers as be-all-end-all, thus we failed to really develop a good long range escort (though in all fairness every country that had a bomber force did also).  In fact, airpower in general was a hotly debated topic in America, as the court martial of Billy Mitchell proved.  Hell, the German's even failed to see the utility in heavy 4 engine bombers, which was another big reason for their failure.

I think the biggest factor for America and Britain was that both our countries were not building a war time military until the last minute where Germany, as was eventually shown, had been starting to militarize even before Hitler came to power.  So they had a huge step ahead, but even then Hitler managed to hamstring a lot of new technologies.  I think back then it was easy to dismiss new technology because the people in charge of these kinds of decision making were of the World War 1 mindset of cloth covered biplanes and horse cavalry.

It's funny you mention the tanks.  I had a pretty interesting conversation about said topic recently.  Basically if you put things into context I see it came to as such:

The Sherman as a general infantry support tank was king.  Easy to produce, easy to repair, interchangeability of parts meant disabled tanks could get back into action faster.  As a Tank vs. tank weapon it sucked big time.

The Tiger (I and II) and Panther were probably the greatest tank vs. tank killers you could find in any country.

T-34 may not have been the superior of the Tigers and Panther, but trumped them in their overwhelming numbers.  Who cares if one got knocked out, another was right behind it to replace it.

The Panzer IV was on the same level as the Sherman, IMHO, but the Sherman's finer points, I feel, trumped them.

As for Russia....well, I have to agree with you.  Churchill always disliked the alliance with "Uncle Joe."  I think he always saw it as "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" (that and Roosevelt always smoothing things over between the two) more than as "friends, comrades, allies".  While it is easy to say that the atrocities the Russians brought down on the German people were brought on by themselves for attacking Russia the truth is that does not make it right.  I have read more than I need to about what the Russians did during the war to make me question if it was worth the alliance......

P mitch

I also think we are always very slow to pick up on some of the great inventions we have. Whittle had a working turbo jet in 1937, we invented the tank and pretty much the battleship. If we had had the funding of a larger nation and to be honest the people in positions of power had the brains to let engineers develop their own ideas in 1939 there would have been no way Germany would have even started the war.

Phil

When it comes to the tank, it wasn't so much the technology that was the problem. It has to be remembered that after WW1, the last thing people wanted to think about was fighting a large scale war. And as is often the case, the lessons of WW1 were soon forgotten. German tanks were not the best in 1940, but it was the way they used them that counted.

And the Germans were not far behind the Brits in the jet engine. And they could have had a viable jet fighter sooner than they did. But like the Brits, it wasn't a priority.

And i don't think anything would have stopped Germany from going to war. And remember, they didn't go to war against us.

Hitler's desire to avoid conflict with Britain (and America for that matter) was born from the fact that he considered both nations to be of a like mind to his own when it came to how "lesser" races (in the mind of the "superior") should be dealt with. There is plenty of accounting on the matter of how Hitler felt towards the Slavs and Russians.

We need not go into the history of either empire, just suffice it to say that there are more than enough examples to prove Hitler's "reasoning" on that front.