What was Britain's War Plan Following the Battle of Britain?

[Thistletooth]

The Wehrmacht has proven itself to be dominant on land, the Luftwaffe, while defeated over British soil, has proven itself capable of beating the RAF within an inch of its life, the Kriegsmarine is tearing shipping apart in the North Atlantic. France, the Low Countries, and Poland are out. Italy is in the war, giving Britain yet another major headache in the Mediterranean. Japan is a potential threat in the East, the USSR is probably the most despicable possible ally for Churchill and company, seems to be on decent terms with the Reich and is already tearing the rest of Eastern Europe apart.

And the hope is that US entry can turn this all around? The British army is barely large enough to guard the coast while holding on to the far-flung Imperial holdings, and the US army is tiny and in no better shape. Furthermore, US public opinion is still steadfastly against joining the war. What was London thinking would happen if they kept fighting? What did they think could happen? Clearly, Britain had no chance of defeating Germany and Italy with only the Empire behind it. Or did they think otherwise?

Knowing only what London knew in the autumn of 1940, how could Britain have won the war? Were they counting on Soviet help? Were they counting on Japan bringing the US into the war in Europe? Is that what they were thinking: "If we just hold out for a year or two, the Soviet Union and America will be with us. Hitler will attack eastwards, and something or another will bring the US into the European war with full public confidence"? Or was that just how things turned out?

Or alternatively, were the Brits resisting for resistance's sake? Pride and public willpower?

[Aetius]

It wasn't just the UK, it was the full commonwealth: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, South Africa etc. In time they could have beaten the European part of the Axis on their own. I guess they would have gone for a Husky-like approach and try knocking the weaker Axis partners out one by one, followed by taking regions like Norway which were difficult to defend for the Germans. They could maintain pressure on the Germans through the airforce (how effective it would have been is another question) and prevent strategic upsets with the navy.

[Thistletooth]

Originally Posted by Aetius

It wasn't just the UK, it was the full commonwealth: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, South Africa etc. In time they could have beaten the European part of the Axis on their own. I guess they would have gone for a Husky-like approach and try knocking the weaker Axis partners out one by one, followed by taking regions like Norway which were difficult to defend for the Germans. They could maintain pressure on the Germans through the airforce (how effective it would have been is another question) and prevent strategic upsets with the navy.

Britain + Commonwealth > Germany and Italy

????? ?????

How? The US/UK/Commonwealth needed three years of Soviet attrition to whittle the Germans down. Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand could only contribute modest resources and manpower. Are you suggesting that Indian manpower would have made up the remainder, and that somehow German and Italian industry and manpower wouldn't have been enough to stop them?

[Emperor of Europe]

I fully agree that the Commonwealth alone could not have launched any sizeable mainland invasion for years. But then again: It wasn't the Commonwealth vs. the Axis. It was the Commonwealth plus the USSR vs. the Axis. That made a whole lot of difference for the British war prospects.

Sure, Britain wasn't in a war-winning position in 1940, but the same can be said for her during much of the Napoleonic wars. It's not surprising the Brits often are portrayed as bulldogs. It cannot just be because of the teeth.

rgds/EoE

[nwinther]

If Hitler had focused on taking out britain, or force her to a peace, would that be possible, if he hadn't gone after SU?

I mean, if he had committed the resources, is it thinkable that he could have taken Malta and then been able to support the effort in NA - whas about more focus on the sub-campaign in the Atlantic? With more effort there, could the germans have starved the brits to surrender?

With a closed Suez and no reopening in sight, would the british have fought on?

And with the ME-oil either taken or bombed to shit by the germans - possibly even threatening India.

[L.J. Hiertha]

Imho the odds were always pretty good that the US would enter the fray sooner or later. Churchill and Roosevelt knew this. De Gaulle was positively banking on this occurring already when he set foot in the UK after the fall of France in the summer of 1940.

Either the UK+Commonwealth pull it off on their own, or if they get hard pressed enough, the US will get on their case rather than letting them fall.

Germany would either have to take the UK quickly (not really possible after the Battle of Britain, and maybe not even before), come to terms with it (Churchill would say no), or try to go from a hot war to some kind of static cold war (but how?).

No real similarities otherwise, but maybe one could say Nazi Germany's problem of getting at Britain properly wasn't altogether dissimilar from Napoleon's earlier problem doing the same.

[Aetius]

Originally Posted by Thistletooth

Britain + Commonwealth > Germany and Italy

????? ?????

How? The US/UK/Commonwealth needed three years of Soviet attrition to whittle the Germans down. Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand could only contribute modest resources and manpower. Are you suggesting that Indian manpower would have made up the remainder, and that somehow German and Italian industry and manpower wouldn't have been enough to stop them?

The UK industry alone outproduced Germany and the commonwealth total outproduced the axis, which is the main reason I think they would have worn down the Germans and Italians eventually.

The Germans were reliant on imports from the Soviets and easily disruptable sources like synthetic oil and Romanian oilfields. Without fuel the Germans couldn't defend themselves effectively. This would have eventually broken the Luftwaffe, leading to an eventual loss of air superiority, followed by a systematic destruction of infrastructure/industry. The Germans would need to take North Africa followed by Iran/Iraq and cut off the UK from the US to prevent this outcome without Soviet intervention.

The Italians weren't enthusiastic about the war, plus pretty much short of all major resources. So they wouldn't have been much help in this regard.

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally Posted by Aetius

The UK industry alone outproduced Germany and the commonwealth total outproduced the axis.

Those are two surprising statements. A quick look hasn't revealed any suitable data for a Commonwealth vs. Axis comparison, but everything I've seen points to the Germans outproducing the UK before and during the war.

The Germans were reliant on imports from the Soviets and easily disruptable sources like synthetic oil and Romanian oilfields. Without fuel the Germans couldn't defend themselves effectively. This would have eventually broken the Luftwaffe, leading to an eventual loss of air superiority, followed by a systematic destruction of infrastructure/industry.

Historically it took years and only happened after the US entry into the war and the strategic bombing campaign. It is debatable whether the RAF could have achieved something similar singlehandedly.

rgds/EoE

[nwinther]

Originally Posted by Emperor of Europe

Those are two surprising statements. A quick look hasn't revealed any suitable data for a Commonwealth vs. Axis comparison, but everything I've seen points to the Germans outproducing the UK before and during the war.rgds/EoE

I tend to agree.

A way of measuring could be the number of field divisions deployed.

Did britain ever (except for the very last days of the war) have as many divisions as the germans?

I know Britain focused much on naval and air, but a sunken battleship accounts for a lot of damage, maybe like losing a division. And the brits lost shipping like never before.

[Easy-Kill]

Originally Posted by Emperor of Europe

Those are two surprising statements. A quick look hasn't revealed any suitable data for a Commonwealth vs. Axis comparison, but everything I've seen points to the Germans outproducing the UK before and during the war.

Historically it took years and only happened after the US entry into the war and the strategic bombing campaign. It is debatable whether the RAF could have achieved something similar singlehandedly.

rgds/EoE

I don't have any data to hand, but on the subject of the airforce thingy, Max Hastings' Armageddon he goes over some numbers and the US didn't match the British tonnage of bombs dropped on Germany until late44/early45. Of course there are other factors involved here.

What you also have to remember is that Britain had a very professional armed forces. Germany on the other hand was conscripting from 1940 onwards. It wasn't just British and commonwealth forces, by the end of the Normandy campaign (IIRC correctly) France had about 2/3 of the divisisions of britain in France. In 1940, Britain had only been preparing for a full scale war since 1939, Hitler had been planning a war since 1933? (or 1918 for all intents and purposes).

I sometimes find it hard myself to get over the thinking of a numbers war, ala command and conquer style tank rush where whoever has the most tanks wins. Britain's strengths were and have never been it's ability to win an attritional war with a foe of greater population. Britain's strengths were always the Navy and then the extension with the RAF. The ability was to defend it's land from the enemy and project forward, with at the end of 1945 the ability to strike almost anywhere in the world within extremely short notice.

As to whether Britain could have taken the war to Europe and fought and liberated Europe in the style of DDay, the answer is most definately NO, even in 1945 any manpower losses were sorely felt. But could Britain have won in another mannor? I beleive yes. While the Uboat campaign hurt britain, economically and morally it was hurting Germany more (imo), she couldn't afford to continue it. Germany also couldn't (before or after) start producing a blue water navy capable of attacking the RN, it was in Britain's interest to destroy any such force before it was complete.

As for their plan, once the Med was secure, I think that it would have used the RN and RAF (in collusion with the colonies) to strike anywhere and everywhere. Although Dieppe was a disaster, I think it would have been replicated in places like Yugoslavia, Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, Albania, southern France etc and slowly nibbled away at the Axis. There would then have to be a constant garrison everywhere, if this were to happen for several years, combined with the total destruction of German cities with no respite to rebuild or rotate troops, allies who were falling and/or demanding German Protection, the economic crisis of the RN blockading pretty much every axis port etc. I beleive this would have eventually destroyed Germany. Until of course one side has the atomic bomb, then the whole situation changes.

So, could Germany have defeated Britain ... no. Could Britain have defeated Germany? maybe.

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally Posted by Easy-Kill

I don't have any data to hand, but on the subject of the airforce thingy, Max Hastings' Armageddon he goes over some numbers and the US didn't match the British tonnage of bombs dropped on Germany until late44/early45. Of course there are other factors involved here.

The impact of the US entry into the air war was way more than just tonnage of bombs dropped. With it came the strategic targeting of the German oil industry, but even more importantly: The Luftwaffe was forced to fight a losing battle that eventually won the Allies the air superiority, that maybe was the most important contribution of the bombing campaign. It is doubtful whether the RAF could have achieved something similar themselves even though the often discounted attrition of the Luftwaffe in the east of course would help.

What you also have to remember is that Britain had a very professional armed forces. Germany on the other hand was conscripting from 1940 onwards. It wasn't just British and commonwealth forces, by the end of the Normandy campaign (IIRC correctly) France had about 2/3 of the divisisions of britain in France. In 1940, Britain had only been preparing for a full scale war since 1939, Hitler had been planning a war since 1933? (or 1918 for all intents and purposes).

Sorry, I don't really understand what you are trying to say here.

rgds/EoE

[Jove]

First of all the Battle of Britain was 1940, not 1941 when the USSR was an ally of the UK, not 1942 when the US was involved, so to answer people really need to stick to just a UK vs. Germany / Italy war.

How anyone thinks the UK would have won going it alone would have to really provide some good hard data. Opinions like "Germany was getting hurt in the battle of the Atlantic" does not make sense. 1940 is heavily slanted in Germany's favor.

You could have all the raids on the coast like Dieppe (which was a disastar so how about subsititue St. Nazirth (spelling?)) and it was not going to bring Germany down. Care to explain just how this was suppose to get Germany to surrender?

I mean some of these comments are nuts. Like about controlling the Meditearean Sea? Just how is this going to happen? If anything the UK was on the defense here until late 1942 and the only thing that really changed that was the war in the USSR and the landings in north Africa.

[fillap]

IRL 1941 was the turning point, both SU and US were brought into the war. (One point worth noting is that with UK's refusal to make peace, in sep '40 hitler saw this as some sort of conspiracy with the SU and decided that he should premptive attack).

But if britain had to stand alone it still would not have been all bad for the UK. In 1941 that year UK production of aircraft was if memory serves me correctly 16000. Germany and Italy was nearer 11000, the first time in years britain outproduced them in terms of aircraft.

1941 saw a big increase in the effectiveness of ASW techniques (the only reason for the second happy time was the streach caused by US entry to the war opening new areas for U boats to exploit). It is little remembered how conclusively the battle of the atlantic was won by the alies, by mid 1943 U boats were nearly completely driven from the bay of biscay.

Also people talking about the possibities of greater german involvement in N africa seem to miss the reason for the yo-yoing front, this was caused by the lack of decent ports and supplies points, were one side would out run their supply chain then loose conclusively and go all the way back again. I don't see how the axis could have supported a large enough army to break through el-alamein so far from their depots. With a lack of air cover that far away supply so that movement was not practical durring the day, the RN controlled the E mediteranean still. Their only solution was to move columns of trucks by night.

I think given time, and no japanese attack the british (and allies) would have been able to knock italy out of the war. The italian navy was consistantly beaten and as the RAF increased in number then air control of the mediteranean would have given the british the freedom that the alies had IRL after the fall of tunnis.

I do not think that the british could have beaten the germans directly though. However by staying in the war and preventing german access to world markets it was only a matter of time before the german economy collapsed. One reason the war started in 1939 and not 1945 (as the military had been told to plan for), was that the nazi economic miracle was a house of cards. The only way to stop it colapsing was through conquest and the loot that this made available(this was the same problem for revolutionary/napoleonic france). So even if the british couldn't beat the axis militarily the nazi economy was doomed without futher conquest.

[DonnieBaseball]

The British Chiefs of Staff circulated a paper just before France fell (it's often referred to as the "certain eventuality paper"--I don't have a specific date/cite for it now, as I'm away from my books). The paper, which assumed France would fall & the UK/Commonwealth would fight on alone, contained the following key points:

--UK could only continue the war with any chance of success if it had "full financial support from the US." This is way before lend-lease, so think generous sales, credits, loans, etc.

--Proposed a three-pronged approach: blockcade, strategic bombing, and subversion/raising revolts:

It was believed that a blockade would substantially damage the German economy, despite the hole in any blockade due to Nazi-Soviet pact. British intellegence (wrongly) thought that Germany had little/no stockpiles of crucial raw materials, and that it's war production was already maxed out.

Strategic bombing would destroy German industry.

The SOE (Special Operations Executive), MI6, etc. would support partisans in occupied Europe. It was thought that this could rise to a level that would tie down large portions of the German army.

After several years (the thought was that UK could pass to "the general offensive" in 1942) of blockade/bombing/uprisings & subversion, Germany would be weakened to the point where the British could land substantial land forces on the continent, who together with resistance forces could succeed to the point where Britain could enforce terms, most likely with a German military gov't (the Nazis, in this hypothetical, likely having fallen from power in a coup (or some such event) at some point due to the pressures of bombing/blockade/revolt/invasion).

Note, the goal was a favorable negotiated settlement (i.e. liberation of occupied countries along with reparations, or something along those lines) with a future non-Nazi gov't.

[King of Men]

It's worth pointing out that the British staffs of the time were True Believers in the power of strategic bombardment. In hindsight that doesn't look so bright, but at the time they really thought they could win a war that way. And since they were in fact a little ahead in nuclear research, they might have been able to do so in ~1950 or so.

[Easy-Kill]

Originally Posted by Jove

First of all the Battle of Britain was 1940, not 1941 when the USSR was an ally of the UK, not 1942 when the US was involved, so to answer people really need to stick to just a UK vs. Germany / Italy war.

How anyone thinks the UK would have won going it alone would have to really provide some good hard data. Opinions like "Germany was getting hurt in the battle of the Atlantic" does not make sense. 1940 is heavily slanted in Germany's favor.

You could have all the raids on the coast like Dieppe (which was a disastar so how about subsititue St. Nazirth (spelling?)) and it was not going to bring Germany down. Care to explain just how this was suppose to get Germany to surrender?

I mean some of these comments are nuts. Like about controlling the Meditearean Sea? Just how is this going to happen? If anything the UK was on the defense here until late 1942 and the only thing that really changed that was the war in the USSR and the landings in north Africa.

The comments aren't nuts. I feel you look at the war as a conventional land war. This is the type of war Britain couldn't win, therefor Britain would fight in another way. I will give my opinion on a few areas.

1) Air force. Germany's air farce was turned into nothing more than a reactionary defensive force after BoB. There were no more heavy bombers left, aside from the Stukka's (which would be decimated in the SU) the Luftwaffe had no real way of taking the fight to the enemy.

2) War in the Atlantic. The allies lost a total of ~170 warships (mainly smaller corvette class) whereas Germany lost over 700. Germany didn't have the naval industry (remember this isn't HOI where 1 factory can switch from infantry to BBs the next day) to support an attritional campaign against the allies and by 1943 she had lost it because she couldn't compete with the technological race, one of these reasons was due to allied air attacks (and remember by 1943 tonnage of US bombs was about 1/2 (if memory serves me correctly) of British bombs. Which leads me to the next point.

3) While People may dispute the strategic campaigns effectiveness against German industry, it certainly did have an economic effect, moral effect, most of the main German research establishments were destroyed (not to mention most of the staff being incapable of working due to not sleeping at night). All but 2 (IIRC) German cities were destroyed by the end of the war. If anyone really thinks that people will live in a troglodytic existence indefinitely then they need to try living without sleep, shelter, food etc etc for a few years.

4) Germany could not have kept the whole population ready to fight for longer than it did. by 1945 Germany was exhausted, most men of fighting age had been conscripted, having the entire German army mobilized and ready to fight all over the European empire. After all the RN gave Britain the ability to take the fight to anywhere.

EoE, what i was trying to say was that Germany had been preparing for a war for a lot longer than Britain COULD prepare for a war. In 1940, Britain is just starting to pick up on it's production etc.

Wll, theres a few of my thoughts. Now it's time for morning 'prayers'

[nwinther]

Originally Posted by fillap

But if britain had to stand alone it still would not have been all bad for the UK. In 1941 that year UK production of aircraft was if memory serves me correctly 16000. Germany and Italy was nearer 11000, the first time in years britain outproduced them in terms of aircraft.

There's a big difference between producing aircraft and landing a force of tanks etc.

If you have air supremacy but no army to back it up with, air supremacy is of little value.

If Germany decided to go on the defencive, the british would have to fight a Battle of Germany, where their manpower losses would hurt tremendously. During BoB, the british had no or little deficiencies plane-wise, but lacked the pilots to fly them. With all their pilots shot down over germany/france, they would be producing planes for noone to fly.

Originally Posted by fillap

It is little remembered how conclusively the battle of the atlantic was won by the alies, by mid 1943 U boats were nearly completely driven from the bay of biscay.

Exactly - the allies won the atlantic. Speculation goes that had Germany focused it's effort on building subs rather than fighting an aerial war, they could have done considerably more damage to the UK i.e. starve them or rob them of all their raw materials. Only the introduction of US destroyers and a convoy system supported by said destroyers turned the tide for the british.

Originally Posted by fillap

Also people talking about the possibities of greater german involvement in N africa seem to miss the reason for the yo-yoing front, this was caused by the lack of decent ports and supplies points, were one side would out run their supply chain then loose conclusively and go all the way back again.

Not to mention the fact, that few ships made it through to these ports due to the air screen based in Malta. Had the germans taken out Malta, most, if not all of the supply ships would have made it through. And with some patience a much better supplied and equipped force could have taken on the british at el alamein. What would happen then, is difficult to say. Would a better equipped/supplied Rommel be able to beat Monty in Alamein? Would continued axis air-cover affect Montys drive westwards? etc.

Originally Posted by fillap

I think given time, and no japanese attack the british (and allies) would have been able to knock italy out of the war. The italian navy was consistantly beaten and as the RAF increased in number then air control of the mediteranean would have given the british the freedom that the alies had IRL after the fall of tunnis.

You fail to maintain the premise of the thread, that an isolated britain could beat germany. The only reason the Italians lost those battles were due to germany being involved with SU. Had Germany been able to fully support her southern partner, much better air cover could be provided plus the eventual devastation of the british bases in Malta and Egypt (plus crete/cypress?).

Originally Posted by fillap

I do not think that the british could have beaten the germans directly though. However by staying in the war and preventing german access to world markets it was only a matter of time before the german economy collapsed. One reason the war started in 1939 and not 1945 (as the military had been told to plan for), was that the nazi economic miracle was a house of cards. The only way to stop it colapsing was through conquest and the loot that this made available(this was the same problem for revolutionary/napoleonic france). So even if the british couldn't beat the axis militarily the nazi economy was doomed without futher conquest.

I agree with your first statement. The question is then, would british economy survive to maintain an effort against germany? If germany pressed hard in the Med or possibly even Turky, then the british colonies themselves would be threatened. And wothout middel eastern oil, she'd have to buy it from USA or south america - talk about taking a toll on your economy.

And what would the peoples of britain and her colonies think? In time (provided that neither US or SU becomes directly involved in the war) the british would be so pressed, that they would be able to come to terms with the germans. "Liberate" France and Poland and the Balkans, together with the return of conqured areas in NA and possibly elsewhere and some other jib-jab.

Remember, that some people view WW2 as a bigger defeat on Britain than on Germany, as germany maintained most of her pre-war territory, while Britain lost all her colonies with very few exceptions - simply because the british war-economy was a house of cards also. WW2 was the end of the british empire after all.

[nwinther]

Originally Posted by Easy-Kill

1) Air force. Germany's air farce was turned into nothing more than a reactionary defensive force after BoB. There were no more heavy bombers left, aside from the Stukka's (which would be decimated in the SU) the Luftwaffe had no real way of taking the fight to the enemy.

The premise of the thread is an isolated Britain. No SU. Germany had loads of planes for Barbarossa, and if Britain is going to bring down Germany from the air, she's eventually going to face those fighter-screens.

Originally Posted by Easy-Kill

2) War in the Atlantic. The allies lost a total of ~170 warships (mainly smaller corvette class) whereas Germany lost over 700. Germany didn't have the naval industry (remember this isn't HOI where 1 factory can switch from infantry to BBs the next day) to support an attritional campaign against the allies and by 1943 she had lost it because she couldn't compete with the technological race, one of these reasons was due to allied air attacks (and remember by 1943 tonnage of US bombs was about 1/2 (if memory serves me correctly) of British bombs. Which leads me to the next point.

Again, you're involving the allies. Britain was much more dependent on shipping than germany. Given more focus on the sub-campaign and no direct involvement from the US, the british would loose much more shipping than the enormous amounts they were already loosing. War-ships aren't really interesting in this respect, as they can't be used to transport goods needed to drive the war industry.

Originally Posted by Easy-Kill

3) While People may dispute the strategic campaigns effectiveness against German industry, it certainly did have an economic effect, moral effect, most of the main German research establishments were destroyed (not to mention most of the staff being incapable of working due to not sleeping at night). All but 2 (IIRC) German cities were destroyed by the end of the war. If anyone really thinks that people will live in a troglodytic existence indefinitely then they need to try living without sleep, shelter, food etc etc for a few years.

And why were those cities destroyed? Because of the involvement of primarily the SU and later the US. British Bomber forces, were they alone, could not have penetrated the german defences so completely that they could be able to destroy entire cities, unless the US and SU intervened.

Originally Posted by Easy-Kill

4) Germany could not have kept the whole population ready to fight for longer than it did. by 1945 Germany was exhausted, most men of fighting age had been conscripted, having the entire German army mobilized and ready to fight all over the European empire. After all the RN gave Britain the ability to take the fight to anywhere.

And all those med died on the battlefields of the scottich lowlands, right? No, they died on the russian plains. Again, you miss the premise of the thread. Germany had little, if anything to fear from an isolated british attempt on german soil - the Dieppe Raid supports that. Only the bloody mess of a german army, pulled through the wheels of the russian fronts would make the british any threat on land. And even then, only on a limited scale.

Originally Posted by Easy-Kill

Wll, theres a few of my thoughts. Now it's time for morning 'prayers'

Icky...

[Sir Humphrey]

It goes like it did. Obiovusly a return to the continent is out of the question until late 1942 at the earliest, so things shift naturally to the Middle East, North and East Africa. Destroying the Italian colonial empire, removing the Vichy French colonies from the equation (unlikely through peaceful terms, giving the likes of Mers-el-Kébir) then preparing an invasion of Italy, with considerable number likely of Commonwealth forces, having fought in North Africa. An invasion of Southern France, or even across the Channel could be contemplated, should the situation dictate that the success was acceptable. That being said, there is also the question of Japan.

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally Posted by Sir Humphrey

It goes like it did. Obiovusly a return to the continent is out of the question until late 1942 at the earliest, so things shift naturally to the Middle East, North and East Africa. Destroying the Italian colonial empire, removing the Vichy French colonies from the equation (unlikely through peaceful terms, giving the likes of Mers-el-Kébir) then preparing an invasion of Italy, with considerable number likely of Commonwealth forces, having fought in North Africa. An invasion of Southern France, or even across the Channel could be contemplated, should the situation dictate that the success was acceptable. That being said, there is also the question of Japan.

So basically the UK would do better alone than it did historically together with the US? Or how am I supposed to read this?

rgds/EoE