What if - the battle of britain.

[Schwarzie]

The Unconditional surrender aof Axis as only acceptable outcome was decided later in the war, not 1940.

IF germany would throw everything they had at this time to protect the channel, Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine, the possibility is good that they could control the channel for a short time. At this point the german Luftwaffe was stronger than the english one. Enough time to bring some divisions to the Islands.

Without the Dunkirk troops it is unlikely that GB could put up much of a fight, low morale through the losses, serious lack of equipment and trained personal.

Afterwards the Invasion of russia would be far easyer since most of Stalins equipment in late 1941 and 1942 came from the allies. In the beginning not a minor quote from the british themselves (IIRC until beginning 1942 the british sended more material than the US). At the end of 1941 the Russians had mostly allied tanks in their aresnals. (The huge amount of material the sowjets produced began only mid 1942, before this they had to relocate their industries behind the Ural). In the beginning most of this came through the atlantik, which wouldn´t be possible with a invaded UK.

So a defeat of the Sowjets would be likely under such circumstances.

But all this needs some IF's.

And without the little word If, i would be a Billionaire today

 

[Federkiel]

You need to look at Dunkirk again. The German airpower was able to do what against slow clumsy transport ships you said?

You need to look at the topic and my post again. After reading you certainly get my point.

 

[unmerged(66808)]

Had Germany succeeded with Seelöwe, they would have had a good chance of winning the war. Not just because of the geographical conquest of the British home isles, but because they would have had a chance of seizing the british banks.

There were plans to prevent that & ship our gold and Royal Family off to Canada if thinks looked bad.

 

[unmerged(138740)]

Manhattan Project? How would US bombers reach Germany without UK? One way flight? With German Jet/stealth Fighters introduced (if no strategic bombing of Germany then they would be different equipement for Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht) impossible.
Succesfull BoB and Sealion are plausible but only pre US joining the war.
It would require different allocation of resources and different goals and preparations. Yes - peace is easier but it doesnt mean that such operations are impossible.

No UK army would only help that. RN was no problem if Luftwaffe would control the skies. So Sealion requires BoB victory. Ships that could land German troops were already available - merchant marine, it could successfully transport German Divs. They were no landing crafts but its paras which should get a port. Norway was an example that Germany could have make such action and with significant number of forces.

 

[nwinther]

This thread belongs in the history section, but whatever.


I have a comment on the "the war would have dragged on for several more years, but would have been won eventually, by USSR/USA.

I don't buy that at face value. Neither the Soviet Union or the USA was a bottomless pit of resources, money and manpower. Wageing a war on the scale of WW2 is extremely expensive. Had Germany been able to annihilate a few more million soviet soldiers, Stalin could no longer have fought on, as the nation was reaching the bottom of the barrel. The UK was all but broke after the war - and the USA was also straining its economy. Taking Britain out - with all that entails (no fear of strategic bombings in 1940 onwards, meaning less need for an airforce in the west, the allied blocade of resources lifted, no aid for the Soviet Union etc. etc. not to mention the lack of the entire british industry and economy, I don't see USSR or USA winning (or USA even entering!) I'm not saying that USSR would be destroyed, but a stalemate would surely have been achieved, with the Germans many hundreds of kilometers inside the Soviet Union.

 

[unmerged(138740)]

+ oil from Baku and German Industry at its peak (no bombing) + their inventions?
No way US would win. Spain + Turkey + Italy + Ireland (after North Ireland) + Portugal + even Sweden at that time... etc etc no way. USSR? Stalemate at Ural or Wolga - that was Nazi goal.
Fall of UK is the loss of war for Allies.

 

[ApacheX]

Manhattan project woud be delayed as they got uranium and/or plutonium from german subs and mainland. That they used. But what I am wondering is how long woud US look at europe and do nothing?IF he sees that UK get serius problem, woud he just sit and look at it fall? I doubt that.

 

[unmerged(45977)]

Manhattan project woud be delayed as they got uranium and/or plutonium from german subs and mainland. That they used. But what I am wondering is how long woud US look at europe and do nothing?IF he sees that UK get serius problem, woud he just sit and look at it fall? I doubt that.

Once the Germans would've established a beachhead in Britian there is nothing to do for the US.

Also, I really think that the US would've supported Germany if they were victorious in the west. It's better to support the fascist than the communists.

 

[ADragonsFang]

One thing is almost certain: without adequate air support, the British Navy wouldn't have been able to succesfully prevent any German landings - a lesson they learned later from the Japanese.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_Prince_of_Wales_and_Repulse

what sort of airforce would germany have had after having to defeat the RAF?? If we were to say what if they won BofB with what they had, then they didnt have enough airforce to take on the home fleet succefully not to mention britain is incredibly close to france that a combined naval anti air, and british flak defences would easily defeat the german airforce during a german invasion. also considering it doesnt take much to take out transports ships that even a few destroyers surviving german air attack could easlily blow the german invasion to bits. I also read from some1 else that germany would use paratroopers, nuh uh, that just wouldnt happen as hitler gave up on them when they were used on the island of crete. german paratroopers just didnt work effectively(reason, having to drop guns seperatly from troops). the germans put little training into their paratroopers and never developed the idea enough that hitler just gave up on "wasting" resources" on them.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Fall of UK is the loss of war for Allies.

Id say that depends on when that happens. If its lost before 1941 Yes.

But since Germany can't mount any realistic invasion of UK with possibility of success before 42-43 (with historical development up to 1940) Its very hard to pull it off however.

US and Soviet would both be very eager to intervene instantly and with everything they had upon the first news of Germans on the way in their Ships.

 

[unmerged(66808)]

The only problem is how to manage that?
Dunkirk turning different with no evacuation leaves UK without experienced troops. Diferent focus on bombing during BoB could turn in a way better situation for Luftwaffe. No city bombing but total concentration on RAF - plausible.

I think that would have been the biggest 'if', ie it really needed air superiority to succeed.

The biggest problem is how to send Wehrmacht through the Channel? Paras would be usefull but cant win alone. All subs and ships would have to secure the sea and all merchant marine be used for transport but that would be a challenge. The whole operation would end in a loss of Kriegsmarine.
This all is plausible but hard to achieve.

I guess we were lucky that Germany never seemed to like it's Navy, plus Versailles helped prevent a build up. The idea of mining the ends of the Channel may have worked though to deny access to the allied Navy.

And remember that UK had no army so whole Wehrmacht wasnt needed.

We did, ie 22 divisions, but they were understrength and ill equipped immediately after Dunkirk. This is one of those 'what if's', ie if Hitler had listened to his generals and dealt with the BEF more aggressively, we'd not have had 300K+ British and French troops to help with any defence.

I know that there will be voices that UK would not fall so easy, fighting on beaches, cities... Thats a myth. Look at the rest of the conquered countries in the world. There would be a resistance but lets not go to far with that.
The problem for Hitler would be to land there and hold beaches. If the first phase would be successfull then the rest is just a matter of time (short).

UK has plenty of experience with invasions & dealing with the threat of invasion. And for history fans, there's still a fair bit of it left from Napoleonic, 1st and 2nd World War (and older). There'd been frantic attempts to beef up those defences and there's still evidence of that, eg where bridges were prepped for demolition & people still finding the occasional pipe bomb under old airfields.

 

[ADragonsFang]

But what I am wondering is how long woud US look at europe and do nothing?IF he sees that UK get serius problem, woud he just sit and look at it fall? I doubt that.

i totally agree with this. even if germany mounted an invasion and got a beach head on the british coast Roosevelt would have DOW the very same day. the president was 100% dedicated to stopping the nazi's by 1940 but was held back by the general populus who needed a secure reason for war(which came at Pearl Harbour) however if he was to see Britain in severe threat of defeat he would have DOW and deal with the consequences later. then its a matter of days before the entire American army comes to british aid (and i mean entire as no war with japan then). German defeat in invasion attempt and dday plans early as a "surprise" counter attack while germany is at its weakest after defeat in britain. If japan declares war early so be it, they are in no persision to hinder america seveerly(no boats in Pearl harbour, now all in the atlantic), yes america would loose more islands with less naval protection for them but strategically they had enough to win in the long run.

 

[Hptm. Jaadoo]

If the operation would have started before barbarossa and pearl harbor and wouldn't have taken a year, it would have changed the outcome of the war.

- the us wouldn't have a base of operation near the hear of europe
- the remaining british troops (if they would choose to keep fighting) would have been without leadership, so every unit would have been on its on, at least for a short period of time, and would need time to reorganice/regroup
- the luftwaffe wouldn't have to defend germayn from RAF and could concentrate on other fronts
- german industry wouldn't have to worry about bombing, and wouldn't be forced to move to safer locations and therefore could concentrate on other projects
- other european nations, might have joined axis, or given more support, without GB in the picture

i'm not saying germany would have won the war, but it would have been a lot more likely

 

[unmerged(45977)]

i totally agree with this. even if germany mounted an invasion and got a beach head on the british coast Roosevelt would have DOW the very same day. the president was 100% dedicated to stopping the nazi's by 1940 but was held back by the general populus who needed a secure reason for war(which came at Pearl Harbour) however if he was to see Britain in severe threat of defeat he would have DOW and deal with the consequences later. then its a matter of days before the entire American army comes to british aid (and i mean entire as no war with japan then). German defeat in invasion attempt and dday plans early as a "surprise" counter attack while germany is at its weakest after defeat in britain. If japan declares war early so be it, they are in no persision to hinder america seveerly(no boats in Pearl harbour, now all in the atlantic), yes america would loose more islands with less naval protection for them but strategically they had enough to win in the long run.

So you think that the US would load it's unprepared small army on boats and send it to the German meat grinder. Really? I wonder how they would even land on the, now German controlled, British beaches. Nah, it'll take months for the Americans to have an army ready for any combat with the Germans.

 

[Alex_brunius]

So you think that the US would load it's unprepared small army on boats and send it to the German meat grinder. Really? I wonder how they would even land on the, now German controlled, British beaches. Nah, it'll take months for the Americans to have an army ready for any combat with the Germans.

This is true, but their Navy and Airforce is not small. And could be ready within days. It also have aircraft Carriers that are able to defend it much better against Luftwaffe.

 

[TheLoneGunman]

So you think that the US would load it's unprepared small army on boats and send it to the German meat grinder. Really? I wonder how they would even land on the, now German controlled, British beaches. Nah, it'll take months for the Americans to have an army ready for any combat with the Germans.

You left out the part where Roosevelt and any other candidate supporting the war loses the presidential election and the troops get recalled.

Very possible, although this entire topic belongs in the History section and not here. It's not game-related at all, the OP even concedes that this post has nothing to do with HOI, let alone HOI3.

 

[unmerged(146832)]

If I can take Britain in 1940 as a player, there is no way I'm losing that game I can tell you that much.

 

[Alex_brunius]

You left out the part where Roosevelt and any other candidate supporting the war loses the presidential election and the troops get recalled.

And you left out the part where the US population would react almost as harshly to a German invasion of UK that they would on loosing 2000 of their own navy personnel. How many Americans were living or working abroad in UK at the time? Certainly a lot more then 2000.

 

[ADragonsFang]

So you think that the US would load it's unprepared small army on boats and send it to the German meat grinder. Really? I wonder how they would even land on the, now German controlled, British beaches. Nah, it'll take months for the Americans to have an army ready for any combat with the Germans.

if you read what i said you would realise i was implying america lands to defend britain, there is no way germany could conquer all the coast before american support gets to liverpool or belfast so its not a beach assault or landing by america, its a transport to dock. and they have more then enough capabilities to beat a german invasion and they didnt have a small army atall.

EDIT: also thelonegunman i dnt think a change of government would cause a ceasefire with germany, i dnt ever recall an election or any other form of legally changing a govenment causing that nation to leave a war, and even if it would, it would take several weeks to get both american and german forces to stop shooting each other. war is easier to declare then it is to settle.

 

[unmerged(138740)]

You forget that there were also americans in Germany till the DoW. and? US citizens would be evacuated or stay at their own risk. Germans would treat them good if there would be no war with the US. Their citizens have nothing to do with that as long as they arent killed.