# Luftwaffe focused in the East



## Jenisch (Jun 12, 2012)

Supposing a scenario were Germany is not at war with the West, and the Luftwaffe is fully deployed against the Soviets, could the outcome of the Eastern Front be significantly more favourable to Germany by it's improved aerial situation?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 12, 2012)

".... could the outcome of the Eastern Front be significantly more favourable to Germany by it's improved aerial situation? "

Not with the _same_ aircraft .... but ... with long range, high altitude, fast heavy bombers ... perhaps.

MM


----------



## Glider (Jun 12, 2012)

If germany wasn't at war in the West then presumably they could ahve started the war in the East 12 months earlier and that could have made a huge difference. The new russian aircraft which were just entering service wouldn't have been in the picture, ditto the T34/KV1 tanks.

For the Luftwaffe the only big difference is that the 109's would have been 109E not 109F subtypes.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 12, 2012)

How could Germany get to Russia without going thru Poland, and either touching off a war with England and France?

And even if that didn't start a war, by the time they rolled across Poland, there would no longer be a big surprize by the time they got to the Russian- Polish border.


----------



## davebender (Jun 12, 2012)

Luftwaffe units operating in Russia would have a lot more fuel which would allow a higher sortie rate. Replacement pilots would be better trained too. That should make a considerable difference at Kursk where the Luftwaffe historically had only two thirds of the required fuel and, like the Heer, had to transfer their best units west half way through the battle.


----------



## davebender (Jun 12, 2012)

IMO there's a better chance of no German - Soviet war. 

If Britain, France and the USA don't align with Stalin the nations of Central and Eastern Europe will align with Germany for mutual protection. Perhaps even Poland. Stalin will steer clear unless Britain, France and the USA support the Soviet Union.


----------



## Glider (Jun 12, 2012)

I would say that there is no chance that the UK USA and France would align with Russia, Stalin was loathed by them. In which case the risk increases as the nations of Central and Eastern Europe align with Germany.


----------



## DonL (Jun 12, 2012)

@ Jenisch

To answer your question Jenisch, it would be realy important, if there was a war in the west or without any war in the west?

If we took the scenario without any war in the west and we look at the numbers, I would say a big yes!

The LW lost someting about 3000 first rated frontline a/c's (Bf 109E, Bf 110, Ju 87, He 111, Ju 88, Do17, Do15 and Ju 52)at the french campaign, BoB and the Mediterranean area till June 1941. 
To this losses you can coun't the JG 26, JG 2 (France June 1941), the X Fliegerkorps at Kreta (June 1941)and air fleet 5 at Norway (June 1941 plus some NGZ and ZG at Germany (June 1941). 

So if we take this conservative the LW could deploy 2500-3000 more first rated frontline a/c's at June 41 against the Soviet Union.
That would be near 100% more a/c's then the original deployed 3000 a/c's.

So the LW would attack with something between 5500-6000 a/c's at June 22.1941.
To my opinion this would be a very very big plus to the break through ability of the Wehrmacht on a tactical level and the possibility of the VVS to regenerate after the very very big losses at the first days would be much more difficult on a strategic level. The LW would have near 3000 fighter in the air, so the air activity of the VVS could be hold to zero. Also there would be much more a/c's on hand to attack the soviet supply lines!

The key element in this scenario would be how fast the Wehrmacht could be benefit from this break through ability and could control important junctions, harbour etc. The real question would be how long and far could 5500- 6000 a/c be supplied.

To my very own opinion it would be very very importnt to control the Baltic and the North of the Soviet Union (till Leningrad) very fast (July/August 1941) to have the possibility to ship supply to the Baltic and Soviet Union East Sea harbour, that would be a real important benefit to the supply lines. Everything else is speculation but with 2500-3000 more a/c's there would be other possibilties as in the real campaign.


----------



## davebender (Jun 12, 2012)

Why wouldn't the Uk, USA and France do what they did historically during 1939 to 1945?


----------



## Jenisch (Jun 12, 2012)

Guys, let's not discuss much politics here. My objective is mainly compare the Luftwaffe and the VVS against each other in this scenario.


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 12, 2012)

One could even partially explore this thread...
What if Germany had not entered North Afrika?
How many more resources does that leave for the Ost Front?


----------



## bobbysocks (Jun 12, 2012)

is there no battle of france? or the uk and germany come to peaceful terms afterwards? either way now you are talking no lend lease...? or is america and the west still trading with the soviets <<< and that would strain relations between them and the reich like it did with the us sending supplies to the uk. a powder keg either way. but without the HUGE influx of steel, ammo, medicine, airplanes, machinery, trucks...etc, etc, etc. russia is in a world of hurt. without hurricanes and p 39s as a stop gap measurei think the vvs would be doomed. they lost 6000 or 7000 planes the first week iirc. hard to make that up when you are on the run. germany may not end up taking the entire country but would own a hell of a lot of lot of russian real estate before they got tired of fighting.


----------



## davebender (Jun 12, 2012)

Let's try an organized approach. This list isn't complete but it's a start.

JG2. Historically in France.
JG26. Historically in France.

At least 4 ZG of Me-110 fighter-bombers as they will not be diverted to the night fighter force.

Luftflotte 4. Historically in Balkans.
…..KG2.
…..KG3.
…..KG51.
…..JG27.
…..JG54.
…..JG77.
…..StG1.
…..StG2.
…..StG3.
…..StG77.
…..Hundreds of additional Ju-52 transport aircraft.
…..A bunch of badly needed logistical units.
These units would be intact and at full strength rather then getting fed into Barbarossa in bits and pieces.

Luftflotte 2. Historically in Italy and North Africa.
…..KG54.
…..KG77.
…..KG100.
…..LG1.
…..JG53.
…..Hundreds of additional Ju-52 transport aircraft.
…..A bunch of badly needed logistical units.

About 1,500 additional heavy AT guns.
…..Historically Germany produced about 3,000 8.8cm weapons 1939 to 1941 and most were to defend against RAF Bomber Command. If Britain doesn’t declare war then Germany will probably procure half as many 8.8cm AA guns plus 1,500 additional 7.5cm PaK40 AT guns.

The Luftwaffe parachute division historically employed on Crete.
The Luftwaffe parachute brigade historically employed in North Africa.

Units from Finland, Romania and Hungary, Slovakia, Croatia etc.
.....Without BoB losses each of these nations can probably equip a JG with modern Me-109 fighter aircraft plus a KG with modern He-111 bomber aircraft.
.....Finland and Romania will also have a StG equipped with Ju-87 dive bombers. Employed against Soviet Navy.
.....Luftwaffe KG will have a higher proportion of Ju-88s. He-111s will go to allied nations.


----------



## rank amateur (Jun 13, 2012)

A feasible scenario could be that the invasion of the USSR starts in the final days of the battle for Poland in October 1939. In stead of consolidating their positions, the German forces get drawn in unvolluntary clashes with the Sovjet invasion troops in Poland. In stead of living up the Molotow/Ribbentrop pact, Hitler, ignoring common sense and all arguments, commences in an invasion of the Sovjet Union.
At that time the Sovjet Union was even less prepared for war than it was on june ’41. The German assault gets an unexpected support from the Baltic nations, who after receiving notice of the Sovjet invasion plans, immediately declare war on Stalin and manage to completly overrun the sovjet troops they encounter. Meanwhile the Abwehr informs Finland about the Russian invasion plans after which Finlans also declares war.
Due to an element of surprise and bad preperations on the Sovjet side, the joint forces under German command manage to the paralyse the Sovjet armies and maintain firm positions on Sovjet soil before the Winter begins. During which the luftwaffe starts a bomber offensive against all Sovjet railways and industrie west of the Caucasus
Intimidated by the German successes neither France nor the UK are much inclined tot ‘warm’ up the phoney war status and diplomats on either side are trying to negotiate a new Munich treaty. No real chance of full blown war for at least 2 years.
So at the beginning of 1940 we have a damaged Sovjet Union, a western Europe untouched by war and a Germany that has the possibility to call it self an advocate of freedom by taking on the evil Sovjet Union and liberate Belarusso and Ukraine. Italy is outside of the war with limited risk for Germany to get caught in a war on the Balkan or Africa. And absolutely no reason for the US to instigate any Lend Lease.

Could this work?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 13, 2012)

Could this work ...... NO .... the historical facts don't support the thesis.

"... At that time the Sovjet Union was even less prepared for war than it was on june ’41"

At that time the Soviets have just decisively crushed and wrapped up a nasty little war with Japan.

Finland, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania have no appetite to start war with Russia. And few military resources.

Germany is is no shape after fighting the Poles to just carry on without a breather (the Phony War). Germany has suffered AC and tracked vehicle losses that need to be replaced.

MM


----------



## Gixxerman (Jun 13, 2012)

It's also worth pointing out that the German economy is on the verge of going totally bust at this stage (1939) and whilst the rush to war was for many reasons tucked in amongst them is that due to the dire financial state of the country they had to move at that or around that stage rather than being able wait until the originally planned 1942 or there-abouts stage.
Looting defeated countries was the only way to pay for things keep going.
They really were gambling with their country in the most crass manner, talk about 'going all-in'.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 13, 2012)

".... They really were gambling with their country in the most crass manner"

Economic vision .......

MM


----------



## rank amateur (Jun 13, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> Could this work ...... NO .... the historical facts don't support the thesis.
> 
> "... At that time the Sovjet Union was even less prepared for war than it was on june ’41"
> 
> ...



I won't dispute anything and still considering this is a what if simulation, but Manchuria is a long way from Poland and second Finland, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania might not have an appetite to start a war but historically the former was involved in a winterwar and the other 3 were run over by the Sovjet army. I'm quite sure that the plans for this were no secret to either the Gestapo or the Abwehr. So with the first german soldiers crossing the border I can imagine some diplomatic parcels finding their way to the different european capitals.


----------



## bobbysocks (Jun 13, 2012)

why would the fins go to war? the winter war and war of contunation were started by the russians....if russia is not the agressor i think the fins stay neutral.


----------



## davebender (Jun 13, 2012)

Germany barely had enough fuel and ammunition stockpiled to defeat Poland. They aren't going to start a fight with the Soviet Union during October 1939.

If the Soviet Union start a fight Germany would defend initially while getting logistics in order. After defeating the initial Soviet attack there might be a phony war situation until May 1940. Then the Soviet Union would get hit with the force historically employed in France and Norway.


----------



## rank amateur (Jun 14, 2012)

bobbysocks said:


> why would the fins go to war? the winter war and war of contunation were started by the russians....if russia is not the agressor i think the fins stay neutral.



Hi Bob, I gues you did not graps all the implications from my last sentence?  
If a gouvernement receives notice that a foreign country is planning an invasion do you think they will lean back and watch it happen? Especially when they have a friendly neighbor on their team.

And offcourse Germany wasn't up to another war in october '39. I think they did a lot of irrational things. Does anyone consider Japan ready for a war with the US in september '41?

This is just a scenario to come to a situation where Germany is only fighting in the east without interference from the France, the UK or the US and without meddlings in the Balkan or Africa. Maybe a full fledged war with the USSR is more logical in may 1940. I have no problem with that.


----------



## stona (Jun 14, 2012)

rank amateur said:


> This is just a scenario to come to a situation where Germany is only fighting in the east without interference from the France, the UK or the US and without meddlings in the Balkan or Africa. Maybe a full fledged war with the USSR is more logical in may 1940. I have no problem with that.



How are the Germans going to get to the USSR without provoking the enactment of various treaties and protocols that will bring Britain and France into the war?
Does your scenario also dispense with most of the political and military manouerverings of the 1930s?
European powers at that time had a network of alliances and protocols in place more reminiscent of 19th century politics which seem odd to our modern eyes. 

Japan was never going to win a long war against the USA. She had a pretty good run against the European colonial powers in Asia (Britain,France,Netherlands etc) and the Chinese before,finally,being overpowered by the might of the Americans.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 14, 2012)

".... How are the Germans going to get to the USSR without provoking the enactment of various treaties and protocols that will bring Britain and France into the war? ...?

Through Romania and the Black Sea, via Hungary which borders Austria IIRC ... 

MM


----------



## davebender (Jun 14, 2012)

> How are the Germans going to get to the USSR without provoking the enactment of various treaties and protocols that will bring Britain and France into the war?
> Does your scenario also dispense with most of the political and military manouerverings of the 1930s?


I agree. 

If Britain supports a plebiscite for Danzig as they did for the Saar then Poland will back down. There will be no war between Germany and Poland during September 1939.


----------



## JoeB (Jun 14, 2012)

If Hitler had set out single mindedly to conquer the USSR, alone, I agree there are ways that could have been done without going to war with Britain and France. Poland could conceivably have been made an ally of Germany, as most of the other East European countries, and Finland, were coaxed or intimidated into becoming. And as mentioned, the USSR was attacked from allied Finland (the Soviets did start the Winter War, but it's too cute to say they started the Continuation War, whoever started shooting first the Finns and Germans had an agreement they'd attack the Soviets in concert) Hungary and Romanian as well as occupied Poland and Czechoslovakia.

But, the whole national complex which caused Hitler's rise had a lot to do with Germany's treatment after WWI, which was about the ancient enemy France (and with less German passion, Britain) and post WWI territorial issues with neighboring countries like Poland. Hitler's 'crusade against Communism' might have been as important to him, but much less important to why the Nazi regime gained power and had such solid support in German as of 1939. 

Anyway the answer to what would have happened if Germany could concentrate the LW against the Soviets is, IMO, not much, or only some straw which might have broken the camel's back at some key decisive point. A war against the Soviets had to be won on land. Both sides repeatedly testified about how, even on the open steppes, enemy tactical air ops were at most a serious nuisance to ground operations. They didn't win or lose battles. 

OTOH the Germans diverting the resources to conduct a serious strategic bombing campaign v the Soviets would have been a disastrous mistake even without Western opponents. Strategic bombing only (possibly) made sense as a way to apply force against an enemy when he was still insulated by a water body you couldn't (yet) cross. Of course having built up a large bombing effort v Germany the Western Allies naturally didn't suddenly stop it as soon as they opened a really major land front v Germany in June 1944. But it would have made no sense for either the Soviets or the Germans to build a strategic bomber force to attack the other, assuming no nukes. The extra resources would always be better used to go for the knock out blow in the land war.

Joe


----------



## rank amateur (Jun 15, 2012)

stona said:


> How are the Germans going to get to the USSR without provoking the enactment of various treaties and protocols that will bring Britain and France into the war?
> Does your scenario also dispense with most of the political and military manouerverings of the 1930s?
> European powers at that time had a network of alliances and protocols in place more reminiscent of 19th century politics which seem odd to our modern eyes.
> Cheers
> ...



Both France and Britain were not very eager to commence an active war. The invasion of 2 democratic western european nations only lead to an illconceived counterinvasion in Norway 6 day's later. Nothing happening over Franco/German border. 
I think that if Germany had played their cards right, they could have get away with the Polish invasion and even a declaration of war with the USSR. If only they could have managed to step over the old WO 1 resentments and focussed their efforts on the east. Stalin did not have many friends in 1939 and did even less to get new.


----------



## Jenisch (Jun 15, 2012)

JoeB said:


> IA war against the Soviets had to be won on land.



How about the effects of the Luftwaffe attacking the Soviet logistics? I think the much more numerous strike 190s would been significant.


----------



## davebender (Jun 15, 2012)

You are wrong. 

Read historical articles written during the 1930s and you will find communist sympathizers all over Europe and the USA. You will also find numerous French and British attempts to form a military alliance with Stalin during the late 1930s.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 15, 2012)

rank amateur said:


> Both France and Britain were not very eager to commence an active war. The invasion of 2 democratic western european nations only lead to an illconceived counterinvasion in Norway 6 day's later. *Nothing happening over Franco/German border. *......



Thats not completely true. There were many clashes between the Luftwaffe and French / BEF forces - including Moelders rise in his score. There was also at least one incursion into the territory, but I will have to search to see if it was France into Germany or the other way around.

Found it - the Saar Offensive

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

"The Saar Offensive was a French attack into the Saarland defended by the German 1st Army in the early stages of World War II. The purpose of the attack was to assist Poland, which was then under attack. However, the assault was stopped after a few miles and the French forces withdrew."


----------



## rank amateur (Jun 16, 2012)

davebender said:


> You are wrong.
> 
> Read historical articles written during the 1930s and you will find communist sympathizers all over Europe and the USA. You will also find numerous French and British attempts to form a military alliance with Stalin during the late 1930s.



Hi Dave. Sure Uncle Joe was enjoying a sort of popularity in certain circles but not where it would have matterd. At least not in 1939. And even then not every communist followed the Stalin doctrine (you might remember J. Trotski). The man was considered an emberrashment especially after the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact. In fact many a communist was relieved when Barbarossa took place. I should have added the word 'relevant'.


----------



## rank amateur (Jun 16, 2012)

Njaco said:


> Thats not completely true. There were many clashes between the Luftwaffe and French / BEF forces - including Moelders rise in his score. There was also at least one incursion into the territory, but I will have to search to see if it was France into Germany or the other way around.
> 
> Found it - the Saar Offensive
> 
> ...



You are right (as usual I might add) but in my opinion they were just going through the motions and had no real plan other than find better defendable positions. Eventualy Germany took the initiative.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 17, 2012)

"... Sure Uncle Joe was enjoying a sort of popularity in certain circles but not where it would have mattered...."

Sure, sure - who needs "friends" when American and British capitalists are willing to ship factories over for you, set them up, and show you how to run 'em ...! Ford Model A cars and trucks, Ford tractors, Austin, Leyland, Autocar to name a few .... Stalin knew capitalism _worked _- delivered the required stuff efficiently - Stalin didn't "need" other friends .... 

MM

Post: "Bloodlands", Timothy Synder's latest book, reviewed: 

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arc...ass-murder-starvation/?pagination=false#fnr-1


----------



## Altea (Jun 17, 2012)

Glider said:


> If germany wasn't at war in the West then presumably they could ahve started the war in the East 12 months earlier and that could have made a huge difference. The new russian aircraft which were just entering service wouldn't have been in the picture, ditto the T34/KV1 tanks.
> 
> For the Luftwaffe the only big difference is that the 109's would have been 109E not 109F subtypes.



This is a rather questionnable assertion.

From technical point of view it _might _be true. From operational it's false, but with no doubt this time. 

On june 1940 the 1st VVS were not powerless and had 15 693 combat planes for 18759 in june 1941. Only 706 modern planes were delivered to western districts between january the 1st and june the 20th. They were suffering many teething troubles and had no trained pilots for them. They were useless and played insignificant rules during first stages of _Barbarossa_, as well as new tanks. On the other hand spare parts and maintenance sets disappeard for old types as I-15bis, I-16 and SB during or even well before their withdrawal from production, and *this *affected a lot VVs operational ability, from the secund part of 1940. 

About 1940 year: it was exceptionnaly cold unlike 1941th a rather standard one, promissing a short and catastrophic campaign for germans and especially the luftwaffe, bad weather, early frosts, late thaws, etc...The soviet army had more mobilised strengh than in 1941 ( 500 000 more men on arms in western districts) due to baltic and moldavia operations and had in general more combat readiness. And not such bear garden of frontline aerodromes as in 1941. It should be noted that the the overwhelming majority of soviet planes destroyed during first weeks of Barbarossa were either destroyed by Luft on the airfields or sabotages by their own crews during the retreat even for light damages. No such a problem with stabilised front lines, but evacuated and repeard planes. 

Difficut to take them by surprise as easy as in 1941, when Stalin as well as his generals were persuaded that no attack would be launched against SU before separate peace with UK!

Regards

PS And about technical edge, no doubt that both MiG-3 and LaGG-3 were much more outclassed by the 109F in 1941 than I-16 tip 24-29 in 1940 by a 109E.


----------



## rank amateur (Jun 17, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> "... Sure Uncle Joe was enjoying a sort of popularity in certain circles but not where it would have mattered...."
> 
> Sure, sure - who needs "friends" when American and British capitalists are willing to ship factories over for you, set them up, and show you how to run 'em ...! Ford Model A cars and trucks, Ford tractors, Austin, Leyland, Autocar to name a few .... Stalin knew capitalism _worked _- delivered the required stuff efficiently - Stalin didn't "need" other friends ....
> 
> ...


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 17, 2012)

"... Not to be cynical but I'm sure that Ford, Austin, Leyland and others didn't perpetrade all this out of the kindness of their hearts but just to make a buck or better said a lotta bucks."

I think I referred to them as "capitalists" ..... making money is _usually _what capitalism is about ..... is that not the case in Holland?

Stalin achieved his objectives for industrialization of the Soviet economy .... no communist friends could help him achieve _that_.

MM


----------



## rank amateur (Jun 17, 2012)

[I think I referred to them as "capitalists" ..... making money is _usually _what capitalism is about ..... is that not the case in Holland?

Capitalism these day's isn't what it used to be. It used to be about producing stuff and selling it at the highest price. Nowadays companies outsource their production to China. Or are things different in Canada? 



Stalin achieved his objectives for industrialization of the Soviet economy .... no communist friends could help him achieve _that_.

No argument from me there. But I wonder: did Ford, Austin and all the other companies, get what they were expecting?

Chrzzzz


----------



## DonL (Jun 17, 2012)

Altea said:


> This is a rather questionnable assertion.
> 
> From technical point of view it _might _be true. From operational it's false, but with no doubt this time.
> 
> ...



You don't understand the issue! We are talking about no war at the west!
So any aircraft that was deployed on the west (french campaign, BoB) *would be deployed* on the east! Bf 109E, Bf 110, Ju 88, He 111, Do17, Ju 88, Ju 87.
The VVs wasn't at 1940 able to do *any* coordinate action, because they had no equipment (radio)to do a lead from the central.

The technical superrioty one the german side would be outstanding, even the Bf 110 could outmatch an I-16 at free hunting at altitude (freie Jagd), and a Bf 109E is as outstanding against a I-16 as the Bf 109F was against MiG-3 and LaGG-3. The air superrioty would be much higher then the original 1941 Barbarossa campaign. At 1940 with no war in the west and without any Landlease and learning the Luftwaffe had made mince mead of the VVS with no doubt, at any situation of the war!!!


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 17, 2012)

".... But I wonder: did Ford, Austin and all the other companies, get what they were expecting?"

For the most part, I would say, they did. Remember in 1931 the western economies were in deep depression .... selling to Stalin was no different than selling to Saddam Hussein in Iraq, IMHO.

"... Capitalism these day's isn't what it used to be. It used to be about producing stuff and selling it at the highest price. " It's about providing investors with dividends and growth in their investment .... hasn't changed much that I'm aware of.

MM


----------



## Altea (Jun 18, 2012)

> DonL said:
> 
> 
> > You don't understand the issue! We are talking about no war at the west!
> ...


----------



## rank amateur (Jun 18, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".... But I wonder: did Ford, Austin and all the other companies, get what they were expecting?"
> 
> For the most part, I would say, they did. Remember in 1931 the western economies were in deep depression .... selling to Stalin was no different than selling to Sadam Hussein in Iraq, IMHO.MM



At times everybody did business wit Irak. Saddam seemed betere manageble than his neighbor Iran. Would make an interesting subject for a historical disertation: doing business with the enemy. We Dutch have a long standing tradition with selling anything to anybody. In the 80 year war with Spain (staring somewhat round 1548) Dutch merchants freely sold cannonballs to the Spanyards 


[QUOTE"... Capitalism these day's isn't what it used to be. It used to be about producing stuff and selling it at the highest price. " It's about providing investors with dividends and growth in their investment .... hasn't changed much that I'm aware of.

MM[/QUOTE]

Well perhaps but in my view shareholdersvalue now seems a lot more import than the continuation of the companies. Again this is not the place to be discuss this. Now lets try to get back on thread


----------



## rank amateur (Jun 18, 2012)

Altea said:


> > You think that a BF-110 could outurn and outroll a I-16, something like that? Numbers please.
> >
> > Now considering the I-16 type 24, best examples were just flying at 489 km/h at about 4500 m hight, but as SL it was full 440 km/h exactly as soviet tested Bf-109 E-3! Even serial type 29 with 20 mm canons was making 430 km/h. From comparative trials it was beating the "Emil" after only 2 or 3 turning circles* or only 1 to 1.5 loop!
> > * (17-19s vs 26.5 -29.4)
> > ...


----------



## Njaco (Jun 18, 2012)

> In final worlds, considering Luftwaffe's superiority, i have no doubt that VVS would have been gradually decimated, but not destroyed with such catastrophic speed as during Barbarossa. That change a lot of things.



Altea, I truly don't understand how the VVS would be *gradually *decimated in 1940 and yet was *quickly *decimated one year later?

Another factor: You may have parity with the aircraft but not with the pilots. Luftwaffe pilots at that time were better trained and with experience.


----------



## Altea (Jun 18, 2012)

rank amateur said:


> I have read somewhere (may be on this forum) that the I-16 was *notorious instable *and the quality of Sovjet pilots was eufemistically said not very good. So the I-16 may not have been that outdated my money would go to the me110's.
> 
> 
> In 1940 the Sovjet airforce was arguably the largest in the world but there were not so many modern planes on inventory.



I think I-16 pilots would better tell about it, for instance:
Part 1

And BTW, I-16 were *never* unstable, not even neutral. They *were *stable, ie had natural tendency to recover their flight line after perturbation but with light pitching moment for someone's taste. 
This coupled with small inertia moments made the plane vey nervous ie twitchy. That mean difficult to handle, not dangerous.

Just to call cat, a cat...





> The I-80 never really got into production. I assume there was a reason for that.


False!
For the I-180, it occurs owedays that there were more political than technical reasons for that. The Polikarpov's 156 design bureau was lacking means being only a workshop and state command was sent in 1939 to n°21 factory that had it's own design bureau n° 21 leaded by Pashinine, projecting its'own fighter the I-21. Unsurprisingly, all efforts were switched there to Pashinine fighter to the detriment of Polikarpov's one. The later was also lacking support from soviet partocrates, and of coarse from the new minister of aviation Yakovlev that was BTW his main competitor!


----------



## cimmex (Jun 18, 2012)

@Altea, very strange statement.
Why did they replace the I-16 by Hurricanes which were clearly inferior to the Bf109E and Bf109F aswell.
cimmex


----------



## rank amateur (Jun 18, 2012)

QUOTE=Altea;909278]I think I-16 pilots would better tell about it, for instance:
Part 1

And BTW, I-16 were *never* unstable, not even neutral. They *were *stable, ie had natural tendency to recover their flight line after perturbation but with light pitching moment for someone's taste. 
This coupled with small inertia moments made the plane vey nervous ie twitchy. That mean difficult to handle, not dangerous.

*OK but that tendency implies that the I-16 probably wouldn't make a very good gun platform. I'm no pilot and I have never flown any plane. i have to do with the statements from men who did (do, since here are some convincing reissues). Golodnikov claims that the 1-16 ''was a complicated aircraft, demanding in piloting technique. It could fall into a spin at the slightest “overhandling'. He says he liked that. I can imagine pilots who wouldn't. *Just to call cat, a cat...




False!
For the I-180, it occurs owedays that there were more political than technical reasons for that. The Polikarpov's 156 design bureau was lacking means being only a workshop and state command was sent in 1939 to n°21 factory that had it's own design bureau n° 21 leaded by Pashinine, projecting its'own fighter the I-21. Unsurprisingly, all efforts were switched there to Pashinine fighter to the detriment of Polikarpov's one. The later was also lacking support from soviet partocrates, and of coarse from the new minister of aviation Yakovlev that was BTW his main competitor![/QUOTE]

*Well actually that is not false. The I-180 was not taken in production which is all that i claimed. According to wiki a couple of testpilots lost their lives and another prefered to bail out in stead of landing. Either don't make for a good reputation. Besides that I won't dispute there were political reasons aswell. But if the production of the I-180 did not get of the ground in real history there is no reason why it should in our altered scenario.*


----------



## DonL (Jun 18, 2012)

> You think that a BF-110 could outurn and outroll a I-16, something like that? Numbers please.
> 
> Now considering the I-16 type 24, best examples were just flying at 489 km/h at about 4500 m hight, but as SL it was full 440 km/h exactly as soviet tested Bf-109 E-3! Even serial type 29 with 20 mm canons was making 430 km/h. From comparative trials it was beating the "Emil" after only 2 or 3 turning circles* or only 1 to 1.5 loop!
> * (17-19s vs 26.5 -29.4)
> ...



1. First I think a Bf 110C1-4 could out*run* and outdive the I-16 at any altitudes!
The Performance of the Bf 110C1-4 was at SL 440-465km/h and at altitude 4,5km 525-560km/h, also the Bf 110 was much faster in a dive.
The Bf 110 had the edge and could outclass the Huricane MkI at the BoF and to my opinion the Hurricane was much better then the I-16.

2. The Bf 109E performance at SL was 475-500km/h and at altitude 550-570km/h. We had this issue a while ago at this thread
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/dewoitone-520-question-32212-7.html
The Bf 109E was *much* faster at any altitude as the I-16 it also could outclimb and outdive the I-16.

3. Turningrates and rollrates are two parameters of a fighter and to my opinion and from shown history at air to air combat at WWII not privot parameters. The privot parameter was *speed*! 
Many fighter aircrafts of WWII with good to very good turning and roll parameters were outclassed from other fighter a/c's because of the lag of speed! For example A6M Zero, Hurricane, P40 and other fighter a/c's that could not get enough speed performance.
No F6F Hellcat could match with a Zero at turning or rolling, but the Zero was helpless against the speed performance of the Hellcat.
To my very own opinion, also a A6M Zero would be outclassed at the ETO (fictional scenario)at the beginning of it's career from Spitfire and Bf 109E, because of it's lag of speed, very difficult handling at high speed and the other tactical doctrine at the ETO! 

Dogfights and turnfights were obsolet at WWII and not the primary tactical doctrine of the modern Air Forces (USAF, RAF and Luftwaffe)
Boom and Zoom was the tactic, to come from high altitude (better position) to suprise the enemy and get away with level speed, climb speed or dive speed and to get later again at the better altitude position! Good pilots *avoid* dogfights. Many german aces stated that they avoided dogfights except the enemy could sqeeze them in a dogfight because of the lag of speed! 

Also I can't understand your agenda against the Bf 109E! The Bf 109E had shown at BoF and BoB that she could match with the Spitfire and has outclassed the Hurricane MkI and MkII 2:1! Also it outclassed the Dewoitone 520 2:1! So to me it is no question that the Bf 109E had outclassed the I-16 very very clear, because the I-16 could not match with the Hurricane, Spitfire and Dewoitone 520, especially at speed!
The Bf 109E was usually the winner at it's carreer as long as it had the speed advantage because it wasn't a very good turner or roller, the Hurricane has clearly the edge at this parameters but was outclassed, only the Spitfire could realy match with Bf 109E because the speedadvantage of the Bf 109E was very small to the Spitfire. 



> Barbarossa as Pearl Harbor never looked like a fair football match. From the 3 500+ soviet lost planes the first week, only 824 were due to air combats against Luft even if counting those that occured during take-offs and landings, the major part as i already said was lost on airfields or sabotaged during evacuation.
> That mean rather a victory due to the Heer's advance over soviet logistics (in fact the lack of soviet logistics) rather than Luftwaffe's one over VVS in the air.



1. First war *isn't and wasn't fair*

2. Your analyse is wrong, the VVS was destroyed from the Luftwaffe at the ground because of the results of the Rowehl Reconnassaince Group/Squad (Luftwaffe). This reconnassaince squad was flying very high altitude reconnassaince missions since 1937 over sowjet territory!
With this results the LW could attack all airfields and the whole logistic of the VVS very concerted and effective at the first weeks of Barbarossa!


----------



## Juha (Jun 18, 2012)

cimmex said:


> @Altea, very strange statement.
> Why did they replace the I-16 by Hurricanes which were clearly inferior to the Bf109E and Bf109F aswell.
> cimmex



Hello cimmex
Soviet pilots thought that I-16 was a better fighter than Hurricane. Finns also usually thought that I-16 was a more dangerous opponent than Hurricane. One must remember that Soviet Hurris didn't use 100 oct fuel, at least usually, so they had to be content with lower boost levels, and so had less power below FTR, which was where most aircombats happened in the East.

Juha


----------



## Altea (Jun 19, 2012)

cimmex said:


> @Altea, very strange statement.
> Why did they replace *the I-16* by Hurricanes which were clearly inferior to the Bf109E and Bf109F aswell.
> cimmex



I-16? Where could they take them from? Production ceased in 1940! OK some 100 *fighters* were still delivered early in 1941 to finish the 1940 commands plan, liquidate the stock of spare parts and make room. Others produced in 1941 were two seat trainers UTI-4.

Considering high I-16 and I-153 combat results (compared to the others soviet fighters as LaGG, MiG, even Yak) there were constantly question to reintroduce them (an improved version) in production, that is not easy to do in wartime conditions. The last attempt occured at the late summer of 1942 at highest level, when Novikov the VVS commander refused it to fighter command deputies, arguing that I-16 was certainly a good "defence fighter" but VVS needed for "attack" ones, and promissed newer planes that would be able to do the math with german fighters both at performance and manoeuvrability matters.


----------



## Altea (Jun 19, 2012)

Njaco said:


> Altea, I truly don't understand how the VVS would be *gradually *decimated in 1940 and yet was *quickly *decimated one year later?


It seems i already wrote about it.

_Difficut to take them by surprise as easy as in 1941, when Stalin as well as his generals were persuaded that no attack would be launched against SU before separate peace with UK!_
and also:
_Barbarossa as Pearl Harbor never looked like a fair football match_

Soviet army and VVS were taken by surprise in 1941, exactly as americans in Pearl Harbour.

Do you think american losses would be so high if there were prevented from Nagumo's attack?

So for soviets in 1941, i'm not persuaded in a big Luftwaffe (or Japanese planes in PH) success encontering a big reception commitee, thousand fighers in the air, mobilsed AAA and ready defence, empty airfields etc... In 1941 Stalin was not believing in a german attack and thought of a bluff to make him cooperate more for german war machine against England (petrol, wheat deliveries etc...)

What would be the alibi in 1940? He would had no reasons to make any illusions, only react, mobilise and deploy his troops on well prepared defensive positions. 






> Another factor: You may have parity with the aircraft but not with the pilots. Luftwaffe pilots at that time were better trained and with experience.


They were in 1941, after BoF and BoB experience. Soviet crews faught previously in Spain, China, Mongolia, Finland. Moreover soviet pilot training level begun to fall only in 1940, with the massive growth of VVS and reduction in flight time for new crew promotions.


----------



## DonL (Jun 19, 2012)

> Difficut to take them by surprise as easy as in 1941, when Stalin as well as his generals were persuaded that no attack would be launched against SU before separate peace with UK!
> and also:
> Barbarossa as Pearl Harbor never looked like a fair football match
> 
> ...



Do you have any sources for your claims?

After David Glantz Sowjet alert at June 22.1941 was at 100% *for all troops at the Westfront*!
Also after Glantz at June 22.1941 the Sowjet deployment at the Westfront was to 80% ready and the operational readiness of the troops were at 65-70%!
I can hardly see any arguments of a "total surprise" also to me the situation of Pearl Harbour and Barbarossa couldn't be compared from the viewpoint of the suprise issue. The german deployment was over months no secret to Stalin and the Red Army.
The truth was, Stalin wanted no war at 1941 because the Red Army wasn't ready and in a deep reorganisation after the worst performance at the Finnish Sowjet War! This issue would be much more evident at 1940!
So I can't see any arguments why the situation at 1940 should be an other as 1941! The avoiding war issue would be much more evident, so Stalin would react just as 1941!


----------



## Njaco (Jun 19, 2012)

> They were in 1941, after BoF and BoB experience. Soviet crews faught previously in Spain, China, Mongolia, Finland. *Moreover soviet pilot training level begun to fall only in 1940*, with the massive growth of VVS and reduction in flight time for new crew promotions.



and LW fighter training fell after 1942. So if an attack against VVS in 1940 as fighter training was starting to get worse in Russia ( see bold above) - then LW still has a grand time decimating the VVS. Maybe even on a larger scale.

But I'm still confused....

Are we arguing the merits of the machines used if Barbarrossa were a year earlier

or

The tactics used in 1940 as opposed to 1941?


----------



## Milosh (Jun 19, 2012)

Njaco said:


> and LW fighter training fell after 1942. So if an attack against VVS in 1940 as fighter training was starting to get worse in Russia ( see bold above) - then LW still has a grand time decimating the VVS. Maybe even on a larger scale.



Wasn't the training cut back because of the war in the West?


----------



## DonL (Jun 19, 2012)

> Wasn't the training cut back because of the war in the West?



To my informations it was first the much higher casualties as estimated 1942, so they cut back the flying and training hours to get as much quantity back as possible and second the lag of fuel was also rising at 1942!


----------



## Njaco (Jun 19, 2012)

There was a high loss of experienced leaders from BoB onward and most of the fuel, pilot reserve problems, etc didn't really happen until 1942. Hartmann may have been part of the last real group of properly trained pilots to enter service in Oct 42.

Which still gives credence to my contention that by 1940, LW still had superior pilots compared to VVS. Same outcome as in June 41.

I'm still trying to figure out what would be so drastically different in 1940 in the Eastern Front that the large losses of VVS machines (as happened in '41 Barbarossa) would NOT have happened, as Altea contends?


----------



## stona (Jun 19, 2012)

cimmex said:


> Why did they replace the I-16 by Hurricanes which were clearly inferior to the Bf109E
> cimmex



The Hurricane was most definitely not "clearly inferior" to the Bf 109 E. The British,in their comparative trials,considered the Hurricane a superior fighter to the Emil. The Germans thought otherwise. In fact they were closely matched. 
More than half the Bf 109s shot down during the BoB fell to Hurricanes. (Hurricanes equipped 34 Squadrons,Spitfires 19)
Cheers
Steve


----------



## DonL (Jun 19, 2012)

> The Hurricane was most definitely not "clearly inferior" to the Bf 109 E. The British,in their comparative trials,considered the Hurricane a superior fighter to the Emil. The Germans thought otherwise. In fact they were closely matched.
> More than half the Bf 109s shot down during the BoB fell to Hurricanes. (Hurricanes equipped 34 Squadrons,Spitfires 19)
> Cheers
> Steve



This is very questionable!

After serious researcher for example "The Battle of France Then and Now" by Peter Cornwell the Hurrricane was outclased at the BoF 2:1 from the Emil and even the Bf 110C could slightly outclass the Hurricane.

From all what I have read about BoB in this Forum and from Christer Bergstroms Book Luftstrid över kanalen (2006). In english Battle of Britain (2007). the Hurricane was outclassed clearly from the Emil. At BoB the Hurricane also had the advantage of the much shorter "way's" compare to the Emil and a very huge advantage at the time as the german fighters had the order to fly *close cover* escort for the Bombers, what was realy stupid from the german leadership (Göring). At this time (close cover escort), the Emil and the BF 110 had their highest losses and the Hurricane it's best time at BoB! 

Losses from BoB: 196 Bf 110; 534 Bf 109E; 603 Hurricanes; 329 Spitfires!

Also in the desert the Hurricane and the P40 lost clearly air supermarcy and air superiority from summer 1941 till september 1942 to the Bf 109F!


----------



## stona (Jun 19, 2012)

The Bf 109 F was a step up from the E and the Hurricane certainly struggled against it.
The British view of the Emil,compared with the Hurricane and Spitfire was summed up thus.

"Conclusions. – (i) Take-off is fairly straightforward. Landing is difficult until the pilot gets used to the aircraft. 

Longitudinally the aircraft is too stable for a fighter. There is a large change of directional trim with speed. No rudder trimmer is fitted ; lack of this is severely felt at high speeds, and limits a pilot's ability to turn left when diving. 

Fin area and dihedral are adequate. The stall is not violent, and there is no subsequent tendency to spin. CLmax is 1.4, flaps up and 1.9, flaps down. No vibration or " snaking " develop in a high-speed dive. 

Aileron snatching occurs as the slots open. All three controls are far too heavy at high speeds. Aerobatics are difficult.

(ii) The Me. 109 is inferior as a fighter to the Hurricane or Spitfire. Its manoeuvrability at high airspeeds is seriously curtailed by the heaviness of the controls, while its high wing loading causes it to stall readily under high normal accelerations and results in a poor turning circle. 

At 400 m.p.h. a pilot, exerting all his strength, can only apply 115 aileron [sic], thereby banking 45 deg. in about 4 secs. From the results Kb, for the Me. 109 ailerons was estimated to be - 0.145. 

The minimum radius of turn without height loss at 12,000 ft., full throttle, is calculated as 885 ft. on the Me. 109 compared with 696 ft. on the Spitfire.

The cockpit is too cramped for comfort."

I've never heard an account from a Hurricane pilot who wasn't happy to take on a Bf 109 E. The Hurricane is a much under estimated dog fighter both now and,at the time,by many Luftwaffe pilots who learnt a hard lesson.

Molders reflected the official Luftwaffe view.

"It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. The Hurricane is good-natured and turns well, but its performance is decidedly inferior to that of the Me 109. It has strong stick forces and is "lazy" on the ailerons. 

The Spitfire is one class better. It handles well, is light on the controls, faultless in the turn and has a performance approaching that of the Bf 109. As a fighting aircraft, however, it is miserable. A sudden push forward on the stick will cause the Motor to cut; and because the propeller has only two pitch settings (take-off and cruise), in a rapidly changing air combat situation the motor is either overspeeding or else is not being used to the full."

Significantly by the summer of 1940 all Spitfires and Hurricanes were fitted with a CSU,not the two pitch propellers that were on the aircraft tested and flown by Molders.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## DonL (Jun 19, 2012)

So we have two official Tests with different results and opinions.
They are both on the subjektive side and to me I have never claimed the Hurricane was a bad fighter at 1940, I only claimed it was outclassed from the Bf 109E.

And if we look at the hard facts (kill ratio, confirmed losses to research, official tactical orders and concepts) that we have today, the numbers are against the Hurricane and pro Bf 109E!


----------



## Milosh (Jun 19, 2012)

DonL said:


> Losses from BoB: 196 Bf 110; 534 Bf 109E; 603 Hurricanes; 329 Spitfires!



Not all those Spitfires and Hurricanes were shot down by Bf109s and Bf110s.


----------



## DonL (Jun 19, 2012)

After my informations are this the losses from air to air combat with fighters!

The RAF had lost about 1200 a/c's at BoB and the kill ratio of the german bombers were near nil!


----------



## Milosh (Jun 19, 2012)

Total losses of aircraft in the Battle of Britain

Month	RAF	Luftwaffe
July (from10th)	90	165
August	399	612
September	416	554
October	182	321
Total	1087	1652

Total losses by type of aircraft
in the Battle of Britain

Royal Air Force

Type	Losses
Hurricane	601
Spitfire	357
Blenheim	53
Other	76
Total	1087

Luftwaffe

Type	Losses
Junkers Ju 87	74
Junkers Ju 88	281
Dornier Do 17	171
Dornier Do 215	6
Heinkel He 56	31
Heinkel He 111	246
Heinkel He 115	28
Henschel Hs 126	7
Messerschmitt Bf 109	533
Messerschmitt Bf 110	229
Total	1562


----------



## DonL (Jun 19, 2012)

Which source?

I have seen other sources for example Christer Bergstroms Book Battle of Britain (2007). 

Also from official german documents there were not more then 196-197 Bf 110 lost at BoB!

But what has this to do with the Bf 109E and the Hurricane and my claim that the Hurricane was outclassed by the Bf 109E?


----------



## stona (Jun 19, 2012)

DonL said:


> But what has this to do with the Bf 109E and the Hurricane and my claim that the Hurricane was outclassed by the Bf 109E?



It wasn't outclassed because it could and did,successfully fight the Bf 109E.
In certain areas of performance it was in fact superior to the Messerschmitt,particularly with the improved propeller/CSU with which it was fitted by the BoB. In others the Messerschmitt was superior. The Messerschmitt was faster ( but only slightly,the margin was much finer than is generally remembered) but at high speeds very unmanoueverable.

The Hurricane looks a little old fashioned in 1940 but it was the end of the line of a certain type of design and manufacturing system. The Bf109 (and Spitfire) were the first of a new system. You could describe it as a transitional design but to say it was "clearly outclassed" by the Bf 109 E is simply not true.

There's no point in degenerating into an argument about which fighter was the best. The Bf 109, Bf 110,Hurricane and Spitfire all had their strengths and weaknesses but they were all competitive.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## rank amateur (Jun 19, 2012)

Milosh said:


> Total losses of aircraft in the Battle of Britain
> 
> Month	RAF	Luftwaffe
> July (from10th)	90	165
> ...



Judging from the number one might get the impression that a bf 109 was the unhealthiest plane to fly on the German side 

What was it? Liars, damn liars and....?

Chrzzzz


----------



## DonL (Jun 19, 2012)

> There's no point in degenerating into an argument about which fighter was the best. The Bf 109, Bf 110,Hurricane and Spitfire all had their strengths and weaknesses but they were all competitive.



I totaly agree!



> In certain areas of performance it was in fact superior to the Messerschmitt,particularly with the improved propeller/CSU with which it was fitted by the BoB.



I hadn't this information.

Last but least I have still the opinion that the Bf 109E was a better or slightly better fighter then the Hurricane and this whole issue was poped up through the comparison of the Bf 109E and Polikarpow I-16, because Altea suggest the I-16 could match with the Bf 109E.
I have argumentetd with the Hurricane because to my opinion the I-16 is clearly inferior to the Hurricane and to me as I stated the Hurricane is slightly inferior to the Bf 109E (to my opinion from the data's of BoF and BoB). 
Actually I don't want a dicussion about the Hurricane and the Bf 109E, I only wanted to argument that the I-16 is clearly inferior to the Bf 109E!


----------



## stona (Jun 19, 2012)

DonL said:


> Actually I don't want a dicussion about the Hurricane and the Bf 109E, I only wanted to argument that the I-16 is clearly inferior to the Bf 109E!



Well,I'll let you carry on that debate without me as I know absolutely nothing about Soviet aircraft 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Juha (Jun 19, 2012)

DonL said:


> After my informations are this the losses from air to air combat with fighters!
> 
> The RAF had lost about 1200 a/c's at BoB and the kill ratio of the german bombers were near nil!



Of course near nil is a bit vague term but for ex. on 15 Sept 40, Price in his BoB Day writes that out of 28 British fighters shot down on that day 13 were shot down by LW fighters, 6 by LW bombers and 9 were lost to unknown reasons. Also on 29 Sept over the Irish Sea 9 He 111s shot down 3 Hurricanes out of the first 6 to attack. That is the best result of German air-gunners I can recall but LW air-gunners did often good job. So I'd say that LW air gunners did better than what for ex Christer Bergström claims.

Juha


----------



## Milosh (Jun 19, 2012)

rank amateur said:


> Judging from the number one might get the impression that a bf 109 was the unhealthiest plane to fly on the German side
> 
> What was it? Liars, damn liars and....?
> 
> Chrzzzz



Not only that it did a lousy job of protecting the bombers.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 19, 2012)

it's true that we have not a work as "the BoF then and now" for the BoB but see the results of Hurricane in France and MTO vs 109, with the historical crews, the Hurry is inferior, as fighter, to 109, obviously this is only my opinion.


----------



## Juha (Jun 19, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> it's true that we have not a work as "the BoF then and now" for the BoB but see the results of Hurricane in France and MTO vs 109, with the historical crews, the Hurry is inferior, as fighter, to 109, obviously this is only my opinion.



What is wrong with "The BoB Then and Now Mark V"? The main authors are same. OK the BoBT&N is older but still.

Juha


----------



## stona (Jun 20, 2012)

Milosh said:


> Not only that it did a lousy job of protecting the bombers.



Bad tactics.



Vincenzo said:


> it's true that we have not a work as "the BoF then and now" for the BoB but see the results of Hurricane in France and MTO vs 109, with the historical crews, the Hurry is inferior, as fighter, to 109, obviously this is only my opinion.



The Hurricanes flying in the BoB were not the same as those flying in the BoF.
I've already mentioned the CSU,there was also 100 Octane fuel available,doubling the allowable supercharger boost pressure to 12 lbs.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Altea (Jun 20, 2012)

rank amateur said:


> OK but that tendency implies that the I-16 probably wouldn't make a very good gun platform.


What are the conditions to be a good gun platform?



> I'm no pilot and I have never flown any plane.


I *do not blame you *for anything, but men that wrote books about I-16 as Keith Dexter, Green, Swanborough etc...and recieved money for that and supposingly being qualified specs ignored or even never understood the difference, yet evident between unstability, and lack of stability.




> i have to do with the statements from men who did (do, since here are some convincing reissues). Golodnikov claims that the 1-16 ''was a complicated aircraft, demanding in piloting technique. It could fall into a spin at the slightest “overhandling'. He says he liked that. I can imagine pilots who wouldn't.


The I-16 was at least no novice aircraft, It was overly sensitive to control mouvements and the inertia moments around all three axes was extremely small. The CG coincided with the centre of pressure so longitidinal stability was marginal. 

What to say, high class pilots made an asset from this default, avoiding *with ease* bursts from foe firebursts, bad pilots were in mortal danger themselves, well before any clash with the ennemy. 


Just to call cat, a cat...







> Well actually that is not false. The I-180 was not taken in production which is all that i claimed. According to wiki a couple of testpilots lost their lives and another prefered to bail out in stead of landing. Either don't make for a good reputation. Besides that I won't dispute there were political reasons aswell. But if the production of the I-180 did not get of the ground in real history there is no reason why it should in our altered scenario.



What *is not false*, is that I-180 was ordened for serial production at the end of 1939 despite accidents in _zavod 21_, since state accident comission neither attributed crashes to bad aircraft design.

The factory however preferred to give the priority 
- to the production plan, 2207 I-16 were achieved in 1940, but there were lacking some other 300, so director and his team was in jeopardy fot that failure, and chose to do not attribute much means to Yangel, the Polikarpov's OKB deputy, the later famous soviet rockets builder, that was a young engeneer that time with no experience and no relationships.

- to their own design department leaded by M. Pashinin.

Anyway, constant Yangel's complaints led to a state comission from NKAP and VVS reprensentatives managed by the assistant of the state comissar to the industry V.P. Balandin. The comission *obliged* zavod 21 to give 10 I-16 in february, 20 on march, plus one I-180sh type.

It would be to long to tell the full story, but only 10 planes were on assembly within 7-8 mounth in march, and only 3 achieved in april after another big anger/scandal from VVS-fighter command representatives. The analysis (of this secund _pressure_ group) led altogether with factory specialists revealed that the production rate in case of the swith to the I-180, would be the same that for the I-16. 

In case of war in 1940? It's the most difficult decision to replace an existing model by a more modern one. The trade-off between loss of production and the advantages of the new product is difficult to asset and depends of the state of the war at that time. 

It's easy to be critical with the benefit of hindsight, but I-18 was rather a chance to SU. Why?
1) _feasability_: I-18 had a lot of common with I-16, and was easily digestible for soviet industry unlike LaGG, and Yaks using another technology. It was the sole fighter in spring of 1940 advanced enough to reach production status.
2) _performance_: As experience showed the I-180-3 (assembled in Polikarpov's workshop) demonstrated 575 km/hin may of 1940, without canopy, wrecked fuselage and unadapted propeller. So 600 km/h and were considered as _virtually _ reached, once those shortcomings resolved.

In the meantime first three serial I-180s (from_ zavod 21_) were ready in april of 1940. They reached 585 km/h despite criticism to their lack of finish.

3) _agility:_ Due to small size, light wing loading and high power to weight ratio, the plane was virtualy as nimble as the I-16. That could't be said for MiG-3, LaGG-3, not even Yak.

4) _handling_ It's CG went to 24% of the M.C. instead of 28-31. That mean stability improvement, easier handling.

But in 1940, the inexperienced NKAP leadership, to much rejenuvated by Stalin's purges was underestimating radial engines, and paved the way to fighters with liquid-cooled ones. 

In case of war and urgency, they won't had the opportunity to afford themselves to be influenced only by fashion of the time and other subjective reasons!


----------



## stona (Jun 20, 2012)

Altea said:


> What are the conditions to be a good gun platform?



Well harmonised controls,but most importantly good longditudinal stability. Slipping or skidding make accurate aiming virtually impossible.

Steve


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 20, 2012)

Juha said:


> What is wrong with "The BoB Then and Now Mark V"? The main authors are same. OK the BoBT&N is older but still.
> 
> Juha



nothing, simply i don't know it


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 20, 2012)

stona said:


> The Hurricanes flying in the BoB were not the same as those flying in the BoF.
> I've already mentioned the CSU,there was also 100 Octane fuel available,doubling the allowable supercharger boost pressure to 12 lbs.



in mto they flying also most "advanced" hurry and the combat results are bad.


----------



## stona (Jun 20, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> in mto they flying also most "advanced" hurry and the combat results are bad.



It struggled to compete with the "Friedrich",but that's not what it was up against in the summer/autumn of 1940.


The F series of 109s were a significant improvement on the E series both aerodynamically and in engine power. The Hurricane,coming at the end of a developmental line,was not capable of such development. In the last months of 1940 and into 1941 it was at a disadvantage against the new Bf 109 F,a point I agreed to several posts back.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 20, 2012)

stona said:


> It struggled to compete with the "Friedrich",but that's not what it was up against in the summer/autumn of 1940.
> 
> 
> The F series of 109s were a significant improvement on the E series both aerodynamically and in engine power. The Hurricane,coming at the end of a developmental line,was not capable of such development. In the last months of 1940 and into 1941 it was at a disadvantage against the new Bf 109 F,a point I agreed to several posts back.



the Emils were the first 109 sent in MTO, february '41, (7/26 and stay with Emil until september; the I/27 used Emils until late '41) the first Friederichs were came in september (II/27). The Emils of 7/26 over Malta get very superiour result vs Hurricane.

JoeB, in a old thread quoting "Spitfire Special", report 153 to 272 109 vs Hurricane loss in BoB


----------



## stona (Jun 20, 2012)

Be careful not to judge by Luftwaffe claims (particularly JG 27). RAF losses are a better indicator. This is way off topic and I don't have time to look all this stuff up at the moment.

Didn't I./JG 27 transition from the E to F between May and September 1941?

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 20, 2012)

i've judicated the 7/26 from raf losses almost 30 hurricanes for 0 emil (malta early operations) (joeb count from Hurricanes over Malta)
the transition started after the II/27 came operational in NA so from september with a staffel per time sent to reequip in Germany so probably until late october


----------



## stona (Jun 20, 2012)

I./JG 27 moved to Ain-el-Gazala from 21/April/41 and had some Fs on the books at that time.
I accept that they were not fully converted until much later in the year.
Steve


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 20, 2012)

stona said:


> I./JG 27 moved to Ain-el-Gazala from 21/April/41 and had some Fs on the books at that time.
> I accept that they were not fully converted until much later in the year.
> Steve



what is the source? i'm 100% sure has not F in june. (Osprey Luftwaffe Fighters unit in Medit it's the source for conversion from september and 1 staffeln at time)


----------



## Milosh (Jun 20, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> what is the source? i'm 100% sure has not F in june. (Osprey Luftwaffe Fighters unit in Medit it's the source for conversion from september and 1 staffeln at time)



21.4.41 - 7.12.41 Ain-el-Gazala FlFü Afrika Bf 109E/F
7.12.41 - 12.12.41 Tmimi FlFü Afrika Bf 109F
12.12.41 - 17.12.41 Martuba FlFü Afrika Bf 109F
17.12.41 - 23.12.41 Magrum FlFü Afrika Bf 109F
23.12.41 - 26.12.41 Sirte FlFü Afrika Bf 109F
25.12.41 - 1.1.42 Arco Philaenorum FlFü Afrika Bf 109F
1.1.42 - 22.1.42 Agedabia FlFü Afrika Bf 109F
22.1.42 - 27.1.42 El Agheila FlFü Afrika Bf 109F
27.1.42 - 1.2.42 Agedabia FlFü Afrika Bf 109F
1.2.42 - 7.2.42 Benina FlFü Afrika Bf 109F
7.2.42 - 22.5.42 Martuba FlFü Afrika Bf 109F
22.5.42 - 14.6.42 Tmimi FlFü Afrika Bf 109F
14.6.42 - 16.6.42 Derna FlFü Afrika Bf 109F
16.6.42 - 22.6.42 Ain-el-Gazala FlFü Afrika Bf 109F
22.6.42 - 25.6.42 Gambut FlFü Afrika Bf 109F
25.6.42 - 27.6.42 Sidi Barrani FlFü Afrika Bf 109F
27.6.42 - 2.7.42 Bir-el-Astas FlFü Afrika Bf 109F
2.7.42 - 7.7.42 Mumin Busak FlFü Afrika Bf 109F
7.7.42 - 20.7.42 Turbiya FlFü Afrika Bf 109F
20.7.42 - 2.10.42 Quotaifiya FlFü Afrika Bf 109F

Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen

I./JG27
3.42 22 Bf 109F-4 trop 
4.42 27 Bf 109F-4 trop 
5.42 36 Bf 109F-4 trop 
6.42 34 Bf 109F-4 trop 
7.42 26 Bf 109F-4 trop 
8.42 24 Bf 109F-4 trop
9.42 27 Bf 109F-4 trop

Jagdgeschwader 27


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 20, 2012)

Milosh this source report only that from 21/4 until 7/12 the gruppe has E F and is not in contradiction with my info from Osprey book, for this source it's possible also that F came only in december (or that Emil were only in april)


----------



## Altea (Jun 21, 2012)

> DonL said:
> 
> 
> > 1. First I think a Bf 110C1-4 could out*run* and outdive the I-16 at any altitudes!
> ...


----------



## Njaco (Jun 21, 2012)

> As usual, your opinion is not sustainted by any convincing or "valuable" arguments. Some other opinions are:





> I can't see why do you think that the 109E was able to outclimb the I-16.
> Maybe your opinion again...




MY opinion is people are allowed to have opinions and woe be to him who can't accept that.



> Secund. Considring much higher P/W nominal ratio of the I-16 1879/ 920-950 = 1.98 kg/hp (compare to the 109 K !!)



Are you saying that the I-16 was better than the Bf 109K? Or is that just your...ummmm, opinion?

How do you explain this for a generic explanation on Wiki?

Polikarpov I-16 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Its main opponent in the sky of 1941 was the German Messerschmitt Bf 109.[17] The I-16 was slightly more maneuverable than the early Bf 109s and could fight the Messerschmitt Bf 109E, or Emil, on equal terms in turns. Skilled Soviet pilots took advantage of Polikarpov's superior horizontal maneuverability and liked it enough to resist the switch to more modern fighters. The German aircraft, however, outclassed its Russian opponent in service ceiling, rate of climb, acceleration and, crucially, in horizontal and diving speed, due to better aerodynamics and a more powerful engine. The main versions of the I-16 had a maximum speed of 450–470 km/h (279-291 mph), while the Bf 109E had a maximum speed of 560–570 km/h (347-353 mph), the more streamlined Bf 109F Friedrich could hit 600 km/h (372 mph). Superior speed was the decisive factor in a dogfight so German pilots held the initiative and could decide if they wanted to chase their opponents, could attack them from above and behind and then gain altitude for an eventual new attack. Meanwhile Polikarpovs could only defend each other by forming a defensive circle or via horizontal maneuverability.[17] 17.^ a b Drabkin 2007 p. 142.



Please tell us more about the amazing, wonderful, obviously superior to any other machine in the air from 1918 - 1952, trail-blazing I-16 Rata. I want to learn.


----------



## Glider (Jun 22, 2012)

Its worth mentioning that people tend to get hung up about this power to weight ratio and this figure vs that figure. What few people have mentioned is that the Luftwaffe were way ahead in other equally important areas in particular radio's, tactics at all levels, command and control, training, leadership (excluding Goering) plus, the Germans had the priceless advantage of getting the first blow in.

If Germany hadn't gone to war in the West then they could have started the War in the East with about 1000 more aircraft/crew (thats a rough figure as to what they lost in the West) allowing for replacement and repair. 

The war in Russia was a close run thing anyway, imagine if the Germans had 1000 more aircraft and more tanks. Or heaven forbid an extra 12 months to prepare for the Russian winter or 12 months to mechanise the German Army. I firmly believe that this would have tipped the balance in the War in the East.


----------



## Altea (Jun 22, 2012)

> Njaco said:
> 
> 
> > MY opinion is people are allowed to have opinions and woe be to him who can't accept that.
> ...


----------



## Altea (Jun 22, 2012)

Glider said:


> I would say *that there is no chance that the UK* USA and France would align with Russia, Stalin was loathed by them. In which case the risk increases as the nations of Central and Eastern Europe align with Germany.



False i think, they were practicing exactly the same mug's game as Stalin did. Just awaiting Hitler to be exhausted enaugh by war (on the opposite side), to plant him a masterful stab in the back, at opportune moment. Even appeasers like Chamberlain. 

And what about Churchill "If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons" ?

No doubt that in case of a major risk of collapse, the SU would have Lend Lease much faster than you image, especially if germans were to be near Bakoo's petrol oilfields, or Iran's boarder!


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 22, 2012)

on allaboutwarfare George posted a file with speed from test of soviet fighters
the fastest I-16 (almost in the file) is a Type 24 identified with number 2413 tested in november '39 that get 440 km/h S.L. and 489 km/h at 4,780 meters (the sam eplane tested in 1940 get 420 km/h and 481 km/h), an other Type 24 identified P2136 (russian p, not that russian seem P but is R)get 410 at S.L. and 462 at 4.7 km.
a Type 28 tested in january 40 get 412 km/h S.L. and 464 km/h at 4.8 km.
he table is in russian ao maybe i've understand bad the В наличии с


----------



## Erich (Jun 22, 2012)

back to JG 27 overall, please confirm/consult OOB/dates with Dr. Jochen Priens exhaustive studies on the JG 27 gruppen, you cannot go wrong gentlemen with these excellent volumes, I will refrain from using ANY ill Osprey title as one of current accuracy.


----------



## DonL (Jun 22, 2012)

> First. Soviet Me-110C-4 ran from 442 km/h at SL to 525 km/h at height
> I-16 "standard" Type 24 440 km/ at SL and 489 at height.
> That mean Me-110 could not easily outrun the I-16 with M-63 up to 2700m height, first alt of recovery being ~ 2400m.
> 
> ...



I described the german boom and zoom tactic very well at my post number 46. The attack of a Bf 110 against a single engine fighter, which is more agile and could climb faster would be from high altitude in a dive (~600km/h) with only *one approach* to try to hit with the strong forward armament, after that the Bf 110 will escape with it's excess speed out of the dive and will accelerate in a more shallow climb!

Note from Bergstrom:
When used as a high altitude escort (Bf 110), not being tied to close escort to the bomber force, it made effective diving attacks on RAF fighters using surprise, high speed and it’s heavy nose armament to score victories

The Bf 110 had the edge and could outclass the Huricane MkI at the *BoF* and to my opinion the Hurricane was much better then the I-16.



> As usual, your opinion is not sustainted by any convincing or "valuable" arguments. Some other opinions are:
> http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/aviation/aviation/aviation/avi...tml#post434308 (Hurricane vs.Bf-110)



My not "substainted opinion by any convincing or or valuable arguments" based on the well documented book "Battle of France Then and Now" from Peter D. Cornwell! The Battle of France Then and Now: Amazon.de: Peter D. Cornwell: Englische Bücher

JoeB:


> In the smaller campaigns of the Phoney War it was well documented that kill ratio of Bf110's v Hurricanes was no worse than around 1:1, and the recent very well documented book "Battle of France Then and Now" gives individual a/c fates showing a *Bf110 v Hurricane kill ratio around 2:1 in favor of the 110 in that larger campaign*; and the 110's ratio v Spitfires of Fighter Command during the Battle of France (the British fighter contingent in France itself was all Hurricanes) was also > 1.



JoeB:


> I would recommend getting and reading the book I mentioned, "Battle of France-Then and Now" by Peter Cromwell. Then you can see the level of detail he provides for all the AF's records.
> 
> The points you raised aren't so relevant, IMHO. With a book as detailed as Cromwell's, there's no reason to start with reports of total losses to all causes and try to figure out which ones might have been to air combat, Cromwell covers it case by case.
> 
> ...






> Would you mind to explain ud the reasons that led your opinion to consider that the Hurricane was a better, even a much better plane than the I-16.


It's faster at altitude and near the same at SL, better Service ceiling, more range, better gun plattform through the much better stability, dives faster, good turner! 



> As for previous thread, the conclusion of this one is far from be done. I would ne back there soon. I keep 440 - 460 at SL.



On which technical or primary source base?
You are argumenting with a soviet test without any datas!
No datas about the date, the conditions, the manifold pressures, the gasoline, the radiators.......................
Please show us the datas of this test elsewise this test and the graph is nothing more then a "joke" or unproven claim!

There are *three* well documented tests, from germany , france and switzerland with datas but other results as you wish!

Next you are argumenting with official german Flugzeugdatenblatt, which is nothing else then a *document* between Messerschmitt and the LW, which guaranteed a minimum performance of *all* produced a/c's of this serial. This is the performance that Messerschmitt guaranteed but no test trials and real testflights.



> About outclimb, i have serious doubts,
> the I-16 type 18 was reaching 5000 m in 5.4 min,
> the type 24 in 5.8,
> type 28 in 5.55 min all at nominal regime.
> ...



Kurfürst - Vergleichsfliegen Bf 109 E, Bf 110 C, Spitfire, Hurricane und Curtiss.
Testtrials August 1940
The climb performance: 


> Climb times to 4 km:
> Bf 109 E 4.4 min, Spitfire 5 min, Hurricane 5.6 min, Curtiss 5.2 min.



So the climb time to 5km will be at ~5.5min!

How do you explain this for a generic explanation from Artem Drabkin in The Red Air for at War: Barbarossa and the Retreat to Moscow: Recollections of Soviet Fighter Pilots on the Eastern Front (The Red Air Force at War) on page 142?
The Red Air for at War: Barbarossa and the Retreat to Moscow: Recollections of Soviet Fighter Pilots on the Eastern Front (The Red Air Force at War): Amazon.de: Artem Drabkin, Alexei Pekarsh, Bair Irincheev: Englische Bücher



> Its main opponent in the sky of 1941 was the German Messerschmitt Bf 109. The I-16 was slightly more maneuverable than the early Bf 109s and could fight the Messerschmitt Bf 109E, or Emil, on equal terms in turns. Skilled Soviet pilots took advantage of Polikarpov's superior horizontal maneuverability and liked it enough to resist the switch to more modern fighters. The German aircraft, however, outclassed its Russian opponent in service ceiling, rate of climb, acceleration and, crucially, in horizontal and diving speed, due to better aerodynamics and a more powerful engine. The main versions of the I-16 had a maximum speed of 450–470 km/h (279-291 mph), while the Bf 109E had a maximum speed of 560–570 km/h (347-353 mph), the more streamlined Bf 109F Friedrich could hit 600 km/h (372 mph). Superior speed was the decisive factor in a dogfight so German pilots held the initiative and could decide if they wanted to chase their opponents, could attack them from above and behind and then gain altitude for an eventual new attack. Meanwhile Polikarpovs could only defend each other by forming a defensive circle or via horizontal maneuverability.



How do you explain the worst performance of the VVS at Finnish Soviet Winter war? At communication and performance against the very small finnish Air force? 240 a/c's (VVS) killed against 26 (finish Air Force) in air to air combat. The main finnish fighter a/c was the Fokker D.XXI!

How do you explain the worst performance of the VVS fighter against the finnish Air Force at the Continuation War?
Especially the results of the Brewster Buffalo with a kill ratio of 26:1? Perhaps you want to tell us that the Buffalo is a better a/c then Bf 109E?

@ Altea

You have confonted me with my opinions which were not sustainted by any convincing or "valuable" arguments!



> In fact, the important is not to have an opinion, but to see haw is it justified/argued.


Orginal quotes from Altea


> Soviet army and VVS were taken by surprise in 1941, exactly as americans in Pearl Harbour.





> German archives are far from being complete, there are lacking some pages from war diaries and complete account with units diary losses-deliveries balance is not made.





> False i think, they were practicing exactly the same mug's game as Stalin did. Just awaiting Hitler to be exhausted enaugh by war (on the opposite side), to plant him a masterful stab in the back, at opportune moment. Even appeasers like Chamberlain.



Then *please* show us some serious sources about this claims! In every single post I have posted to you I have given my sources to confirm my arguments!

Till now I have seen no single source from you to the above claims, or your claimed performances of the I-16. 
Your general tactic is to claim without sources or to challenge presented sources!


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 22, 2012)

Erich i've not the excellent volumes of Dr Priens, sorry


----------



## Glider (Jun 22, 2012)

Altea said:


> False i think, they were practicing exactly the same mug's game as Stalin did. Just awaiting Hitler to be exhausted enaugh by war (on the opposite side), to plant him a masterful stab in the back, at opportune moment. Even appeasers like Chamberlain.
> 
> And what about Churchill "If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons" ?
> 
> No doubt that in case of a major risk of collapse, the SU would have Lend Lease much faster than you image, especially if germans were to be near Bakoo's petrol oilfields, or Iran's boarder!



There is a substantial difference in situation. 
When Churchill made those statements we were alone in the war and things were not going well, Stalin was the only leader fighting Hitler so of course we would support him.
The scenario here is that there is no war in the west, so there is no incentive in supporting Stalin. Indeed Churchill supported efforts to fight the Communists during the Russian Civil War, there was no love lost between Stalin and Churchill until they needed each other


----------



## Njaco (Jun 22, 2012)

Altea said:


> *First* and *foremost* Hitler, Stalin and even Saddam Hussein are *dead* now. It's a *chance *that people are free to express their opinions.
> 
> *But not according to you. While you post all manner of YOUR opinion, you attack and make fun of others who express their opinion. Was that your point discussing the people you have hanging on your wall?*
> 
> ...



I'm done.

Until you can understand that healthy conversation starts with an acceptance that people are allowed to have an opinion without sarcastic remarks and put downs just because you don't agree with them - find another sandbox.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 22, 2012)

Well... another one bites the dust. Have a nice life, Altea.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 24, 2012)

So with no interuption from Western Allies, what would be the relationship between Germany and Finland if war was strictly against Russia? What pressure would Germany place on Japan for a 2 front war?


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 24, 2012)

Can Japan make a move against Russia without oil from the US, or elsewhere ?

Either they have to do a radical about face in China, to reopen trade with America, or they have to take the oilfields in east Indoneasia, etc., which would open a Pacific war.

As much as the Japanese Army may have wanted and planned for a war with Russia, they knew they couldn't invade without a steady supply of oil.,


----------



## Balljoint (Jun 26, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> Can Japan make a move against Russia without oil from the US, or elsewhere ?
> 
> Either they have to do a radical about face in China, to reopen trade with America, or they have to take the oilfields in east Indoneasia, etc., which would open a Pacific war.
> 
> As much as the Japanese Army may have wanted and planned for a war with Russia, they knew they couldn't invade without a steady supply of oil.,



How about Hitler takes Western Europe, but stays away from Italy (as an ally), England and the US while sticking to the Mien Kampt scenario. Japan could be given the conquered European countries’ colonies in the East for oil and other resources in return for a second Soviet front. 

Of course with junior officers starting the conflict in China and Hitler at odds with his Army, such strategy is a remote possibility.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 26, 2012)

Balljoint said:


> Of course with junior officers starting the conflict in China and *Hitler at odds with his Army*, such strategy is a remote possibility.



I don't know if that was the case in late 40 - 41. While there was dissension among the Wehrmacht towards Hitler, they were rather surprised at how he was able conquer Norway, France, etc. Although Britain and Dunkirk had them scratching their heads, Hitler did gain favour among some of the brass.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 26, 2012)

Balljoint said:


> How about Hitler takes Western Europe, but stays away from Italy (as an ally), England and the US while sticking to the Mien Kampt scenario. Japan could be given the conquered European countries’ colonies in the East for oil and other resources in return for a second Soviet front.



It's not likely France and Britain would just stand by and do nothing while Hitler rolled over Holland and Belgium.


----------



## Juha (Jun 27, 2012)

Balljoint said:


> How about Hitler takes Western Europe, but stays away from Italy (as an ally), England and the US while sticking to the Mien Kampt scenario. Japan could be given the conquered European countries’ colonies in the East for oil and other resources in return for a second Soviet front...



Germany couldn't deliver those colonies neither it could deny them. Why would Japanese agree such a deal? Look what happened in the Dutch East India, the main target of Japanese Southern expansion in 41-42, Japanese had to conquer it.

Juha


----------



## Balljoint (Jun 27, 2012)

I would view it as more a case of admiration than favor by the Wehrmacht. The Army was quite negative towards the Ardennes attack –its plans having been rejected- and Hitler’s strategy succeeded brilliantly. You can’t argue with success. Still there was the background of the formation of the SS divisions based upon Hitler’s lack of trust of the Wehrmacht and Hitler’s penchant for micromanaging the professionals. For instance, Hitler halted the panzers near Dunkirk and allowed the British Exp Force to largely escape.

Case Yellow is a part of my overall scenario and there was certainly much less Army dissension during the period. But I still don’t see Hitler allowing the Army to formulate the strategy I outline, and only the Wehrmacht had the expertise to do so.

I am extrapolating that without Sea Lion and the BoB, or other threat, Great Britain would reset to the Phony War mentality. Japan attacked the US and Germany followed by declaring war on the US. Absent these actions and without a threat to their Pacific possessions, it’s my belief that Japan could have acquired the colonies of the conquered European nations without much resistance from the US and Great Britain. Of course this is just the way my toy soldiers line up when I play the game.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 27, 2012)

As already pointed out, in the real world Germany did conquer Holland , but that didn't help Japan get access to the oil in the Durch east Indies.

They had to take them by force, and being sure the USA wouldn't just stand by and let this happen, they attacked the US.

Without Brirain and France envolved in a European war, it makes it even more difficult for Japan to go south for any resources IMO.


----------



## Balljoint (Jun 27, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> As already pointed out, in the real world Germany did conquer Holland , but that didn't help Japan get access to the oil in the Durch east Indies.
> 
> They had to take them by force, and being sure the USA wouldn't just stand by and let this happen, they attacked the US.
> 
> Without Brirain and France envolved in a European war, it makes it even more difficult for Japan to go south for any resources IMO.



At the end of 1941, well after general hostilities broke out in Europe and China, The US was involved only to the extent of embargoes and supplies to Britain -other than the unofficial shooting war in the mid-Atlantic. And it was Japan and Germany that initiated war with the US. If the US wouldn't go to war over Holland, why would we do so over their colonies -assuming we weren't otherwise threatened and worried about strategic oil? And if Japan had not gone to war with China to no purpose, there wouldn't have been an embargo.

My point is that Hitler did take Western Europe with little repercussion from the US. Had he pulled in his horns, not attacked Great Britain, the US public would not support a European war. And certainly not if Hitler and his former ally Stalin, along with Japan, were the only active combatants.

Actually, IMO the problem would be for Hitler to decouple from Mussolini as he attempted to reconstitute the Roman Empire. But Great Britain could handle Italy and be occupied as Germany and Japan took on the Soviet Union to gain the empires that, IMO, were the underlying causes of the war. This would not draw the US into the war.

But I grant that the personalities, both individual and national, would not have allowed such a strategy.


----------



## Juha (Jun 27, 2012)

Balljoint said:


> ... If the US wouldn't go to war over Holland, why would we do so over their colonies -assuming we weren't otherwise threatened and worried about strategic oil? And if Japan had not gone to war with China to no purpose, there wouldn't have been an embargo...



Firstly, Japan invaded China with purpose.
secondly, US have great intrest in Pacific and would not allow Japan to dominate Western Pacific. Dutch East India lay across stratecigally very important sea route nad Philippines lay alongside the sea route between Japan and Dutch East India, so Japan needed Philippines to secure its link to Southern oil and was pretty sure that US would not allow it to seize Dutch East India witout at lest some actions, so Japanese decided that they had to invade Philippines which would meant war with USA, so PH became into picture.

Juha


----------



## rank amateur (Jun 28, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> It's not likely France and Britain would just stand by and do nothing while Hitler rolled over Holland and Belgium.



Mussolini deceided for him self to join in the victory when the battle of France was nearly done. In doing so he managed to get the French some won battles 
Anyway, I'm not sure if Hitler was to pleased with this ally. I'm sure he particularly hated them for declaring war on Greece later on.
I think Holland and Belgium were overrun to insure a better position for a war against France and the UK. If Hitler would not engage in an active war against either there would be no need to invade the low countries. These would provide a safetyzone against invasions from France and the UK.


----------



## rank amateur (Jun 28, 2012)

Balljoint said:


> At the end of 1941, well after general hostilities broke out in Europe and China, The US was involved only to the extent of embargoes and supplies to Britain -other than the unofficial shooting war in the mid-Atlantic. And it was Japan and Germany that initiated war with the US. If the US wouldn't go to war over Holland, why would we do so over their colonies -assuming we weren't otherwise threatened and worried about strategic oil? And if Japan had not gone to war with China to no purpose, there wouldn't have been an embargo.
> 
> My point is that Hitler did take Western Europe with little repercussion from the US. Had he pulled in his horns, not attacked Great Britain, the US public would not support a European war. And certainly not if Hitler and his former ally Stalin, along with Japan, were the only active combatants.
> 
> ...



The US considered the Pacific to be something like their own backyard so if Japan would take any action against the Dutch colonies, the US would surely react. If only to protect their interest in the Philippines.

I agree that the US could have been kept out of the war in Europe if Hitler had handled his politics better.


----------



## Balljoint (Jun 28, 2012)

rank amateur said:


> The US considered the Pacific to be something like their own backyard so if Japan would take any action against the Dutch colonies, the US would surely react. If only to protect their interest in the Philippines.



The US had agreed to leave the Philippines during 1944 so the US interest was strategic rather than territorial. But the point was that Japan was not to threaten US interests. FDR probable would have gone to war fairly early if the country would have allowed him to. Without Pearl or other Pacific threats –as would be realistic if the IJA and IJN were focused on the Soviet Union- it’s feasible that the US wouldn’t have gone to war. 

Also, as much as Churchill hated Hitler, he loved his Empire more. Without the BoB and sans US involvement, he would have swallowed the French defeat and protected his island. The Soviet Union was hardly a sympathetic entity. Absent the enemy-of-my-enemy rationale, the West would not have supported Stalin.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 28, 2012)

Where is the IJN and IJA going to get the oil they need to focus on the USSR. 

The US had already cut off Japan from US oil over their policies in China, and since neither Briain nor the US is occupied with the war in Europe, they're even less likely to just let Japan take the Dutch east Indies to get the oil.

This whole scenario is just too unrealistic, first we have to agree that Britain and France doesn't enter WW2 when Germany invades Poland, since there's no way for Germany to get to Russia without first going thru Poland. 

OK, we accept no war over Poland. But no European war with Britain envolved when Germany also takes Holland, Belgium and France is just too far from realistic to accept.


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 28, 2012)

Is there some way Germany could get Poland's "permission" to cross thru into the USSR?
Even under coercion?


----------



## Gixxerman (Jun 28, 2012)

rank amateur said:


> I agree that the US could have been kept out of the war in Europe if Hitler had handled his politics better.





Balljoint said:


> Also, as much as Churchill hated Hitler, he loved his Empire more. Without the BoB and sans US involvement, he would have swallowed the French defeat and protected his island. The Soviet Union was hardly a sympathetic entity. Absent the enemy-of-my-enemy rationale, the West would not have supported Stalin.



Sorry but I do not see this at all.

You only have to read what Churchill was saying to know that he would never have reached an accomodation with Hitler's Germany.
Churchill fully understood the potential of a technically able nazi dominated Europe the threat it would pose (if given the requested 'free hand in the east') to both the UK it's Empire as well as, eventually either directly or through it's allies, the USA.

A short-term policy of avoiding war was no guarantee of the British Empire, and Churchill was fully aware of this had no intention of ever allowing the UK to become another emasculated vassal state of Hitler's Greater Germany.

This is the reason why Roosevelt agreed on the Germany first policy.

Not declaring war on the USA makes little or no difference to the growing US involvement in WW2, however it came (and Pearl Hargboyur pretty much guaranteed it) the USA was bound to come in at some point on the allies side.


The total failure to understand this is also the reason why Germany had many deluded enough to imagine that the UK USA would ever accept this as a 'minus Hitler' option, it was never going to happen and those who imagine it might are simply in denial of the facts.

A nazi or neo-nazi Germany occupying dominating almost all of western, central eastern Europe coupled to the Ukraine western central Russia their resources (perhaps including later elements of 'Operation Orient' where Britain loses touch with Persia her oil) was never one that the UK or USA would ever find acceptable.

(one reason why the German army resistance was cold-shouldered by the allies....but had they been successful they would no doubt have been put straight on this quite rapidly.....although should they have been open to this and then flexible on how the peace should be engineered is another matter, but the tales I have read indicate that a still military Germany, even with many of the nazi gang locked up and brought to justice, was no guarantee of the war ending)


----------



## Balljoint (Jun 28, 2012)

gjs238 said:


> Is there some way Germany could get Poland's "permission" to cross thru into the USSR?
> Even under coercion?



Probable not. Though likely not planned, the joint German, Soviet invasion of Poland was an effective means to put the Soviets at ease and at a tactical disadvantage. The Soviets had a reasonable good defensive line established in the Pripet marshes though it would have been breached at some cost. The invasion of Poland pulled much of the Soviet defense to the border where it was much less effective.

In any event an accommodation with Poland would have likely telegraphed Hitler’s intentions


----------



## Balljoint (Jun 28, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> Where is the IJN and IJA going to get the oil they need to focus on the USSR.
> 
> The US had already cut off Japan from US oil over their policies in China, and since neither Briain nor the US is occupied with the war in Europe, they're even less likely to just let Japan take the Dutch east Indies to get the oil.
> 
> ...



Yes it’s unrealistic since it would involve Hitler coming to the OKH as a client and then limiting himself to fine tuning a comprehensive strategy. It would involve Japan operating as a truly modern entity rather than a militaristic feudal state. But if it did happen, the probability of success would have been greatly increased.

While the US had embargoed oil, Japan had an eighteen month reserve. Iron might be another problem, but the original premise was limited to oil. And with the US in the war Japan took the Dutch East Indies in about six weeks and wiped out the opposing fleet in, I think, the battles of the Java Sea. There’s a timing mismatch, but every thing would happen sooner.

The original premise was to be that Poland was taken as was France, i.e. cherry picking the successful campaigns. But no BoB and no Pearl Harbor. Japan takes the occupied countries colonies but avoids confronting the US and GB. They then turn north and establish a second front to compliment Barbarossa which advances the timing of Japan’s involvement. Italy does what it pleases but is a sacrificial pawn to occupy GB as it defends its African and Middle Eastern protectorates.


----------



## rank amateur (Jun 28, 2012)

Gixxerman said:


> Sorry but I do not see this at all.
> 
> You only have to read what Churchill was saying to know that he would never have reached an accomodation with Hitler's Germany.
> Churchill fully understood the potential of a technically able nazi dominated Europe the threat it would pose (if given the requested 'free hand in the east') to both the UK it's Empire as well as, eventually either directly or through it's allies, the USA.
> ...



Nobody is claiming that Churchill would be happy with the situation but I still doubt that Churchill would have engaged in an agressive war against Germany IF Germany abstained from any action against Danmark and Norway or the low countries. The man detested Stalin and communism in general. So if Hitler would have take on the Sovjet Union I think noth France and the UK would have waited to see wait the result would be. Meanwhile both countries would be rearming


----------



## Gixxerman (Jun 28, 2012)

rank amateur said:


> Nobody is claiming that Churchill would be happy with the situation but I still doubt that Churchill would have engaged in an agressive war against Germany IF Germany abstained from any action against Danmark and Norway or the low countries.



Well we'll have to agree to disagree then.

I can point to writings before the war where Churchill clearly (and absolutely accurately) recognised the enormous danger of and the aggressive malevolent nature of Hitler's nazism and the threat this would undoubtedly pose to any of those countries willing to stand against him.

Basically you can't have one without the other. 
Hitler is always going to be act like Hitler. Western Europe is always going to have to be nullified and that means a war in the west, with the attack occupation of Belgium, Holland and France. 
Swedish ore sources are always going to have to be ensured maintained that - given the nature of those countries at the time - means a war occupation in Norway Denmark. 
The UK is never going to sign up to anything allowing this unless she is defeated - or starved into submission. 



rank amateur said:


> The man detested Stalin and communism in general.



Yes he did.....but as history shows he detested Hitler nazism even more so, possibly because he understood that with Germany's technical scientific culture enabling it it (nazism) represented a greater longer-term threat if it was not stopped when it was.



rank amateur said:


> So if Hitler would have take on the Sovjet Union I think noth France and the UK would have waited to see wait the result would be. Meanwhile both countries would be rearming



Again, I don't think so, and I think the events of the time back my view up..

The actual events show that Churchill understood Hitler had to be stopped, even if that meant allying with Stalin expending huge amounts of British materials, treasure lives - and at a time when they could be ill afforded.

As has been mentioned earlier here there is no way Hitler moves against the USSR without the attack on Poland happening - and he never once had any intention of doing otherwise - his disappointment at being robbed of his war at Munich the year before is well documented.
This itself guarantees (as events showed proved) that the British French declare war on nazi Germany.


----------



## Glider (Jun 29, 2012)

There have been a number of comments around Churchills comment, writings and views on Hitler and less about his equally negative views on Stalin.
However we and I do include myself have forgotten one important point. Churchill wasn't the Prime Minister when war broke out, Neville Chamberlain was and there was a strong lobby for peace in english politics.

Had Hitler avoided attacking France then Chamberlain wouldn't have fallen from power, Churchill wouldn't have become leader and Stalin would have been on his own. I cannot see France and the UK who were basically defensive supporting Stalin as he was loathed as much as Hitler.


----------



## rank amateur (Jun 29, 2012)

I have no problem with us agreeing to disagree Gixxxerman. Fact remains that we'll never know. Fact too is that Chamberlain felt compelled to resign when his appeasement politics clearly had failed, the day Germany invaded Holland, Belgium and France. In 'my' alternative scenario Hitler would not have invaded any western European countries so Chamberlain had no direct reason to resign. As I said earlier neither France nor England were very eager to start a full scale war. I don't think either ready for it.

I think that it is a reasonable assertion that France and England would have waited for the outcome of the battle between Germany and the USSR whilst speeding up their rearmentprogrammes so at a latter point in time they could fight a war on their own terms. Would be a whole other ballgame with to many variables to draw any conclusions. For me that is.


----------



## stona (Jun 29, 2012)

gjs238 said:


> Is there some way Germany could get Poland's "permission" to cross thru into the USSR?
> Even under coercion?



Absolutely not. Polands territorial integrity was guaranteed under various treaties and protocols by both Britain and France. The Poles are not daft,they would have understood the consequences of allowing German troops into their territory.

Your alternative scenario was never going to happen. The political climate of 1939,after the appeasment of the previous years,was never going to allow it. The minute German forces crossed the Polish border they were going to trigger the guarantees of the Anglo-French entente. There only chance then was to knock France out of the war and force a compromise peace on Britain. They succeeded in the first case but obviously failed in the second.

Churchill was always going to wage war against Nazi Germany on moral as well as pragmatic grounds. This seems difficult for some people today to understand. With the sleazy politicians we manage to elect nowadays maybe we don't believe them capable of making a moral stance!

Churchill had already likened the appeasment of Nazi Germany,particularly the deal over Czechoslovakia,to throwing tit bits to a ravening wolf. When you run out of treats he will come for you.

Churchill's words below are,of course,rhetoric but they don't come from a man who was going to compromise with nazi Germany. He fully understood just what that represented and it was anathema to everything he stood for and believed in.
I am not a huge fan of Churchill,he was essentially a 19th century imperialist but he was the right man at the right time and for that I respect him.

"What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, This was their finest hour." 

They don't make them like that anymore.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 29, 2012)

"... I am not a huge fan of Churchill, *he was essentially a 19th century imperialist*..."

So .....? The 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries were all about imperialism .... it would be surprising if Churchill *wasn't* an imperialist.

PC thinking is insidious.

MM


----------



## Balljoint (Jun 29, 2012)

Gixxerman said:


> Sorry but I do not see this at all.
> 
> You only have to read what Churchill was saying to know that he would never have reached an accomodation with Hitler's Germany.
> Churchill fully understood the potential of a technically able nazi dominated Europe the threat it would pose (if given the requested 'free hand in the east') to both the UK it's Empire as well as, eventually either directly or through it's allies, the USA.
> ...



GB’s, i.e. Churchill’s, resolve is not in question; only its capability to act effectively.

Shortly after the fall of France a report evaluating GB’s chances and containing a pregnant preamble was issued. It contained the language,

“…in the even of terms being offered to Britain which would place her entirely at the mercy of Germany through disarmament….; what are the prospects of our continuing the war…” 

This suggests that had more favorable terms been offered, the matter would have been open to other consideration.

And during the closing months of the war, Churchill put GB’s blood into gaining democracy for Greece. However, lacking FDR’s support, he was unable to do the same for Poland though the Free Polish forces had been extraordinarily brave allies. It can be argued that Churchill came to view Stalin as fully as evil as Hitler. Though irrepressible, he was disheartened by the outcome with Stalin occupying Eastern Europe rather than Hitler.

Finally, there’s good reason to believe that a military empire, particularly a brutal one, drains rather than strengthens the aggressor. This was George Kennon’s insight that lead to containment rather than military action against the Soviet Union. But development of this theory would be even greater abuse of the thread.

I suspect that an evening over a pint would bring us much closer in our views.


----------



## Gixxerman (Jun 29, 2012)

Glider said:


> There have been a number of comments around Churchills comment, writings and views on Hitler and less about his equally negative views on Stalin.



I'm not disputing Churchill loathed Stalin.
My point is that he understood nazi Germany to be the greater threat.
That is not to say that the USSR was not seen as a threat, just less of one.



Glider said:


> However we and I do include myself have forgotten one important point. Churchill wasn't the Prime Minister when war broke out, Neville Chamberlain was and there was a strong lobby for peace in english politics.



This is true.....but this also ignores the fact that the British public mood had altered radically after Hitler rolled into Prague.
The English lobby for peace existed, but how large it truly was will possibly remain a mystery, at least until the next big round of classified documents get opened in this half of the 21st century (I know some documents are scheduled to be released in 2055, although some are marked to never be opened). 



Glider said:


> Had Hitler avoided attacking France then Chamberlain wouldn't have fallen from power



Actually Chamberlain departed after the disaster in Norway, not France, that was yet to come it came under Churchill......and it did not see Churchill have to leave.





Balljoint said:


> GB’s, i.e. Churchill’s, resolve is not in question; only its capability to act effectively.
> 
> Shortly after the fall of France a report evaluating GB’s chances and containing a pregnant preamble was issued. It contained the language,
> 
> ...



Well my observatiuon here is different.
The British Civil Service is doing what the British Civil Service does, namely offering options for consideration. 
It says nothing about the 'weight' one might place on those options nor the likelyhood of them coming to pass, nor the political interpretation of those options.

My view is that Churchill understood perfectly well what a nazi victory would mean......and it is simply a fact of history that he had plenty of opportunity to just stand by and watch Hitler Stalin tear each other to pieces.
He did not preferred to see the UK effectively go bankrupt lose her Empire rather than see nazism dominant in the world.
Even when it became clear that this also meant the loss of a lot of central eastern Europe to Stalin's communism.



Balljoint said:


> And during the closing months of the war, Churchill put GB’s blood into gaining democracy for Greece. However, lacking FDR’s support, he was unable to do the same for Poland though the Free Polish forces had been extraordinarily brave allies. It can be argued that Churchill came to view Stalin as fully as evil as Hitler. Though irrepressible, he was disheartened by the outcome with Stalin occupying Eastern Europe rather than Hitler.



Well we reach different conclusions here too.
My view is that if it was avoidable obviously he would have preferred a free central eastern Europe.
But, given the choice, a communist dominated one was slightly preferable to a nazi dominated one.

It took almost 60yrs to see the world rid of communist Europe, my view is that Churchill knew a nazi Europe may well have lasted longer, with all that entailed for the populations deemed unworthy of life etc etc. 



Balljoint said:


> Finally, there’s good reason to believe that a military empire, particularly a brutal one, drains rather than strengthens the aggressor. This was George Kennon’s insight that lead to containment rather than military action against the Soviet Union. But development of this theory would be even greater abuse of the thread.



Now this I have a lot of time for, the question is, how many decades end up being spent getting there how for long does the malign influence continue to resonat down the ages.
Look at today with the reality we have.
Nazism continues to attract it's devotes, continues to shape attitudes, even in countries where better really ought to be known where families were directly effected.



Balljoint said:


> I suspect that an evening over a pint would bring us much closer in our views.



Anytime my friend anytime, I'm sure we'd have an interesting enjoyable chat.


----------



## stona (Jun 29, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> "... I am not a huge fan of Churchill, *he was essentially a 19th century imperialist*..."
> 
> So .....? The 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries were all about imperialism .... it would be surprising if Churchill *wasn't* an imperialist.
> 
> ...



It's not PC thinking it is a trite comment about Churchill. I was making a passing comment in a post about something else entirely,hardly the place for an analysis of "Churchillian" politics. His attitudes to Empire,race and were old fashioned and outdated in the 1930s. The death knell of Empires had sounded years previously. Churchill was one of those who chose not to hear it.

"it would be surprising if Churchill wasn't an imperialist."

Why? Many of his contemporaries did not hold Churchill's views on Empire and race. Some regarded him as a political dinosaur and were unnerved by some of his extreme political views. 
That I would suggest is wooly thinking.

None of this detracts from him having been a truly great war time leader,nor did it prevent the British public comprehensively voting him out at the first peace time opportunity.
He never did see the irony in that,a political victim of the very democracy he had fought so hard,and done so much,to preserve.

Steve


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 29, 2012)

".. wooly thinking..." That's me ... from time-to-time ... 

Political Correctness - as I understand it - is judging people and events from the past by the standards, insights and tastes of the present.

I am sure all kinds of people in GB and elsewhere weren't "imperialists" - but so what? They didn't diminish the extent or impact of Empire. The centuries I rattled off were centuries in which European Nations built empires. It may not be mankind's most attractive trait but the history of human civilization is a revolving door of empires -- which suggests that the "urge" to expand and influence is almost biologically hardwired in humans.[And I might add - hardwired in _all _life - from beavers to army ants and crab grass]

MM


----------



## stona (Jun 29, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> Political Correctness - as I understand it - is judging people and events from the past by the standards, insights and tastes of the present.
> MM



That's not what I understand the phrase "political correctness" to mean at all so we'd best leave it there.

This definition from the notoriously unreliable wikithingy more or less coincides with my understanding of the phrase.

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, certain other religions, beliefs or ideologies, disability, and age-related contexts, and, as purported by the term, doing so to an excessive extent. 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 29, 2012)

Good that we cleared_ that_ up, Steve. Now back to the war ...

MM


----------



## Balljoint (Jun 29, 2012)

Gixxerman said:


> Well my observatiuon here is different.
> The British Civil Service is doing what the British Civil Service does, namely offering options for consideration.
> It says nothing about the 'weight' one might place on those options nor the likelyhood of them coming to pass, nor the political interpretation of those options.
> 
> ...



I don't see the malaise continuing from some source so much as bubbling up from the dark side of human nature. It would find a new form if the preexisting template weren't available. The task is to contain and minimize it since we're not going to eradicate it.


----------



## Balljoint (Jun 29, 2012)

Sorry about the orginazation.


----------



## Gixxerman (Jun 30, 2012)

Interesting debate Balljoint......even with the quote fail I can see the points you're making. 
I might be wrong but I think that the report you mention was from the British Civil Service (but where people like Chamberlain etc contributed are quoted at length). I suspect it is the usual and largely presentation of options. 

As for whether the price was 'worth it' to the UK?
Well given the genocidal plans of a victorious 3rd Reich I would have to say yes, the plan to either directly murder or more slowly work to death large sections of the populations of central and eastern Europe, Russia and Ukraine are reason enough for any humanist I would say.....and for all his flaws Churchill did have a genuine humanist instinct.
He may have been a supporter of the conservative (both meanings) British elite but his appeal to the common man was no accident or fake construct.....and a generation of working class tory voters in the UK stand testament to that.

(interesting as Stona points out by victory in 1945 the British people had had quite enough of 'blood sweat and tears' and although surprising to some I think it was perfectly natural that they then looked elsewhere for a vision of what the peace ought to be like.......they did re-elect Churchill again in 1951 though)

As for nazism today?
Well as I mentioned you only have to look in the most seemingly unlikely of places.
I have been staggered to see neo-nazi/ultra-nationalist groups (admittedly small) making themselves public in todays Russia for instance.
It simply amazes me that this has been tollerated as a common theme with many of these groups is a 'worship' of Hitler and all that.
I agree eradication is probably impossible, I guess some will always be lost drawn to hate democracy collegiate decision making, love a supposed direct certainty, a rigid brutality, cruel vicious - and justify it pretending that it is simply our nature (or like that Norwegian fool Breivik excuse it as somehow 'necessary'). 
Such a tragedy.


----------



## stona (Jun 30, 2012)

I'd just like to point out that we,the British people didn't elect Churchill as Prime Minister during WW2. He was appointed to lead a coalition government. In fact we don't elect Prime Ministers at all. The most recent incumbent who never led his party to the people was of course Gordon Brown.

There is no doubting Churchill's antipathy to Communism. As late as 1937 he wrote.

"I will not pretend that, if I had to choose between Communism and Nazism, I would choose Communism".

Steve


----------



## Gixxerman (Jun 30, 2012)

That's true stona......thank God we never got into an either/or situation.

I'd also say though that anyone's thoughts about nazism in 1937 would be radically altered once informed by what we found out if not before the end of the war then certainly after it re the extermination policies.


----------



## stona (Jul 1, 2012)

Gixxerman said:


> That's true stona......thank God we never got into an either/or situation.
> 
> I'd also say though that anyone's thoughts about nazism in 1937 would be radically altered once informed by what we found out if not before the end of the war then certainly after it re the extermination policies.



Yes and Churchill was a politician who had no difficulty reconciling a complete volte-face with his conscience!

He did appreciate that the greater menace to what he termed "our Christian civilisation" lay with nazi Germany rather than the Soviet Union.........just.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Njaco (Jul 1, 2012)

Balljoint said:


> I don't see the malaise continuing from some source so much as bubbling up from the dark side of human nature. It would find a new form if the preexisting template weren't available. The task is to contain and minimize it since we're not going to eradicate it.



Sounds like the plot to "Prometheus".


----------



## rank amateur (Jul 1, 2012)

You just can't take a day of I guess... 




Gixxerman said:


> Actually Chamberlain departed after the disaster in Norway, not France, that was yet to come it came under Churchill......and it did not see Churchill have to leave.
> 
> *I stand corrected, that is he resigned may 9th 1940. Should have checked more than one source ;-(*
> 
> ...


----------



## Gixxerman (Jul 2, 2012)

rank amateur said:


> You just can't take a day of I guess...



lol some days it's just that way  



rank amateur said:


> I think mr Churchill deserves a lot of credit but me thinks you give him a bit too much. But that's just my opinion.



.....and you're entitled to it. 
But I would say that maybe just maybe Churchill's infusion of tenacious defiance into the British body politic (and possibly some parts of her military......I'm thinking of things his appointment to Nth Africa of that other PITA dogged terrier type Monty) is one reason why I don't speak German the UK was able to hold out remain independent was not forced to seek terms.
Lots of other countries caved, maybe Churchill is one major factor in why we did not. I think so anyway.



rank amateur said:


> I think dictatorial states usually have a relative short lifespan.



Well that's possible.......but consider this, the (in our terms) brutal militarist state of Sparta lasted almost 900yrs, history shows these things can happen, it is not impossible......and a modern state ruthlessly controlling using all the media and the organs of the state to knowingly deliberately keep it's citizens informed of only an approved message is no easy thing to remove.
What was it the Jesuits said about give me the child until 7 and I'll show you the man?

Besides, in terms of damage their murderous policies Hitler's gang wouldn't have needed much beyond a full decade to either starve or work to death the millions who didn't actually suffer the instant deportation to the death camps.
They wouldn't need to have lasted too long to carry out the worst of their plans.


----------



## Njaco (Jul 2, 2012)

How about you guys start a separate thread about the pros and cons of Churchill and we get back to the Eastern Front?

I just read that during the latter half of 1941, because of needs in other theatres, the LW was reduced from 2400 a/c to 1700 a/c (rough estimate).


----------



## rank amateur (Jul 2, 2012)

Njaco said:


> How about you guys start a separate thread about the pros and cons of Churchill and we get back to the Eastern Front?
> 
> *Naaaah, don't bother. We'll never get to any other agreement either than we're both glad the man was around in 1940 *
> 
> I just read that during the latter half of 1941, because of needs in other theatres, the LW was reduced from 2400 a/c to 1700 a/c (rough estimate).



*Are you talking about the eastern front now?*


----------



## Njaco (Jul 2, 2012)

Yeah, forgot that. Was curious how that would effect the outcome on the Russian Front if those a/c were retained.


----------



## rank amateur (Jul 2, 2012)

Njaco said:


> Yeah, forgot that. Was curious how that would effect the outcome on the Russian Front if those a/c were retained.



Depending on the scenario we choose to pick. If Germany somehow manages to keep both the French and the Brits out of the war, there would not have been any other fronts than the one(s) against the USSR and ofcourse the defence of the Fatherland.
I don't see Mussolini start his war against Yugolavia without France being overcome. But I'm sure some one is going to prove me wrong


----------



## AARP Hurricane (Aug 12, 2012)

Forgive me, I come into this one late!

The animosity between Poland and the Reich was a manufactured one. In reality they had much in common. Both anti-semetic, both facist military dictatorships, both with teritorial claims against neighbours and both fervantly anti communist. Had Hitler joined in ALLIANCE with Poland than the succesfull invasion of the Soviet Union could have:

1) started earlier thus avoiding the mud and snow
2) started at the 1939 borders of the Soviet Union and Poland
3) had the inconsiderable support of the Polish Army
4) began at least one year earlier without all the incumbent losses of the Western and Mediterrannean Campaigns (3000 aircraft more and 2000 tanks)
5) actually had the tacit and possibly tangiable support of the West including the USA
6) virtually no KV 1 and T 34's for the army to deal with, no Yak 1's Mig 3's or IL 2's and air superiority with the Bf 109E.

Thinking out of the box: imagine an Anglo-French and Turkish Army thrusting upwards into the Caucauses from Persia in support of the German-Rumanian-Bulgarians across Ukraine, Crimea into Southern Russia! Not an imposible thought as the British Army had opeated in the area in 1919 against the Reds and with the Turks and French in 1856 in the Crimea.

Yep Hitler screwed up with his hate if the Poles. Cost him the war.


----------

