Did the RN win the Battle of Britain?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Im still trying to figure out what a partially successful invasion is.

It is either successful or not!

 

[Hunter368]

Im still trying to figure out what a partially successful invasion is.

It is either successful or not!

I made the same point also....either it is or is not a success.....what is partially mean??? Does it mean landing a for hundred or a few thousand troops just to get them killed??? Dropping some paratroops to get slaughtered? What?


I said earlier if I drop myself out of a plane with a parashoot over UK is that called a partially successfully invasion of UK?

 

[Hunter368]

Yep - those Russkies were totally thrashed, Stalin finally had to surrender in the ruins of their last remaining city, Vladivostok. That's why we've had a Nazi Europe these last 60 years!!

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[Tony Williams]

I made the same point also....either it is or is not a success.....what is partially mean??? Does it mean landing a for hundred or a few thousand troops just to get them killed??? Dropping some paratroops to get slaughtered? What?

On that score, Dieppe was reasonably successful - we even managed to get quite a few tanks ashore!

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[Hunter368]

Hitler's biggest mistake = declaring war on the USA. Without this act of stupidity Germany could've taken Russia and afterwards concentrated on Britain. I still believe though, that the Germans could've conducted a partially successful invasion of Britain had Operation Barbarossa been postponed by 1 - 2 years.



Like a mess ! It was Germany's attack on Russia which had Stalin make a change of heart, cause up until that point Stalin had done nothing but deteriorate his army's ability to fight. Without Op. Barbarossa in 41 a Soviet invasion of Germany wasn't possible until at least 1944, and even then succes was very much not guaranteed, infact it was mostly doomed to fail.

Just take a look at how the Russians did on the offensive against the Finnish which didn't even have tanks !



Russia certainly didn't turn the war around, without the western Allies Russia was doomed to lose, the war was turned around by the US involvement. And at no point did the Russians beat the crap out of the Germans, the Germans did infact keep on beating the crap out of the Russians all the way back to Berlin ! 13.6 million Russian soldiers lost their lives fighting the Germans, 13.6 million ! Germany in all lost 3.25 million soldiers, approx. 75% fell in Russia.

Let us not forget on how many fronts the Germans were fighting, and all because Hitler was in too much of a hurry.

While Hitler made a heck of alot of mistakes in the war and before the war, not sure if I agree that declaring war on the USA was the biggest mistake. It was a mistake but make no mistake about it USA was going to come into the war, just when was the question. Japan and Hitler just speeded it up is all.

You said: Without Op. Barbarossa in 41 a Soviet invasion of Germany wasn't possible until at least 1944, and even then succes was very much not guaranteed, infact it was mostly doomed to fail. Just take a look at how the Russians did on the offensive against the Finnish which didn't even have tanks !

Russian invasion until 1944??? 1944 or 1943 which ever I will give you 1944 sure what the heck. It would still make little to no difference in the end. Russia would of still steam rolled (like it really did) Germany, b/c Germany was juggling to many balls at the same time. USA entered the war in 41 and UK could of and would of held out b/c Germany could not get to it, so 44 or 43 it does not matter. Germany would of been facing UK and USA forsure, then even if Germany never invaded Russia, by 43 or 44 or 45 Russia would of seen Germany in major trouble. Russia would of then taken land from Germany just like she did vs Japan near the end of the war.

Sure lets look at Finnish war, IN 1939-1940!!! We are talking about Russia in 1943-1945 she was a much more polished war machine with near limitless man power and production (when comparing to Germany that is, USA still could out produce her).

Then you said: Russia certainly didn't turn the war around, without the western Allies Russia was doomed to lose, the war was turned around by the US involvement.

I will agree with you there to a point. How would of Russia faired if it was one on one with Germany in 1941, if we are saying at this point Germany is at war with no one else? You are right on that point Russia would of been in big trouble.

But I will also say this, where would of UK and USA would of been without Russian involvement? Think about all those men, planes, tanks Germany had fighting Russia. Think about all those tanks, planes, men that Russia destroyed between 1941-1945?? Russia was a HUGE factor in the Allies winning the war. Russian juggernaut ground up the Germany army between 41-45.

You said then: And at no point did the Russians beat the crap out of the Germans, the Germans did infact keep on beating the crap out of the Russians all the way back to Berlin ! 13.6 million Russian soldiers lost their lives fighting the Germans, 13.6 million ! Germany in all lost 3.25 million soldiers, approx. 75% fell in Russia.

Yes Russia lost more soldiers then Germany, but Russia outlasted and beat down her enemy into ruins. Last time I checked the last man standing in a fight was the victor, I don't care if you landed 10 shots on me, as long as I am the last man standing after the fight, then I win. Last man standing was Russia!

 

[Hunter368]

On that score, Dieppe was reasonably successful - we even managed to get quite a few tanks ashore!

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

Agreed to a point, we got slaughtered but we did learn alot and learnt what not to do the next and last time we landed troops in 44.

 

[Tony Williams]

Yes Russia lost more soldiers then Germany, but Russia outlasted and beat down her enemy into ruins. Last time I checked the last man standing in a fight was the victor, I don't care if you landed 10 shots on me, as long as I am the last man standing after the fight, then I win. Last man standing was Russia!

Quite so.

Thinking around issues raised in this thread, perhaps the term "Second World War" isn't helpful - it's a portmanteau or umbrella phrase covering several different conflicts.

September 1939 is taken (in most countries) as the starting point because that's when the major west European powers were formally at war with each other. However, that phase was really a Franco-British v Germany war which resulted in the defeat of France.

Then from mid-1940 to mid-1941 it was a Germany/Italy v Britain war - still quite limited in scope, with ground fighting only in N Africa.

The invasion of the USSR kicked off what might be called the Great European War, in which the major players were Germany and the USSR. Several other nations got involved in supporting roles, of which the USA and UK played the most important parts.

The Great Asian/Pacific War was of course primarily between Japan and the USA, with the UK playing an important supporting role.

The question as to whether the USSR could have won without US/British aid (initially Lend-Lease, then strategic bombing, then in the final year with ground troops) is an interesting one, to which there is no definite answer IMO.

Lend-Lease was undoubtedly helpful in the initial phases, when the USSR struggled to replace their initial heavy equipment losses while at the same time relocating their armaments factories far to the east. Could they have hung on without Lend-Lease? Probably, I think, although they would certainly have suffered more. But the country was just too huge, and the environment too brutal, for Hitlers "short-term-dash" military focus to deliver victory.

Once the new factories were in full production, Lend-Lease just became a nice-to-have extra but not critical.

Allied strategic bombing helped the USSR by diverting German resources to the defence of its homeland, and the Anglo-US invasion of Europe also helped. However, I think the Soviets would still have won without either, although it would have taken a year or two longer and the war would have been that much bloodier.

We in the west tend to focus on D-day and all that, and rather forget that in the last year of the war the vast Soviet Army simply dwarfed the US/UK ground forces in Europe. What is quite certain IMO is that, while the question of whether the USSR could have won alone is debatable, the USA/UK could definitely not have beaten Germany without the USSR.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[syscom3]

...The Great Asian/Pacific War was of course primarily between Japan and the USA, with the UK playing an important supporting role....

The US completely dominated the war in the Pacific (including the CBI, which was a side show).

Untill middle 1943, The ANZAC forces were important contributors, but once the US war machine went into high gear, their contributions became less important.

 

[Tony Williams]

The US completely dominated the war in the Pacific (including the CBI, which was a side show).

Untill middle 1943, The ANZAC forces were important contributors, but once the US war machine went into high gear, their contributions became less important.

Note that I said "Asian/Pacific", not "Pacific". Considerable BCE forces were involved in SE Asia.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

On that score, Dieppe was reasonably successful - we even managed to get quite a few tanks ashore!

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

For learning purposes yes it was successful but it was a complete failure therefor it was not successfull...

 

[Vassili Zaitzev]

Okay I've found the book. The title is Invasion: The German Invasion Of England July 1940. It was written by retired Major Kenneth Macksey.

 

[Tony Williams]

For learning purposes yes it was successful but it was a complete failure therefor it was not successfull...

I was not being serious...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[Hunter368]

Quite so.

Thinking around issues raised in this thread, perhaps the term "Second World War" isn't helpful - it's a portmanteau or umbrella phrase covering several different conflicts.

September 1939 is taken (in most countries) as the starting point because that's when the major west European powers were formally at war with each other. However, that phase was really a Franco-British v Germany war which resulted in the defeat of France.

Then from mid-1940 to mid-1941 it was a Germany/Italy v Britain war - still quite limited in scope, with ground fighting only in N Africa.

The invasion of the USSR kicked off what might be called the Great European War, in which the major players were Germany and the USSR. Several other nations got involved in supporting roles, of which the USA and UK played the most important parts.

The Great Asian/Pacific War was of course primarily between Japan and the USA, with the UK playing an important supporting role.

The question as to whether the USSR could have won without US/British aid (initially Lend-Lease, then strategic bombing, then in the final year with ground troops) is an interesting one, to which there is no definite answer IMO.

Lend-Lease was undoubtedly helpful in the initial phases, when the USSR struggled to replace their initial heavy equipment losses while at the same time relocating their armaments factories far to the east. Could they have hung on without Lend-Lease? Probably, I think, although they would certainly have suffered more. But the country was just too huge, and the environment too brutal, for Hitlers "short-term-dash" military focus to deliver victory.

Once the new factories were in full production, Lend-Lease just became a nice-to-have extra but not critical.

Allied strategic bombing helped the USSR by diverting German resources to the defence of its homeland, and the Anglo-US invasion of Europe also helped. However, I think the Soviets would still have won without either, although it would have taken a year or two longer and the war would have been that much bloodier.

We in the west tend to focus on D-day and all that, and rather forget that in the last year of the war the vast Soviet Army simply dwarfed the US/UK ground forces in Europe. What is quite certain IMO is that, while the question of whether the USSR could have won alone is debatable, the USA/UK could definitely not have beaten Germany without the USSR.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

Good post Tony could not have said it better myself. Well done.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

syscom you can't simply dismiss the Commonwealth's involvement in the CBI as meaningless............

 

[davparlr]

Allied strategic bombing helped the USSR by diverting German resources to the defence of its homeland.

This simple statement totally ignores the massive infrastructure impact on Germany of strategic bombing and interdiction, especially in 1944 and 45. A ridiculous argument is made that strategic bombing was ineffective in that Germany produced more weapons during this onslaught than before. This may be true but totally ignores the amount of weapons Germany could have built if bombs were not falling on their heads everyday and their cities were being burned to the ground. By the time the Russians reached Germany, it was a waste land of bombed-out cities, ruined rail lines, and dry fuel tanks. All compliments of strategic bombing and interdiction.

We in the west tend to focus on D-day and all that, and rather forget that in the last year of the war the vast Soviet Army simply dwarfed the US/UK ground forces in Europe.

I agree. Any invasion would be much later with the Italian campaign playing much more important role.

What is quite certain IMO is that, while the question of whether the USSR could have won alone is debatable, the USA/UK could definitely not have beaten Germany without the USSR.

This makes no sense. The British by themselves outproduced the Germans. Even with a healthy industry, German would quickly fall further and further behind the allies in materiel as the war went on (the US alone produced almost twice the aircraft that Russia produced, nearly three time the Germans), which was the primary reason they lost in the first place. Besides, by the end 1946, the western allies would have had enough atomic bombs to destroy Gemany and Russia combined. Germany would have lost even without the A Bomb. They had an idiot for a leader.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum[/QUOTE]

 

[Tony Williams]

This simple statement totally ignores the massive infrastructure impact on Germany of strategic bombing and interdiction, especially in 1944 and 45. A ridiculous argument is made that strategic bombing was ineffective in that Germany produced more weapons during this onslaught than before. This may be true but totally ignores the amount of weapons Germany could have built if bombs were not falling on their heads everyday and their cities were being burned to the ground. By the time the Russians reached Germany, it was a waste land of bombed-out cities, ruined rail lines, and dry fuel tanks. All compliments of strategic bombing and interdiction.

That is true, and I was not trying to belittle the Allied bombing effort (in fact, I am usually on the "other side" of the argument, making just the points you have). But while the strategic bombing was making life very difficult for Germany, the fact is that military production was maintained at a high level. The bombing was not going to defeat Germany by itself. To do that required the Soviet Army - if that hadn't existed, Germany could have focused almost entirely on the threat from the UK and USA, making D-day effectively impossible. Germany could also have switched more resources to the air war, making the bombing campaign much more costly (and maintaining a far more aggressive bombing campaign against the UK).

The bombing campaign helped, as I said, but it wasn't decisive. The Soviet Army was.

This makes no sense. The British by themselves outproduced the Germans. Even with a healthy industry, German would quickly fall further and further behind the allies in materiel as the war went on (the US alone produced almost twice the aircraft that Russia produced, nearly three time the Germans), which was the primary reason they lost in the first place.

We have been discussing why Germany could not have successfully invaded Britain - well, this time the boot would be on the other foot. Even with most of the German army on the Eastern Front, with mostly second-line troops stiffened by some good units on R&R in France, and with no air cover whatsoever, all leading to a virtually unopposed landing, the Allies did not have an easy trip through Normandy. Can you imagine what it would have been like if Germany hadn't been fighting the USSR at the same time?

Besides, by the end 1946, the western allies would have had enough atomic bombs to destroy Gemany and Russia combined. Germany would have lost even without the A Bomb. They had an idiot for a leader.

You are right that the atom bomb is the "wild card", although it did in fact take a long time to built up a sizeable stockpile of the weapons. I think that there would have been a very much more intense debate about the morality of dropping the bombs on Germany than there was in the case of Japan - there was a lot of racism involved on both sides of the Asia/Pacific war, which did not exist between the UK/USA and Germany.

Unless the Allies did decide to use the A-bomb, (in which case Hitler would presumably have unleashed his chemical and biological warfare stockpile, and things would have got very unpleasant indeed), I don't see the Allies succeeding in defeating Germany without the Soviet Army on their side.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[Hunter368]

davparlr and Tony,

You both make good points. But I have to say I think the Allies could of beaten the Germans without Russia (if Russia never was in WW2 ever) but it would of been a much much harder fight with many more Allied soldiers killed. Many more civilians would of also died in UK (France and Italy also) and a heck of alot more in Germany would of died.

 

[davparlr]

We have been discussing why Germany could not have successfully invaded Britain - well, this time the boot would be on the other foot. Even with most of the German army on the Eastern Front, with mostly second-line troops stiffened by some good units on R&R in France, and with no air cover whatsoever, all leading to a virtually unopposed landing, the Allies did not have an easy trip through Normandy. Can you imagine what it would have been like if Germany hadn't been fighting the USSR at the same time?

Time was not on Germany's side. With limited men under arms (non-German forces were either mostly not reliable or not as well committed) and not as efficient arms manufacturing or logistic capablity, Germany would soon be significantly out manned (the US had vast amounts of manpower to tap) and out armed. Unlike Germany for operation Sea Lion, the allies would have total control of sea power and probably local control of the airspace due to total quantity of allied airpower available. Every day the Allies would get stronger at a faster rate than the Axis. In a matter of time, the allies could have generated three or four D-Day level invasions with supporting aircraft carriers and warships (Okinawa had 548k troops available, more than D-Day). They would have to defend Italy, Southern France, Calais, Normandy and other places, all silmultaneously against greater number of aircraft, tanks, ships, men, etc. Eventually, the Allies could overwhelm Germany with shear mass. The math is inescapable. Determination, however is something else.

You are right that the atom bomb is the "wild card", although it did in fact take a long time to built up a sizeable stockpile of the weapons. I think that there would have been a very much more intense debate about the morality of dropping the bombs on Germany than there was in the case of Japan - there was a lot of racism involved on both sides of the Asia/Pacific war, which did not exist between the UK/USA and Germany.

I think A-bomb build up would accerate in 46 with desparation. I agree with your comments about the usage. They may have continue to use it against Japan and start negotiations with Germany, who would probably be very interested in ceasing hostilities once the A-bomb had been demonstrated.

Unless the Allies did decide to use the A-bomb, (in which case Hitler would presumably have unleashed his chemical and biological warfare stockpile, and things would have got very unpleasant indeed), I don't see the Allies succeeding in defeating Germany without the Soviet Army on their side.

See above. Also, don't forget the idiot leader.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum[/QUOTE]

 

[Hunter368]

Agreed 100%

 

[syscom3]

syscom you can't simply dismiss the Commonwealth's involvement in the CBI as meaningless............

The CBI was meaningless.

The war against Japan was determined by who controlled SE Asia and the central Pacific.

As events proved, it didnt matter how many troops were tied up in China and Burma, because the Japanese didnt have the logistics to support them elsewhere.