Groundhog Thread v. 2.0 - The most important battle of WW2

[buffnut453]

To me it was vital that it was won, it was the only thing that kept Churchill awake at night. In hindsight we now know that although losses were huge it wasnt close to actually being lost. It could have been though, suppose Enigma wasnt broken and SONAR and airborne RADAR was harder to develop it could have been much harder than it was historically or even forced a change in policy. How many troop ships and ships full of aircrew/ground crew would the USA stand losing before something changed? Admittedly its a "what if", at the time they didnt know what came next on either side.

Don't disagree but if the Battle of Britain had been lost, the Battle of the Atlantic becomes irrelevant.

 

[pbehn]

Don't disagree but if the Battle of Britain had been lost, the Battle of the Atlantic becomes irrelevant.

I didnt have the battle of the Atlantic on my list, it was equally important but not close to being lost in my opinion. It could be argued that the BoB wasnt close to being lost either, but included in the BoB is having Churchill as leader, it only takes a different politician to lose that battle simply by not wanting to fight.

 

[Glider]

About the rail network : at the start of the war,the Soviets had a big reserve of unused rail material..

A big statement without any evidence to support it.

It is not on me to give the number of tanks the Soviets could have produced without LL armour plate,the same for aluminium for aircraft and tank engines .

A convenient approach. The logical starting point would be that if you have half the armour plate, then you have half the tanks.

If you want to convince people, it is on you, not on me,to prove your claim .

My evidence is the Russian report that I gave a link to. If you could support your position I would be very interested to read it.

This means: how many aluminium was available for the Soviets ?: stock and production .

Partly correct. If you have approx 60% less aluminium then logically you can only produce 60% less material

How many aircraft could they produce with their aluminium ?
How many aircraft were produced with LL aluminium ?

To the best of my knowledge the aircraft were not stamped with 'Made from LL material'.

How many of this second group were used ?Aircraft without pilots and support units are useless .

I really cannot see the logic of this posting. What on earth has the training and support units got to do with the material that built the aircraft

Is there a proof that without LL supplies, the Soviets had only less than 50 % of armour plate available ?

Once again I have supplied the Russian Report making these statements, if you have something different I an no doubt others would like to see your supporting material

PS I take you have dropped your theory that the Shetland Islands can support the Invasion Fleet, Air Fleets let alone the armies needed for a second front?

 

[ljadw]

My mother's uncle became a nervous wreck delivering petroleum to Russia via the Arctic convoys. His tanker was never hit but he lost plenty of shipmates a tanker of refined oil is a floating bomb and not many crew survived the blast of a torpedo, bomb or shell. If they survived the blast they had only minutes to be rescued before the cold water killed them.

I am sure he would have been sore to know that the fuel wasn't needed and that the Soviet Union was awash with warehouses of supplies that were being kept for the post war.

This is an old tactic : answering to something that has not been said,to avoid answering to something that was said .
I never said that the USSR was awash with warehouses of supplies that were being kept for the post war . I said that it is not so that the population of the non occupied parts of the SU would have perished without LL food,as since 80 years has been claimed .
About the oil : the Soviets received 2,7 million ton of LL oil.Compare this to the 80/90 million ton of oil the Soviets produced during the war .

 

[ljadw]

A big statement without any evidence to support it. A convenient approach. The logical starting point would be that if you have half the armour plate, then you have half the tanks. My evidence is the Russian report that I gave a link to. If you could support your position I would be very interested to read it. Partly correct. If you have approx 60% less aluminium then logically you can only produce 60% less material To the best of my knowledge the aircraft were not stamped with 'Made from LL material'. I really cannot see the logic of this posting. What on earth has the training and support units got to do with the material that built the aircraft Once again I have supplied the Russian Report making these statements, if you have something different I an no doubt others would like to see your supporting material

PS I take you have dropped your theory that the Shetland Islands can support the Invasion Fleet, Air Fleets let alone the armies needed for a second front?

It was very possible for the US Marines who were present at Iceland already before PH to go to the Shetland Islands and from there to the Highlands and to London . Who would stop them ?
I never said that the Shetlands would replace Liverpool .
Besides: why would a second front be necessary to defeat Germany ? The US could easily nuke Germany ,starting from an airfield in the Highlands .
About the LL aircraft :even if X aircraft were produced with LL material, this would not mean X operational aircraft ,as aircraft can not fly without pilots and the pilots would not be trained by LL .

 

[Glider]

This is an old tactic : answering to something that has not been said,to avoid answering to something that was said .
I never said that the USSR was awash with warehouses of supplies that were being kept for the post war . I said that it is not so that the population of the non occupied parts of the SU would have perished without LL food,as since 80 years has been claimed .
About the oil : the Soviets received 2,7 million ton of LL oil.Compare this to the 80/90 million ton of oil the Soviets produced during the war .

A thought about the oil, I certainly don't claim much knowledge on this. Generally speaking Russian oil wasn't as refined as Western European oil. I do know that the German army had a lot of difficulties when using captured Russian stocks. Russia did get and used a fair amount of American and British equipment and that equipment was designed to use highly refined fuel.
The importance of the LL fuel may well have more to do with the importance of the fuel to the American and British equipment, than the actual quantity. Not that 2.7 million tons is to be sniffed at.

 

[ljadw]

A thought about the oil, I certainly don't claim much knowledge on this. Generally speaking Russian oil wasn't as refined as Western European oil. I do know that the German army had a lot of difficulties when using captured Russian stocks. Russia did get and used a fair amount of American and British equipment and that equipment was designed to use highly refined fuel.
The importance of the LL fuel may well have more to do with the importance of the fuel to the American and British equipment, than the actual quantity. Not that 2.7 million tons is to be sniffed at.

This is moving the goalposts to a discussion what was ''better '' US/British aircraft and oil or Soviet aircraft and oil .
And I doubt that there is something as a better aircraft,because the qualities of an aircraft depend also on the qualities of the pilots and the technicians .
An other thing about LL aircraft : the importance of X LL aircraft depend also on the number of trained Soviet pilots and I would not be surprised if during a lot of months these LL aircraft remained idle on the ground because there were no pilots and technicians for them .
It is the same for the tanks .
About the Soviet loc reserve I will search ,I remember that some one at the AHF has given the figures .

 

[Glider]

It was very possible for the US Marines who were present at Iceland already before PH to go to the Shetland Islands and from there to the Highlands and to London . Who would stop them ?
I never said that the Shetlands would replace Liverpool .
Besides: why would a second front be necessary to defeat Germany ? The US could easily nuke Germany ,starting from an airfield in the Highlands .
About the LL aircraft :even if X aircraft were produced with LL material, this would not mean X operational aircraft ,as aircraft can not fly without pilots and the pilots would not be trained by LL .

This is simply priceless.

The original premise is that the UK is out of the fight because the British lost the Battle of the Atlantic. No UK = no using Inverness, or Liverpool, or any part of the UK, or even the Shetland Islands as the last time I looked the Shetland Islands were in the Atlantic.

Why was a second Front needed? because Russia may well have folded if the Germans could use the forces in Europe.

 

[special ed]

The U.S. Marines were sent to Iceland to prevent it being taken by Germany for a weather station and to provide security for the air assets. There weren't enough of them to invade Europe, Where would you park the supplies that are needed for invasion? The Marines , though, might say they could do it.

 

[SaparotRob]

I remember seeing the documentary series "World at War" narrated by Laurence Olivier when I was young, it had an episode that was in part on The Siege of Leningrad, its a hard watch but was a great series. (episode 11 if you have access to it)

Seen it! It was a long time ago. I remember my friends and I commenting about the "bread".

 

[pbehn]

Seen it! It was a long time ago. I remember my friends and I commenting about the "bread".

I was 13-14 when it was shown first, many parts were shocking, but I was fascinated, enthralled, engrossed in it. (hard to find the proper word)

 

[fastmongrel]

I haven't used the ignore button in a long time. Good to know it still works

 

[pbehn]

I haven't used the ignore button in a long time. Good to know it still works

I can still see you though

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I remember seeing the documentary series "World at War" narrated by Laurence Olivier when I was young, it had an episode that was in part on The Siege of Leningrad, its a hard watch but was a great series. (episode 11 if you have access to it)

All 26 episodes are on YT. Great series, indeed.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Don't disagree but if the Battle of Britain had been lost, the Battle of the Atlantic becomes irrelevant.

Had the Battle of the Atlantic been lost, how fruitful might the Battle of Britain actually have been?

Don't get me wrong -- winning the BoB was necessary, but not in itself sufficient for winning the war.

 

[Glider]

This is moving the goalposts to a discussion what was ''better '' US/British aircraft and oil or Soviet aircraft and oil .
And I doubt that there is something as a better aircraft,because the qualities of an aircraft depend also on the qualities of the pilots and the technicians .
An other thing about LL aircraft : the importance of X LL aircraft depend also on the number of trained Soviet pilots and I would not be surprised if during a lot of months these LL aircraft remained idle on the ground because there were no pilots and technicians for them .
It is the same for the tanks .
About the Soviet loc reserve I will search ,I remember that some one at the AHF has given the figures .

Actually it isn't, I was only trying to identify a theory (no more than that) as to why the LL would include fuel if Russia had sufficient of its own. In other words I was trying to find a theory that supported your statement that Russia had enough fuel for its needs

In 1939 most if not all the airforces in the world used 87 octane fuel, or similar. By roughly May 1940 the UK had converted all its fighters to 100 octane fuel which increased the power of the Merlin engine by almost 30 percent up to approx 15,000 ft. Only the UK and the USA had this fuel, even the Germans were only using captured stocks during the summer of 1940, although they were developing their own higher grade fuel. Indeed Germany never had enough higher octane fuel to make it a standard. Japan was in a similar situation. As the war progressed the British / American 100 octane fuel was developed further.

Russia had quite a large selection of fuel but had to rely on mixing additions to the fuel to increase the octane levels, but to the best of my knowledge didn't have have any 100 octane fuel.

Whatever you think of them, Russia did receive a lot of P39, P40, Hurricane and Spitfire aircraft and if you were going to make the most of those aircraft and have them operating at peak efficiency, then you would have needed fuel that Russia didn't have. That in turn would be a reason for importing fuel when if you look at the volume figures they should have had enough.

 

[Shortround6]

This is moving the goalposts to a discussion what was ''better '' US/British aircraft and oil or Soviet aircraft and oil .
And I doubt that there is something as a better aircraft,because the qualities of an aircraft depend also on the qualities of the pilots and the technicians .
An other thing about LL aircraft : the importance of X LL aircraft depend also on the number of trained Soviet pilots and I would not be surprised if during a lot of months these LL aircraft remained idle on the ground because there were no pilots and technicians for them .
It is the same for the tanks .
About the Soviet loc reserve I will search ,I remember that some one at the AHF has given the figures .

A lot of rather twisted logic.

Not enough pilots or ground crew for Lend lease aircraft and tanks but enough for Russian built equipment?

Sources for that please.

There was nothing wrong with Russian petroleum products for Russian equipment. There is a difference between petroleum products and petroleum as it comes from the ground.
The Best Soviet aviation fuel was about 95/96 octane. It needed a fair amount of lead added, about 4cc per kilogram. It use in Lend lease combat planes would limit performance at the very least. it's use in transports might have worked OK.
I may have inadvertently created some confusion earlier. In some accounts they claim that the Soviets mixed lend lease fuel with Soviet fuel to raise the octane rating of the soviet fuel.
I tried to point out that this was not a very efficient way of doing it. The US sent 558,766 gals. of Ethyl fluid to Russia as part of lend lease. at 3-4 CCs per Kilogram of fuel that is a lot of high octane fuel for Russian engines. Shipping something over 500,000 gallons of additive is a lot more efficient in raising Soviet base stock fuel than shipping millions of gallons of high octane fuel to be mixed with Soviet fuel. Which probably wouldn't work anyway. Aviation gasoline is a lot more complicated that most people think.

Soviets had about 13 class of steam locomotives built from 1925 on, not counting very small batches and experimentals. There were quite a number of older models which were still around. Some of the larger ones would be very hard to fire with wood. Some were already using oil firing. Some used mechanical stokers with coal. I don't doubt that the soviets resorted to wood firing on occasion. But it is a lousy way to try and move large loads long distances.

You might want to to look at : Complete List of Lend Lease to Russia including atomic materials

for a complete list of materials sent by the US to Russia, not including combat vehicles and planes. You might not.

 

[buffnut453]

Had the Battle of the Atlantic been lost, how fruitful might the Battle of Britain actually have been?

Don't get me wrong -- winning the BoB was necessary, but not in itself sufficient for winning the war.

Few individual battles were sufficient for winning a war. You can apply that to any of the battles we listed.

The whole gist of my Post #790 is asking the same question you are. I'm not convinced "losing" the Battle of the Atlantic would have knocked the UK out of the war. Yes, we got a lot of materials, food and materiel from the States and the UK's ability to wage war would have been reduced...but it wouldn't have been stopped completely.

It's not clear what "losing the Battle of the Atlantic" would mean. Does it mean no supplies at all getting to the UK? Frankly, I just don't see that as a realistic outcome. As noted, Germany didn't have sufficient vessels to do that. Germany might have gained (in fact it did gain) temporary superiority. However, it couldn't achieve maritime supremacy over the RN let alone the combined efforts of the RN and USN.

If someone's willing to better define what winning the Battle of the Atlantic looks like, I may reconsider. However, for now, I still vote for the BoB as the most significant battle.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Few individual battles were sufficient for winning a war. You can apply that to any of the battles we listed.

The whole gist of my Post #790 is asking the same question you are. I'm not convinced "losing" the Battle of the Atlantic would have knocked the UK out of the war. Yes, we got a lot of materials, food and materiel from the States and the UK's ability to wage war would have been reduced...but it wouldn't have been stopped completely.

It's not clear what "losing the Battle of the Atlantic" would mean. Does it mean no supplies at all getting to the UK? Frankly, I just don't see that as a realistic outcome. As noted, Germany didn't have sufficient vessels to do that. Germany might have gained (in fact it did gain) temporary superiority. However, it couldn't achieve maritime supremacy over the RN let alone the combined efforts of the RN and USN.

If someone's willing to better define what winning the Battle of the Atlantic looks like, I may reconsider. However, for now, I still vote for the BoB as the most significant battle.

I guess we'd have to define "losing" the Battle of the Atlantic, yeah. If we're talking production falling behind losses for a given period, that might not be fatal at all. If we're talking replacements being sunk as they come off the shipways, that's another story.

I definitely agree with you that no one battle won WWII. There were decisive moments, and a solid school of thought that depicts the five Allied victories in the last half of 1942 (Midway, El Alamein, Guadalcanal, Stalingrad, and Torch) that depicts those six months as crucial. But I don't think any one or two of those lost (except Torch, because rebuffed invasions are horribly expensive) would alone be decisive. The Allies had both the land, production, and manpower to afford defeats better than the Axis.

I certainly regard the BoB as vital, because without it, no other benefits would flow for the Western Allies. But that doesn't to my mind mean that it was decisive. Shit could still have gone very south in 1941, depending on where the Bohemian corporal turned his gaze next. That he looked East was his biggest mistake, to me; but that's not a decisive battle, that's just bad decisionin'.

 

[fastmongrel]

I can still see you though

Damn must have pressed the wrong button