buffnut453
Captain
Don't disagree but if the Battle of Britain had been lost, the Battle of the Atlantic becomes irrelevant.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.Don't disagree but if the Battle of Britain had been lost, the Battle of the Atlantic becomes irrelevant.
A big statement without any evidence to support it.About the rail network : at the start of the war,the Soviets had a big reserve of unused rail material..
A convenient approach. The logical starting point would be that if you have half the armour plate, then you have half the tanks.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 .
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.If you want to convince people, it is on you, not on me,to prove your claim .
Partly correct. If you have approx 60% less aluminium then logically you can only produce 60% less materialThis means: how many aluminium was available for the Soviets ?: stock and production .
To the best of my knowledge the aircraft were not stamped with 'Made from LL material'.How many aircraft could they produce with their aluminium ?
How many aircraft were produced with LL aluminium ?
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 aircraftHow many of this second group were used ?Aircraft without pilots and support units are useless .
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 materialIs there a proof that without LL supplies, the Soviets had only less than 50 % of armour plate available ?
This is an old tactic : answering to something that has not been said,to avoid answering to something that was said .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.
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 ?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?
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 .
This is moving the goalposts to a discussion what was ''better '' US/British aircraft and oil or Soviet aircraft and oil .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 simply priceless.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 .
Seen it! It was a long time ago. I remember my friends and I commenting about the "bread".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)
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)Seen it! It was a long time ago. I remember my friends and I commenting about the "bread".
I can still see you thoughI haven't used the ignore button in a long time. Good to know it still works
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)
Don't disagree but if the Battle of Britain had been lost, the Battle of the Atlantic becomes irrelevant.
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 .
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 .
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.