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

Shortround6 said:

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.

.

Click to expand...

I did not say that there were enough pilots/ground crew for Russian built equipment,the reality is that it took more time to train pilots/ground crew than to build aircraft/tanks and that it took more time to train pilots/ground crew for foreign aircraft /tanks than for Russian aircraft/tanks : there was a language barrier, you know.There were only few Russians with English knowledge : such people had always at night a suitcase ready for the probability that the Cheka would knock at 3 PM for a vacation in the Gulag .
Instructors and trainees would need a knowledge of English .
That's why the sudden appearance of Western tanks (Matilda ) and aircraft can not be translated as an increase of the strength of the Soviet army and air force .
The same for the deliveries of US fuel : could Soviet aircraft use US fuel ? And if so ,what was the effect on the ''accomplishments '' of Soviet pilots ? Did they shoot more German aircraft ?
There were not that many aircraft-to aircraft - fights in the East (and elsewhere ) : relatively most aircraft losses were non combat causes . Idem for tank losses .
US aircraft losses : operational 53000/non operational 42000
Soviets : operational 46000/non operational : 60000 !

Glider said:

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.

Click to expand...

As the Western aircraft were only a small minority of the total aircraft number of the Soviets,this means that the importance of the avgas for these aircraft should not be exaggerated .
Other point : 100 octane fuel was needed for the Spitfires to fly in Russia, but it was not enough ther things were needed,as pilots , Russian pilots, and there was always a big shortage of pilots .
An increase of the power of the Merlin engine by 30 % was NOT sufficient to make a Spitfire operating at ''peak efficiency ''. And ,even if this was possible, that would not make the Russian pilot to shoot German aircraft or more German aircraft than an other pilot using a Russian fighter . : the situation at the Eastern front was totally different : there was no air battle of the SU : mostly German and Soviet aircraft did not see an opponent when they were patrolling .

ljadw said:

.There were only few Russians with English knowledge : such people had always at night a suitcase ready for the probability that the Cheka would knock at 3 PM for a vacation in the Gulag .

Click to expand...

I guess most of the ones with any knowledge of English had been shot in 1937-38? many large factories had been design by western companies and built in Russia with a large amount of western supervisions (hundreds of westerners on site). Of course the fact that there were literately several dozen languages and dialects used in the Soviet Union itself didn't help any.

ljadw said:

That's why the sudden appearance of Western tanks (Matilda ) and aircraft can not be translated as an increase of the strength of the Soviet army and air force .

Click to expand...

It was a matter of 6-8 weeks from landing the Matildas in Murmansk to their appearance near Moscow. Granted in small numbers and perhaps for propaganda? Yes it took longer to aircraft into service. However the Hurricane Squadron/s at Murmansk were manned by the British while training went on.

ljadw said:

The same for the deliveries of US fuel : could Soviet aircraft use US fuel ? And if so ,what was the effect on the ''accomplishments '' of Soviet pilots ? Did they shoot more German aircraft ?

Click to expand...

Soviet aircraft could use US fuel, it didn't increase the power any. Increasing the boost on the engine to take advantage of the fuel could very well lead to a broken engine very quickly and the engine would run hotter when using the increased boost, depending on weather and conditions soviet aircraft tended to run hot or at least had little margin for "improved" engines with existing cooling systems.
However a plane sitting on the ground because it has no fuel isn't shooting down anything.
In reverse British and American aircraft trying to use Soviet fuel could fly, they just couldn't use full throttle.

My own believe is that some people confuse US fuel (the actual gasoline) with the additives I mentioned earlier.
With each gallon of additive able to treat hundreds of gallons of fuel the shipments of Ethyl fluid made a huge difference to the Russian fuel supply.
Running Yaks on 95 octane instead of 80 octane fuel did make a huge difference. 80 octane is what they used in PO-2s.

About the importance of LL locs and wagons for the Soviets : at the start of the war the Soviets had more than 20000 locs and 500000/650000 wagons. Source : Lend-Lease on Wiki .
They received from LL 1911 locs (5,5% of their stock ) and 11225 wagons (5,3 % ) and this over a period of 4 years .
Thus, it is very dubious to claim that the Soviet railways would have collapsed without the LL deliveries .

As you guys still seem to keep this thread active, I think I should move it back to WW2 general

ljadw said:

About the importance of LL locs and wagons for the Soviets : at the start of the war the Soviets had more than 20000 locs and 500000/650000 wagons. Source : Lend-Lease on Wiki .
They received from LL 1911 locs (5,5% of their stock ) and 11225 wagons (5,3 % ) and this over a period of 4 years .
Thus, it is very dubious to claim that the Soviet railways would have collapsed without the LL deliveries .

Click to expand...

The question is collapsed when?

You are back to trying to spread out the LL contribution and compare it to the total production of the Soviet Union averaged out for the entire war.
US actually sent the vast majority of the locomotives in 1944-45, perhaps a few in 1943? not sure about the wagons.
Soviet Production of locomotives seems to have pretty much stopped in 1942.

The collapse of the Soviet Railways in 1943-44 would not have been due to lack of locomotives (or at least locomotives already built) and wagons but due to lack of rails, wheels, axles.

Railway car wheels, excl. locomotive ......................................44,532,719 lbs.
Railway car tire & locomotive wheels ...................................46,138,050 lbs.
Railway car axles, without wheels .......................................69,818,310 lbs.
Railway car axles, with wheels .........................................................45,900,258 lbs.
Railway locomotive car axles with-
out wheels ..........................................................................................1,632,615 lbs.
Railway locomotive car axles with
wheels.......................................................................................................2,190,959 lbs.


Some of the railway supplies that the US provided, Boiler tubes were listed separately, and there were some categories that just lumped a bunch of things together.

One item was 28,500 tons of railroad spikes, Not a particularly sophisticated item (junior apprentice blacksmith stuff) but it wasn't just locomotives and rail cars.

Again, with the US supplying this kind of stuff the Soviets could concentrate on weapons.

The US did not save the Russian railways in 1942-43 (and I never claimed they did) but the Russian railways ability to support any major advances in 1944 45 without US aid is also dubious.

Unless we go back to the argument that the soviets didn't need this stuff, they just asked for and threw it in warehouses to be used later?

Please look at the link I posted, the list is around 26-27 pages and is supposed to be what the Soviets received not what was shipped.

Shortround6 said:

80 octane is what they used in PO-2s.

Click to expand...

And lawnmowers....same engine, you see!

ljadw said:

An increase of the power of the Merlin engine by 30 % was NOT sufficient to make a Spitfire operating at ''peak efficiency ''.

Click to expand...

The following may help from Wiki

From late 1939, 100-octane fuel became available from the U.S., West Indies, Persia, and, in smaller quantities, domestically,[53] consequently, "... in the first half of 1940 the RAF transferred all Hurricane and Spitfire squadrons to 100 octane fuel."[54] Small modifications were made to Merlin II and III series engines, allowing an increased (emergency) boost pressure of +12 pounds per square inch (183 kPa; 1.85 atm). At this power setting these engines were able to produce 1,310 horsepower (977 kW) at 9,000 ft (2,700 m) while running at 3,000 revolutions per minute.

• Merlin II (RM 1S)
  1,030 hp (775 kW) at 3,000 rpm at 5,500 ft (1,676 m) using + 6 psi boost (41 kPa gauge; or an absolute pressure of 144 kPa or 1.41 atm); used 100% glycol coolant. First production Merlin II delivered 10 August 1937.[14] Merlin II used in the Boulton Paul Defiant, Hawker Hurricane Mk.I, Supermarine Spitfire Mk.I fighters, and Fairey Battle light bomber.[98]
  
  
• Merlin III (RM 1S)
  Merlin III fitted with "universal" propeller shaft able to mount either de Havilland or Rotol propellers.[99] From late 1939, using 100-octane fuel and +12 psi boost (83 kPa gauge; or an absolute pressure of 184 kPa or 1.82 atm), the Merlin III developed 1,310 hp (977 kW) at 3,000 rpm at 9,000 ft (2,700 m);[55] using 87-octane fuel the power ratings were the same as the Merlin II. Used in the Defiant, Hurricane Mk.I, Spitfire Mk.I fighters, and Battle light bomber.[98] First production Merlin III delivered 1 July 1938.[14]

My contention is that any aircraft with an engine producing 1,310 horsepower is going to have a significant advantage over one with a 1,030 hp engine and for that you nee the 100 octane fuel

And ,even if this was possible, that would not make the Russian pilot to shoot German aircraft or more German aircraft than an other pilot using a Russian fighter . : the situation at the Eastern front was totally different : there was no air battle of the SU : mostly German and Soviet aircraft did not see an opponent when they were patrolling .

Click to expand...

First of all it clearly it was possible.
Secondly you are simply wrong if you believe that there was no air battle of the SU. The P39 was chosen for the Russian forces because the IL2 GA needed cover from fighters

Glider said:

The following may help from Wiki

From late 1939, 100-octane fuel became available from the U.S., West Indies, Persia, and, in smaller quantities, domestically,[53] consequently, "... in the first half of 1940 the RAF transferred all Hurricane and Spitfire squadrons to 100 octane fuel."[54] Small modifications were made to Merlin II and III series engines, allowing an increased (emergency) boost pressure of +12 pounds per square inch (183 kPa; 1.85 atm). At this power setting these engines were able to produce 1,310 horsepower (977 kW) at 9,000 ft (2,700 m) while running at 3,000 revolutions per minute.

• Merlin II (RM 1S)
  1,030 hp (775 kW) at 3,000 rpm at 5,500 ft (1,676 m) using + 6 psi boost (41 kPa gauge; or an absolute pressure of 144 kPa or 1.41 atm); used 100% glycol coolant. First production Merlin II delivered 10 August 1937.[14] Merlin II used in the Boulton Paul Defiant, Hawker Hurricane Mk.I, Supermarine Spitfire Mk.I fighters, and Fairey Battle light bomber.[98]
  
  
• Merlin III (RM 1S)
  Merlin III fitted with "universal" propeller shaft able to mount either de Havilland or Rotol propellers.[99] From late 1939, using 100-octane fuel and +12 psi boost (83 kPa gauge; or an absolute pressure of 184 kPa or 1.82 atm), the Merlin III developed 1,310 hp (977 kW) at 3,000 rpm at 9,000 ft (2,700 m);[55] using 87-octane fuel the power ratings were the same as the Merlin II. Used in the Defiant, Hurricane Mk.I, Spitfire Mk.I fighters, and Battle light bomber.[98] First production Merlin III delivered 1 July 1938.[14]

My contention is that any aircraft with an engine producing 1,310 horsepower is going to have a significant advantage over one with a 1,030 hp engine and for that you nee the 100 octane fuel



First of all it clearly it was possible.
Secondly you are simply wrong if you believe that there was no air battle of the SU. The P39 was chosen for the Russian forces because the IL2 GA needed cover from fighters

Click to expand...

You are ignoring the human role = the role of the pilot, of the crew,of the ground crew .
There was an air battle of Britain, but no air battle of the Soviet Union .
The importance of aviation in the German- Soviet war was much less than in the German-Wallies war , one of the reasons ( main reason? ) was the length of the front ,which was several thousands of km , and the almost absence of targets for the air forces. The Soviet war industry was safe at the Urals. The LW never attacked Magnitogorsk .The Douhet doctrine did not apply and was not tried in the USSR .
And, about the role of the fighters : it was, on both sides, subordinated to the bombers .
The chance that short range fighters would meet long range bombers,was very small .
About the P 39 : it remained an unknown ,alien aircraft for Soviet pilots, as would remain Soviet fighters for US pilots .
And, who did chose the P 39 for the East ? Soviets who had no knowledge of the P 39 or Americans,who had no knowledge of the East ?
What were the losses of the P 39 (combat/non combat ) ? Were they higher /lower than the combat/non combat losses of Soviet fighters ? And ,why ?
Is it not so that it was easier to train Russian pilots on Soviet aircraft than on Western aircraft? And that it was easier for Soviet pilots to fly Soviet aircraft than Western aircraft ?
The RAF did not like its P 39 and they were sent to the Soviets .
4719 P 39 fighters were sent to the Soviet Union,1030 were lost ( we don't know why so few were lost , maybe they were not much used ) We also don't know how many were lost by the German Flak and how many German aircraft were lost by the P 39 s.
Losses 1942 : 49
1943 : 305
1944 : 486
1945 : 190

Thumpalumpacus said:

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'.

Click to expand...

The thing is, Hitler's move west against France in 1940 was simply a "necessary evil" which attempted to avoid a two-front war. Hitler's goal all along was the establishment of lebensraum (living space) for the "superior" Germanic peoples at the expense of the "inferior" Slavic peoples. Attacking Russia wasn't an afterthought; it was the central pillar of Hitler's policies going all the way back to Mein Kampf.

Hitler felt he had to knock the Western European Allies out of the war first because he still feared being surrounded by treaties between the USSR and the Western Allies. Remember that France and the Soviet Union had signed a Treaty of Mutual Assistance in 1935 that, in theory, was still in force in 1940 (although in practical terms it was as dead as a doornail).

The title of the thread is the "most important battle of WW2." I still say that was the BoB. If Britain had followed France and pulled out of the war, there would have been no second front against Hitler. There would be no jumping-off point for an Allied invasion force, and hence America would have been standing alone against both Germany and Japan (and it could do precious little militarily to the former except keep trying to funnel arms and material to the USSR). Nazi Germany may still not have prevailed against the USSR but that would simply mean Western Europe swapping Nazi oppression for Soviet oppression.

Lose the BoB and the entire future of the western world would have been very different, and very much worse, with no moving "forward into broad, sunlit uplands" that Churchill so longed to see. For me, it was the defining moment, the first time, when democracy stood up against autocratic regimes and prevailed. There can be no more important emblem for liberty and freedom. You can't say that about any of the other battles we've discussed on this thread.

Hitler didn't have to invade France in 1940. He choose it.

One aspect of war history is the use of the words compelled or forced or had to. And it drives me up the wall.

Hitler wanted war. He chose war. He liked it. He was good at it. He was alive.

It is crystal clear with plenty evidence that Hitler wanted war. And war he got.

buffnut453 said:

The aircraft provided to the Commonwealth did not have to transit the trans-Atlantic supply chain. My question is not about the validity or significance of Lend Lease. It's about the Battle of the Atlantic being the most important battle of WW2.

Click to expand...

More basic than tanks or aircraft: Britain was not self-sufficient in food. The Battle of the Atlantic was a very long action to prevent the siege of the UK.

ljadw said:

You are ignoring the human role = the role of the pilot, of the crew,of the ground crew .
There was an air battle of Britain, but no air battle of the Soviet Union .
The importance of aviation in the German- Soviet war was much less than in the German-Wallies war , one of the reasons ( main reason? ) was the length of the front ,which was several thousands of km , and the almost absence of targets for the air forces. The Soviet war industry was safe at the Urals. The LW never attacked Magnitogorsk .The Douhet doctrine did not apply and was not tried in the USSR .
And, about the role of the fighters : it was, on both sides, subordinated to the bombers .
The chance that short range fighters would meet long range bombers,was very small .
About the P 39 : it remained an unknown ,alien aircraft for Soviet pilots, as would remain Soviet fighters for US pilots .
And, who did chose the P 39 for the East ? Soviets who had no knowledge of the P 39 or Americans,who had no knowledge of the East ?
What were the losses of the P 39 (combat/non combat ) ? Were they higher /lower than the combat/non combat losses of Soviet fighters ? And ,why ?
Is it not so that it was easier to train Russian pilots on Soviet aircraft than on Western aircraft? And that it was easier for Soviet pilots to fly Soviet aircraft than Western aircraft ?
The RAF did not like its P 39 and they were sent to the Soviets .
4719 P 39 fighters were sent to the Soviet Union,1030 were lost ( we don't know why so few were lost , maybe they were not much used ) We also don't know how many were lost by the German Flak and how many German aircraft were lost by the P 39 s.
Losses 1942 : 49
1943 : 305
1944 : 486
1945 : 190

Click to expand...

Stalin asked for more P-39s at some point. He didn't want P-40s. The P-63 was built mostly for Russia.
You are correct, Britain unloaded the P-39s they didn't want on the Soviets. However this was just before and during losing Singapore and Malaysia having used a small number of Buffaloes to defend the area, Britain didn't have lot of good choices for aircraft to send.
During most of 1941 and early 1942 the I-16 was the most common Soviet fighter. Soviets also had thousands of biplane fighters. P-39 might not have looked so bad?

we may be having a language barrier. "and the almost absence of targets for the air forces."

The Russians built around 36,000 IL-2s during the war, I am assuming they used them on something, some sort of target?
The Russians also used just under 11,000 PE-2s and got about 3000 A-20s lend lease (of course these were immediately placed in storage and not used in combat, right?)
Russians built around 5,000 IL-4s from 1941 on, not counting existing DB-3s.

Granted there was not a lot of long range bombing going on but there were plenty of targets for for the Air Forces on both sides.

swampyankee said:

More basic than tanks or aircraft: Britain was not self-sufficient in food.

Click to expand...

Yes, and as I've said earlier in the thread, if Britain lost the Battle of Britain, then the Battle of the Atlantic becomes irrelevant.

I've asked a couple of times about the quantities of food and other non-military supplies but I've yet to find/receive any really solid answers. Bear in mind that Britain was still receiving supplies from across the Empire, not just from the U.S. Again, Germany simply did not have a sufficient fleet size to stop all the various supply routes, even though we often focus on supplies from the U.S.

According to this website, Britain was importing 20 million tons of food per year at the start of WW2. That amount was halved during the war due to rationing and aggressive action by the British Government through various means to increase agricultural production (e.g. Dig for Victory). Despite that 50% reduction, food consumption only reduced by 10% overall. Also, these changes didn't negatively impact the population: infant mortality in Britain actually reduced from 58 per thousand to 45 per thousand.

If we can quantify how much food was actually needed/received across the Atlantic bridge, we might be able to make a more informed evaluation as to the real importance of the Battle of the Atlantic. I still don't really understand what "losing the Battle of the Atlantic" would look like, given that completely halting supplies crossing the Atlantic seems impossible.

buffnut453 said:

The thing is, Hitler's move west against France in 1940 was simply a "necessary evil" which attempted to avoid a two-front war. Hitler's goal all along was the establishment of lebensraum (living space) for the "superior" Germanic peoples at the expense of the "inferior" Slavic peoples. Attacking Russia wasn't an afterthought; it was the central pillar of Hitler's policies going all the way back to Mein Kampf.

Hitler felt he had to knock the Western European Allies out of the war first because he still feared being surrounded by treaties between the USSR and the Western Allies. Remember that France and the Soviet Union had signed a Treaty of Mutual Assistance in 1935 that, in theory, was still in force in 1940 (although in practical terms it was as dead as a doornail).

The title of the thread is the "most important battle of WW2." I still say that was the BoB. If Britain had followed France and pulled out of the war, there would have been no second front against Hitler. There would be no jumping-off point for an Allied invasion force, and hence America would have been standing alone against both Germany and Japan (and it could do precious little militarily to the former except keep trying to funnel arms and material to the USSR). Nazi Germany may still not have prevailed against the USSR but that would simply mean Western Europe swapping Nazi oppression for Soviet oppression.

Lose the BoB and the entire future of the western world would have been very different, and very much worse, with no moving "forward into broad, sunlit uplands" that Churchill so longed to see. For me, it was the defining moment, the first time, when democracy stood up against autocratic regimes and prevailed. There can be no more important emblem for liberty and freedom. You can't say that about any of the other battles we've discussed on this thread.

Click to expand...

That's the old traditional but wrong POV :Hitler was not going west because he feared a coalition of the Wallies and the Soviets . This coalition was created by Hitler himself on June 22 1941 .Hitler went west because of the simple fact that the Wallies had declared war on him on September 3 1939 .
And, there is no proof that if Britain had given up , Hitler would have attacked the USSR .Besides,if Britain had given up , Hitler would be weaker in the east ( he would need 40 more divisions in the west ) .And if the SU had defeated Hitler on its own, it would not have occupied western Europe, for the simple reason that it had not the means to do it .It had already the greatest problems to occupy eastern Europe .
Last point : loosing the Battle of Britain was impossible and also irrelevant,because even if the LW won the Battle of Britain, Sealion remained totally impossible : the Germans had no transport fleet for their invasion force and no war ships to protect the transport fleet .

ljadw said:

That's the old traditional but wrong POV :Hitler was not going west because he feared a coalition of the Wallies and the Soviets . This coalition was created by Hitler himself on June 22 1941 .Hitler went west because of the simple fact that the Wallies had declared war on him on September 3 1939.

Click to expand...

And the Western Allies declared war because of Germany's attack on Poland, the population of which included Slavs and other "lower" populations. Hitler's policy was rooted in what he saw as the failure of Germany to support its armed forces during the Great War. A key challenge for Germany during WW1 was the lack of self-sufficiency in food and materials, made worse by the Entente Powers' blockade. Hitler didn't want that happening again so he sought to achieve that self-sufficiency (autarky) by taking neighbouring lands away from "lesser" peoples.

Hitler didn't want a two-front war and so he sought to avoid that by attacking France. Thankfully, because Britain held out alone, it simply ended up ensuring there was a two-front war...which would ultimately seal Nazi Germany's doom.

ljadw said:

And, there is no proof that if Britain had given up , Hitler would have attacked the USSR .Besides,if Britain had given up , Hitler would be weaker in the east ( he would need 40 more divisions in the west ).

Click to expand...

Really? Have you actually studied the origins of WW2? Have you read ANY of the Nazi writings about lebensraum and the need for pure, Germanic peoples to take over the lands occupied by "lesser" populations like the Slavs? Hitler was going to attack Russia, period. It was the entire ethos of his "grand plan".

ljadw said:

.And if the SU had defeated Hitler on its own, it would not have occupied western Europe, for the simple reason that it had not the means to do it .It had already the greatest problems to occupy eastern Europe.

Click to expand...

With Britain out of the war, who on earth was there to stop the USSR from steamrollering into Western Europe? Please explain. I'd be delighted to hear. Are you suggesting that the USSR, yet another autocratic regime, would simply give Western Europe it's freedom? Sorry, I just don't buy that.

ljadw said:

Last point : loosing the Battle of Britain was impossible and also irrelevant,because even if the LW won the Battle of Britain, Sealion remained totally impossible : the Germans had no transport fleet for their invasion force and no war ships to protect the transport fleet .

Click to expand...

You don't need to invade to knock an adversary out of the war. Had 11 Group been forced to retreat, exposing London, it's entirely possible that Parliament would have initiated a no-confidence vote in Churchill's leadership. Replace Churchill with an appeaser, and Britain is out of the war with no need for invasion.

We've discussed this several times on other threads, and it would take a lot of focus and luck to achieve this aim....but losing the Battle of Britain was a possibility.

buffnut453 said:

Yes, and as I've said earlier in the thread, if Britain lost the Battle of Britain, then the Battle of the Atlantic becomes irrelevant.

I've asked a couple of times about the quantities of food and other non-military supplies but I've yet to find/receive any really solid answers. Bear in mind that Britain was still receiving supplies from across the Empire, not just from the U.S. Again, Germany simply did not have a sufficient fleet size to stop all the various supply routes, even though we often focus on supplies from the U.S.

According to this website, Britain was importing 20 million tons of food per year at the start of WW2. That amount was halved during the war due to rationing and aggressive action by the British Government through various means to increase agricultural production (e.g. Dig for Victory). Despite that 50% reduction, food consumption only reduced by 10% overall. Also, these changes didn't negatively impact the population: infant mortality in Britain actually reduced from 58 per thousand to 45 per thousand.

If we can quantify how much food was actually needed/received across the Atlantic bridge, we might be able to make a more informed evaluation as to the real importance of the Battle of the Atlantic. I still don't really understand what "losing the Battle of the Atlantic" would look like, given that completely halting supplies crossing the Atlantic seems impossible.

Click to expand...

I would advise as source :
German submarine blockade,overseas imports and British military production in WW II ( by Erin Weir , a Canadian )
ONE example (Table 11 ):the home production of potatoes went up from 5,218 million ton in 1939 to 9,791 million in 1945 . This compensated the decrease of meat imports .

ljadw said:

I would advise as source :
German submarine blockade,overseas imports and British military production in WW II ( by Erin Weir , a Canadian )
ONE example (Table 11 ):the home production of potatoes went up from 5,218 million ton in 1939 to 9,791 million in 1945 . This compensated the decrease of meat imports .

Click to expand...

Many thanks for that pointer. Some really great data in that paper.

ljadw said:

You are ignoring the human role = the role of the pilot, of the crew,of the ground crew .
There was an air battle of Britain, but no air battle of the Soviet Union .
The importance of aviation in the German- Soviet war was much less than in the German-Wallies war , one of the reasons ( main reason? ) was the length of the front ,which was several thousands of km , and the almost absence of targets for the air forces. The Soviet war industry was safe at the Urals. The LW never attacked Magnitogorsk .The Douhet doctrine did not apply and was not tried in the USSR .
And, about the role of the fighters : it was, on both sides, subordinated to the bombers .
The chance that short range fighters would meet long range bombers,was very small .

Click to expand...

Interestingly, I agree with a lot of the above, there was no set piece air battle for Russia in the same way there was a set piece Battle of Britain. There were plenty of targets for the airforces but the length of the front line did stretch out all forces including the airforces and neither side had heavy bombers.

About the P 39 : it remained an unknown ,alien aircraft for Soviet pilots, as would remain Soviet fighters for US pilots .
And, who did chose the P 39 for the East ? Soviets who had no knowledge of the P 39 or Americans,who had no knowledge of the East ?

Click to expand...

Russia chose the P39, it was used extensively and was often modified to meet the requirements of the Russan airforce. To believe that the P39 was an unknown alien aircraft to the Russian pilots is so far off the mark it's unbelievable.

As for who asked for it, no less a person than Stalin as shown in the following document that I copied in the UK National Archives

buffnut453 said:

And the Western Allies declared war because of Germany's attack on Poland, the population of which included Slavs and other "lower" populations. Hitler's policy was rooted in what he saw as the failure of Germany to support its armed forces during the Great War. A key challenge for Germany during WW1 was the lack of self-sufficiency in food and materials, made worse by the Entente Powers' blockade. Hitler didn't want that happening again so he sought to achieve that self-sufficiency (autarky) by taking neighbouring lands away from "lesser" peoples.

Hitler didn't want a two-front war and so he sought to avoid that by attacking France. Thankfully, because Britain held out alone, it simply ended up ensuring there was a two-front war...which would ultimately seal Nazi Germany's doom.




Really? Have you actually studied the origins of WW2? Have you read ANY of the Nazi writings about lebensraum and the need for pure, Germanic peoples to take over the lands occupied by "lesser" populations like the Slavs? Hitler was going to attack Russia, period. It was the entire ethos of his "grand plan".




With Britain out of the war, who on earth was there to stop the USSR from steamrollering into Western Europe? Please explain. I'd be delighted to hear. Are you suggesting that the USSR, yet another autocratic regime, would simply give Western Europe it's freedom? Sorry, I just don't buy that.




You don't need to invade to knock an adversary out of the war. Had 11 Group been forced to retreat, exposing London, it's entirely possible that Parliament would have initiated a no-confidence vote in Churchill's leadership. Replace Churchill with an appeaser, and Britain is out of the war with no need for invasion.

We've discussed this several times on other threads, and it would take a lot of focus and luck to achieve this aim....but losing the Battle of Britain was a possibility.

Click to expand...

Autarky : this would only be needed if Germany was involved in a big war with the Wallies+ the Soviets (or without the Soviets ) and, it was Hitler who created this big war .
The shortage of food was not the cause of Barbarossa, but the result of Barbarossa .There was no food shortage in December 1940 when Hitler approved Barbarossa .
There was no two fronts war when Hitler attacked in the West on May 10 1940 .The Soviet Union was never a danger for Hitler .
Lebensraum : this had nothing to do with the outbreak of WWII . You make the mistake by assuming that Hitler's foreign policy was dictated by Mein Kampf (written in 1925 ! ).There was nothing special with Hitler's foreign policy and every knew this : it was the policy of the Weimar Republic with as aim to undo the Treaty of Versailles .
Hitler was convinced that in the FUTURE there would be a war with the Soviets, but when ? He didn't know .
We know very well the reasons for Barbarossa : it was not Lebensraum,Lebensraum would be the result of a successful Barbarossa, but not the cause .
The reason for Barbarossa was the failure to force Britain to give up .Hitler was convinced that Britain continued the war because it hoped on the aid of the US and the Soviets.As he could do nothing against the US, he decided to eliminate the Soviets,hoping that this would strengthen the position of Japan and prevent the US from interfering in the war with Britain .If Britain had given up , there would be no reason to attack the USSR.
What Hillgruber may say : Hitler had no grand plan . He reacted to the events .
About the Soviets steamrolling Western Europe in 1945 : not only they had not the means to do it, but they had no reason to do it .WHY would they invade Western Europe ?The result would be only an additional burden for the SU.
They had already the greatest difficulty to impose law and order (their law and order ) in Eastern Europe (some 100 million people ) when in 1948 Tito seceded , Stalin did nothing . Why ? Because he had not the means to do something against Tito .
The occupation of Western Europe ( 150 million people ) would demand an occupation army of 1 million men. Stalin had not this additional 1 million men available .And, how long could he trust his occupation forces in Western Europe ,who would be contaminated by democracy and capitalism ?
About the Battle of Britain,there is no proof at all for the assumption that Britain would give up if Group 11 was forced to withdrawn to the north .Hoare would never have a majority in the Commons : the Tories followed Chamberlain (till his death Britain was directed by the duo Chamberlain/Churchill and Chamberlain was a supporter of war to the end .) ,neither are there proofs that Hoare was still an appeaser in the Summer of 1940 .