GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
By September 1939, the RAF had 187 Spitfires in service with 119 in reserve.
By September 1939, the Regia Aeronautica only had 89 G.50s and 77 MC.200s in service.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
By September 1939, the RAF had 187 Spitfires in service with 119 in reserve.This situation has Italy declare war in sept 1939
the spitfires were not in large numbers during the battle of Britain let alone battle of france
and the Italian c.200 and g.50 were comparable to the hurricanes
cr.42 and 32 would have been ok in defending the airspace too
by 1940, around the battle of France there were a bit moreBy September 1939, the RAF had 187 Spitfires in service with 119 in reserve.
By September 1939, the Regia Aeronautica only had 89 G.50s and 77 MC.200s in service.
There was a bit more all across the board, but since you mentioned Italy declaring war in 1939...by 1940, around the battle of France there were a bit more
yes but in the scenario, the allies waited for Germany to invade like they did in real lifeThere was a bit more all across the board, but since you mentioned Italy declaring war in 1939...
And to add to the above numbers:
In 1939, Germany had 449 Bf109s and several He112s.
so true so many look past this because the soviets helped us defeat the nazis but little do these num nums realize one powerful, terrible dictator was replaced by another.How exactly is invading another country remaining neutral? The Soviets and Germans had a non-aggression pact that divided up the spoils of eastern Europe. Tell the Poles, Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians and Finns that the Soviet occupation of their land was to protect them from Nazi aggression. While not formally allied, the Soviets were definitely not neutral. What is true is that the western powers did not declare war on the Soviet Union when they occupied the eastern half of Poland, nor did they attempt to interfere with the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states, other to send a bit of war material to Finland, when they resisted the Soviet ultimatum.
so true so many look past this because the soviets helped us defeat the nazis but little do these num nums realize one powerful, terrible dictator was replaced by another.
In 1939, Germany had a top of the line airforce and a top of the line Army, both well equipped and well trained - they were anything but weak.yes but in the scenario, the allies waited for Germany to invade like they did in real life
but to be honest if they had Italy they might have pushed Germanys weak defences in 1939
612 sparievo bombers to bomb Munich or to be used as tactical bombing
Again, was there enough to mount a meaningful campaign against a formidable Luftwaffe?
With a top speed of 290mph, they would have been dead meat against Bf109s and Bf110s.612 sparievo bombers to bomb Munich or to be used as tactical bombing
The German attack on Poland was no surprise to the Soviets,neither to the Poles and the Wallies .How long do you estimate the Russians would need to mount an attack on Poland if the German attack on Poland was as much of a surprise to them as it was to Poland itself? Tosdig and WilliaM in 1066 coordinated their attacks. The Battle of Stamford Bridge near York was on 25th September (they landed weeks before) while the battle of Hastings was on 14 October. That is a coordinated attack, Stalin going into Poland was opportunism and real politik. Why should he accept any German army to camp on his border, he just moved the border further away.
When the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact became public,it was obvious for every one thatThe unspoken premise in your post is that the Poles knew the Soviets planned to invade. If they did not know that, they could not, speaking logically, have made a choice between one occupier and two. Did the Poles have foreknowledge of Soviet plans to invade on the 17th?
It seems to me that the Poles only had the choice of defending against the Germans, or rolling over and submitting. I think we here will all agree that that is no real choice at all.
The only choice the Poles made regarding the presence of Soviet troops on their territory, to my knowledge, was to categorically reject that avenue of assistance when the pact with UK and France was being hammered out and the Brits (iirc) floated the idea as one way of addressing the German threat. That's according to Shirer, but I don't have the book handy and can't give the page number.
What the hell are you talking about.When the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact became public,it was obvious for every one that
a Hitler would attack very soon Poland
b that he would let Easteren Poland to the Soviets,because the Soviets opposed a German occupation of a region mainly populated by Ukrainians .
I cant be bothered with this nonsense anymore, we all know how it ends.When the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact became public,it was obvious for every one that
a Hitler would attack very soon Poland
b that he would let Easteren Poland to the Soviets,because the Soviets opposed a German occupation of a region mainly populated by Ukrainians .
I think that I know European geography better than you .What the hell are you talking about.
Do you even know European geography??
This is not correct : in WWI the Italians fought, without any success, several battles on the Isonzo, and finally suffered a big defeat at Caporetto when the Germans intervened.yes but in the scenario, the allies waited for Germany to invade like they did in real life
but to be honest if they had Italy they might have pushed Germanys weak defences in 1939
When the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact became public,it was obvious for every one that
a Hitler would attack very soon Poland
b that he would let Easteren Poland to the Soviets,because the Soviets opposed a German occupation of a region mainly populated by Ukrainians .
I disagree with this :It seems to me that the Poles only had the choice of defending against the Germans, or rolling over and submitting. I think we here will all agree that that is no real choice at all.