WI: No Battle of Britain

Horton229 · Apr 18, 2014

What if, in a syphilitic haze (or equivalent) Hitler had decided that he did not want to fight the the British? He had France and Spain was neutral, so his western flank was in his mind relatively safe. And he REALLY wanted Russia.

As such, he decided in say July 1940 that there was no need to prepare for an invasion of Britain. There is no attempt to win air superiority to cover Eumetopias Jubatus, and no Blitz.

How would Britain continue to persecute the war against Germany. Whilst Britain are still at war with Germany, there would seem to be a bit of a gap as to what would actually be possible. Britain would continue attacks on Germany, but Germany could focus all of the 'lost' fighters' on defense against these attacks (not at night I guess).

Germany may or may not continue attacks on "strategic" targets (e.g. aircraft factories, ports) in a de facto defensive manner and the Battle of the Atlantic may/may not continue.

What are the implications for the wider conflict? Obviously short term, Germany and Britain don't lose nearly as many aircraft. Britain can continue to build a bigger war machine unmolested, but does the savings of aircraft and pilots help Germany in the East? Might this lead to greater savings in North Africa?

Perfidious Albion · Apr 18, 2014

North Africa is doomed anyway, even if there are short-term gains; you can't win a theatre where your supply lines are so weak, even if your commanders are all geniuses (the German campaign in Africa in the First World War is a good example of that, and it's vaguely amusing that Germany didn't learn the obvious lesson). In the east, though, the extra German planes will be very useful against the Soviets (though most of the early successes came from destroying Soviet planes on the ground), and I'd imagine that that's where many of them would go.

Horton229 · Apr 18, 2014

Perfidious Albion said:
North Africa is doomed anyway, even if there are short-term gains; you can't win a theatre where your supply lines are so weak, even if your commanders are all geniuses.

So, ignoring the impossibility of a rational Adolf, what if he doesn't worry about Africa either. He 'only' went there to save Benni.

Deleted member 1487 · Apr 18, 2014

For one thing the LW would be much stronger for Barbarossa. They would have a lot more fuel and over 2000 more aircraft (losses from BoB and Blitz). They would have time to train and refit, while the British would attack them instead, an early version of their 'circus' attacks in 1941. Basically the British would find that they would be in a reverse BoB, just like IOTL when they tried to take the fight to Germany. Britain would try to strategically bomb ineffectively and try to bomb with Blenheims against German targets that are near by, losing 100% of these in the attempts, just like IOTL.

Basically it would be a smarter move in terms of LW preparations, as they could train, catch their breath, and make good the massive losses of the French invasion. Britain squanders its air strength ineffectively in 1940-41, but have the resources to make good on it. They probably successfully start their counter attack in Africa sooner here without the invasion fear and bombing to defend against. Britain doesn't realize its night defenses suck, so if the Germans come at them later, they haven't learned the important lessons of 1940-41. Germany too doesn't learn the lessons of 1940-41, but given the losses those lessons cost, its probably a better trade for them. The British war economy is better off without the bombing of its cities and loss of 40,000 civilians killed, not to mention nearly 100,000 wounded.
Perhaps the public begins to wonder why it makes sense to fight a second 'phoney war' in the meantime?

Britain goes on a bigger bombing offensive sooner in Europe and finds its night bombing methods suck earlier, while the Germans don't have as much time to figure out night fighting technologies, but in the East they are doing a lot better thanks to the lack of losses of the BoB and Blitz. In the end the West does better, the Soviets worse, while the LW is a tougher enemy all around.

Horton229 · Apr 18, 2014

wiking said:
For one thing the LW would be much stronger for Barbarossa...
in the East they are doing a lot better thanks to the lack of losses of the BoB and Blitz.

But, strong enough? A lot better, but enough better?

Willmatron · Apr 18, 2014

Without attacks on Britain and any possible defeats being on foreign territory there's a chance people in Britain might want an end of hostilities, especially if there's a perceived chance Germany being soft on France.

This would work if Hitler made a broadcast that actually made it into England where he did not want war, but I don't know the odds on that.

Saphroneth · Apr 18, 2014

Willmatron said:
Without attacks on Britain and any possible defeats being on foreign territory there's a chance people in Britain might want an end of hostilities, especially if there's a perceived chance Germany being soft on France.

This would work if Hitler made a broadcast that actually made it into England where he did not want war, but I don't know the odds on that.

I think it's a bit late for that. Seriously, by this point Hitler has professed "that was my last expansion" about six times, getting worse each time.

(Versailles military limitations like the existence of the Luftwaffe, demilitarization of the Rhineland, Anschluss, then the Sudeten agreement, the rest of Czechoslovakia, Memel and finally Danzig. And then he invaded neutral Norway, and then the Belenux countries for good measure.
Hitler at this point is seen asutterly unreasonable and willing to break any agreement as soon as it suits him.)

Horton229 · Apr 18, 2014

Saphroneth said:
I think it's a bit late for that. Seriously, by this point Hitler has professed "that was my last expansion" about six times, getting worse each time.

Agree it seems inconceivable that any leadership in Britain would sue for peace no matter what Hitler said. In addition, I am not ruling out some limited continuation of the conflict against Britain - possibly the BoA continuing. It is more around the (relatively) short term impacts of not losing the aircraft & experienced pilots and Barbarossa, which may butterfly into something more.

Whilst the RAF and Britain in general can consolidate and expand, if Germany somehow managed to "win" to some extent in Russia, obtain additional resources there (granted difficult still), the limitations on their industrial might be slight reduced. Added capacity in steel, oil and food might allow more construction for example.

I realise there is only so much slave/captive labour can produce/be trusted to produce, and there are security concerns, so manpower is still a problem, but that might be considered a step up from both resource and manpower issues. And of course if there is any semblance of victory in the East, the Germans are losing less men there in the fighting, and using less resources.

Deleted member 1487 · Apr 18, 2014

Horton229 said:
But, strong enough? A lot better, but enough better?

Enough for what? Barbarossa is unwinnable in terms of knocking the USSR out of the war, but the extra German planes would inflict heavier losses on the Soviets, while probably saving the Germans some losses on the ground.

The time off for R&R would allow for training and more pilots to get into service, so training schools aren't stripped of instructors, which has virtuous circle benefits down the road; for one things pilots could be rotated instead of flown to death, which dramatically increases pilot survival and rookie proficiency/survival. The Ju88 can be properly phased in, while the Do17 can be phased out, along with some He111 phase out in favor of the early Do217s. When the Mediterranean campaign happens the Germans are better prepared for it, just as when the heavy losses of 1941 play out the LW will have a reserve built up that can carry them into 1942.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain

2,698 aircrew killed[11]
967 captured
638 missing bodies identified by British authorities[12]
1,887 aircraft destroyed[nb 8]

^873 fighters and 1,014 bombers destroyed.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz

3,363 aircrew
2,265 aircraft (Summer 1940 – May 1941)[6]

I suppose all told the BoB and Blitz together cost over 2200 aircraft and crews, which would have been extremely helpful over Russia and the Mediterranean, especially the Ju87s and Bf110s:

Luftwaffe

Type Losses
Junkers Ju 87 74
Junkers Ju 88 281
Dornier Do 17 171
Dornier Do 215 6
Heinkel He 56 31
Heinkel He 111 246
Heinkel He 115 28
Henschel Hs 126 7
Messerschmitt Bf 109 533
Messerschmitt Bf 110 229
Total 1562

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_110_operational_history#Eastern_Front

Eastern Front[edit]
Just 51 air worthy Bf 110s took part in the initial rounds of Operation Barbarossa, and all were from three units; ZG 26, Schnellkampfgeschwader 210 (redesignated from Erprobungsgruppe 210) and ZG 76. The Bf 110 rendered valuable support to the German Army by carrying out strike missions in the face of very heavy anti-aircraft artillery defences. A huge number of ground kills were achieved by Bf 110 pilots in the east. Some of the most successful were Leutnant Eduard Meyer, who received the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross on 20 December 1941 for 18 aerial victories and 48 aircraft destroyed on the ground, as well as two tank kills. Oberleutnant Johannes Kiel was credited with 62 aircraft destroyed on the ground, plus nine tanks and 20 artillery pieces. He was later credited with a submarine sunk and three motor torpedo boats sunk.[40]

The number of Bf 110s on the Eastern Front declined further during and after 1942. Most units that operated the 110 did so for reconnaissance. Most machines were withdrawn to Germany for the Defense of the Reich operations.

More Bf110s would have been extremely effective over the Eastern Front in 1941.

Its not though like the LW would not be in some combat in 1940-41, as they would have to defend against Britain attacks, but they would have a major advantage on the defensive just as per OTL in 1941-42 (really even early 1943). British losses would have been much higher and they wouldn't have learned the lessons of the BoB such as changing their fighter tactics, which relied on the flying Vee, which was dog meat for the finger four LW formations. There is a reason the British switched to night bombing, their day losses against the LW were far too high to sustain:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Blenheim

There were also some missions which produced an almost 100% casualty rate amongst the Blenheims; one such operation was mounted on 13 August 1940 against a Luftwaffe airfield near Aalborg in north-western Denmark by 12 aircraft of 82 Squadron. One Blenheim returned early (the pilot was later charged and due to appear before a court martial but was killed on another operation), the other 11, which reached Denmark, were shot down, five by flak and six by Bf 109s.[13]
Blenheim-equipped units had been formed to carry out long-range strategic reconnaissance missions over Germany and German-occupied territories, as well as bombing operations. In this role, the Blenheims once again proved to be too slow and vulnerable against Luftwaffe fighters and they took constant casualties.[14]

In the East the 1000+ extra bombers (probably some would end up in the Mediterranean though and the Do17s would be phased out and sent to training schools) would matter come 1942 for sure, as the extra strength would really hurt the Soviets. I doubt it would seriously change the army support role of the LW in the East, but it would ramp up Soviets losses compared to OTL and perhaps even allow for the LW to try and bomb the Soviets strategically, as they lacked the bombers to do so IOTL after 1941; here with greater reserves there would be that 'extra' force that could try and go for it. The Germans certainly identified the targets:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_111_operational_history

The He 111 operated in the same capacity as in previous campaigns on the Eastern Front. The bomber was asked to perform strategic bombing functions. Targeting Soviet industry had not been high on the OKL's agenda in 1941-42, but prior to the Battle of Kursk several attempts were made to destroy Soviet military production. The tank factory at Gorkovskiy Avtomobilniy Zavod (GAZ) was subjected to a series of heavy attacks throughout June 1943. On the night of 4/5 June, He 111s of Kampfgeschwader 1, KG 3, KG 4, KG 55 and KG 100 dropped 161 tonnes (179 tons) of bombs, causing massive destruction to buildings and production lines. All of GAZ No. 1 plant's 50 buildings, 9,000 m (29,500 ft) of conveyers, 5,900 pieces of equipment and 8,000 tank engines were destroyed.[56] However, the Germans made an error in target selection. The GAZ plant No. 1 produced only the T-70 light tank. Factory No. 112, the second-biggest producer of the more formidable T-34, continued production undisturbed. Soviet production facilities were repaired or rebuilt within six weeks. In 1943, Factory No. 112 produced 2,851 T-34s, 3,619 in 1944, and 3,255 in 1945.[56] The Luftwaffe had also failed to hit the Gorkiy Artillery Factory (No. 92) or the aircraft plant where the Lavochkin La-5 and La 5FN were made.[56] The Luftwaffe failed to disrupt the Soviet preparation for the coming battle, but the He 111 had proved capable of operating in a strategic role.
The He 111 also formed the core of the strategic bombing offensive later in the year. During the Soviet Lower Dnieper Offensive He 111 Geschwader performed strike missions. Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring issued an order to General Rudolf Meister's IV. Fliegerkorps on 14 October 1943:

I intend to initiate systematic attacks against the Russian arms industry by deploying the bulk of the heavy bomber units [mostly equipped with medium bombers] - reinforced by special units - which will be brought together under the command of IV. Fliegerkorps. The task will be to deal destructive strikes against the Russian arms industry in order to wipe out masses of Russian tanks, artillery pieces and aircraft before they reach the front, thus providing the hard-pressed Ostheer [East Army] with relief which will be much greater than if these bombers were deployed on the battlefield.[57][

Click to expand...

/QUOTE]

The Soviets would respond though:

Soviet fighter opposition had made strategic bombing in daylight too costly and so German bombers crews were retrained in the winter of 1943/44 to fly night operations. The offensive began on the night of the 27/28 March 1944, with some 180 to 190 He 111s taking part and dropping an average of 200 tons of bombs. On the night of 30 April/1 May 1944, 252 sorties were flown, the highest number during the offensive.[57] The targets were mainly Soviet marshalling yards in the western and eastern Ukraine.

Click to expand...

However with a 1942 start to strategic bombing there would be more forward bases for hitting targets like the Soviet synthetic rubber production in Yaroslavl, which was attempted IOTL to a low degree, before the Soviets had enough fighter and AAA defenses like in 1943-44. They might even have the strength to attempt a more limited version of Operation Eisenhammer, which the Soviets were extremely vulnerable to according to their records and German wartime records citing virtually no protection of their electrical production facilities.

http://www.amazon.com/The-German-Air-War-Russia/dp/1877853135
This book has a lot of information about it and involves research into the Soviet side of it, which indicates that had Soviet power plants and transmission stations been bombed then they would have lost a massive chunk of their manufacturing due to not being able to actually power their machine tools. In 1942 that would have been devastating and probably would have prevented something like the Stalingrad pocket from forming or at least being maintained due to lack of tanks to pull it off.

MattII · Apr 18, 2014

The western front turns into a second Phoney War, with both sides constantly upping the ante of a tactical air war. This works out better for Britain, because without the battle they realise invasion is unlikely, and so there's a much smaller call to delay future developments for immediate production.

Horton229 · Apr 18, 2014

wiking said:
Enough for what? Barbarossa is unwinnable in terms of knocking the USSR out of the war...

...had Soviet power plants and transmission stations been bombed then they would have lost a massive chunk of their manufacturing due to not being able to actually power their machine tools. In 1942 that would have been devastating and probably would have prevented something like the Stalingrad pocket from forming or at least being maintained due to lack of tanks to pull it off.

#1 - thanks for the very interesting response.
One query - you start by saying that Barbarossa is un-winnable.
However, you later talk about the miss-targeting of the strategic bombing - the T-34 & Gorkiy Artillery Factory, the La-5 & 5FN factory etc. And the devastating effect of knocking out the power plants.

Granted this necessitates a number of targeting corrections, but arguably the T-34 & La-5 factories are perfectly good targets so not a huge stretch.

Deleted member 1487 · Apr 18, 2014

Horton229 said:
#1 - thanks for the very interesting response.
One query - you start by saying that Barbarossa is un-winnable.
However, you later talk about the miss-targeting of the strategic bombing - the T-34 & Gorkiy Artillery Factory, the La-5 & 5FN factory etc. And the devastating effect of knocking out the power plants.

Granted this necessitates a number of targeting corrections, but arguably the T-34 & La-5 factories are perfectly good targets so not a huge stretch.

Barbarossa was the 1941 invasion and bombing those targets in that year is not feasible. However in 1942 and on it is. But by then Operation Barbarossa is over. Destroying industrial targets on its own isn't enough to win in the East, especially if Britain and the US are in the war. What it does do is open the possibility of a land stalemate in the East with the Soviets, as it badly disrupts their ability to outproduce the Germans, which makes deep battle impossible, so no major leaps by the Soviets even with US Lend-Lease and no major pockets in 1943-45 due to lack of armor, aircraft, trucks, etc. Germany can catch its breadth theoretically in the East and wear the Soviets down if they have to rely more on manpower than a flood a material to overwhelm the Germans. That doesn't mean the Germans can win; at best they can hold a line near the 1941 border in the East, but they still have to deal with the massive US and British bombing and the invasion at Normandy, which will make Nazi Germany's survival as a state very unlikely.

Willmatron · Apr 18, 2014

This is closer to the scenario we see more in ASB where Germany and the USSR tries to where each other down before the US and Britain invades?

Horton229 · Apr 18, 2014

wiking said:
Barbarossa was the 1941 invasion and bombing those targets in that year is not feasible. However in 1942 and on it is.

That doesn't mean the Germans can win; at best they can hold a line near the 1941 border in the East, but they still have to deal with the massive US and British bombing and the invasion at Normandy, which will make Nazi Germany's survival as a state very unlikely.

It is not really about Germany winning/surviving long term. It is about extending timelines. I will put some more thought into this - likely need someone to try to focus Hitler on the East. And less waste in the 1937-40 timeframe. I have seen a few other threads regarding massive waste in industry and the like, so will look into a POD that can avoid some of that.

Tom Colton · Apr 18, 2014

Horton229 said:
It is not really about Germany winning/surviving long term. It is about extending timelines. I will put some more thought into this - likely need someone to try to focus Hitler on the East. And less waste in the 1937-40 timeframe. I have seen a few other threads regarding massive waste in industry and the like, so will look into a POD that can avoid some of that.

A more efficient and pragmatic Nazi Germany, you say? Look no further...

Just Leo · Apr 18, 2014

Sorry to interrupt the important stuff, but without the BoB, Britain has a new heavy bomber rolling out from the unbombed Woolston facility, and conjecture can make it as good as projected, or not.

usertron2020 · Apr 18, 2014

Just Leo said:
Sorry to interrupt the important stuff, but without the BoB, Britain has a new heavy bomber rolling out from the unbombed Woolston facility, and conjecture can make it as good as projected, or not.

What bomber is that?

Anaxagoras · Apr 18, 2014

It's really not an option to just ignore the British. Sooner or later, Bomber Command is going to come over to pound German cities. Hitler is not going to let that happen without retaliation.

usertron2020 · Apr 18, 2014

There is the possibility that Britain concentrates on the BoA more, but get creamed in Greece still, leading to a seesaw war little changed from OTL in NA, with a stronger LW. Eventually the British can drive the AK out of NA, but then they will be dealing with the question of what to do about French NWA, Madagascar, and soon Japan.

Then there is the question of whether Britain can gain air superiority in the Central Med ITTL against what will be a stronger LW. At least any sooner than OTL.

Oh, and the RAF will also be stronger than OTL, even if not to the degree the LW would be. The British lost a lot of their veterans pilots in the BoB.

Just Leo · Apr 18, 2014

usertron2020 said:
What bomber is that?

Supermarine B12/36, which was the first choice over the Short Stirling. So much was destroyed that the final configuration seems somewhat unconfirmed. I supply my own conjecture.

WI: No Battle of Britain

Deleted member 1487

Deleted member 1487

Deleted member 1487