A torpedo does work

[Karlos]

In october 1939, U-56 launched several torpedoes against HMS Nelson Battleship. Two of them hit the battleship, but none exploded. Aboard, among other vips, travelled Winston Churchill.
Le'ts say they exploded (some times did). Churchill is one of the several hundred victims. Some months later, France falls. In those critical days, without Churchill, would GB accept Hitler's peace? If so, what would be WWII outcome?

[zoomar]

I doubt it. One of the things which could have helped allow a British change of heart after the fall of France would have been minimal losses to British servicemen in the war up to that point. The more casualties, the more governments believe they need to continue the war to honor those who have died. The loss of a modern battleship, its crew of 1500, and some important VIPs whould have made it harder, not easier for a British Government to quit the war in 1940.

Now, who can say what the effects to the overall direction of the war would be without Churchill, but I don't think his absence would have stopped it in 1940.

[David S Poepoe]

I highly doubt that one torpedo will sink a fairly modern battleship - which HMS Nelson was. Its not in the same league as the other warships lost to torpedoes during WWII like HMS Royal Oak or HMS Barham.

[NHBL]

The post did not say the ship was sunk, only that Churchil was killed--that could happen even if the ship wasn't sunk. Suppose he was travelling between decks when it hit--the shock sends him falling and he hits his head on the deck and dies. That is still undisputedly killed by enemy action.
The ship could be sunk, too. It is very unlikely, but the submerged toprpedo tubes were a weakness. Hit there, and the huge 24" torpedo in the tube goes off as well, and there's a huge hole. Combine with some bad luck, nd down she goes.
Alternatively, Nelson is hit on the props and slowed or stopped. The U-boat evades the destroyers and launches a second volley. 4 to 6 more fish would likely do the job.
Incidently, if the rest of the war goes as historical, that means that Britain looses exactly one of each class of capital ship in the war--no more, no less.

[Van Owen]

The Nelsons were not pushovers when it came to torpedo and mine damage--good, sturdy boats whatever may be said of them based on appearence. My Favorite Class of British warship really. Short of Yamato, they were a match for any Axis battleship, despite their age.

[zoomar]

Now that this has turned into a "let's talk battleships" thread, I too love the Nelsons, with the massive and modern-looking tower and all main turrets concentrated forward. If Strasburg and Richelieu weren't French I'd like them even better. Sorry, I just had to say it

But, I really question if the Nelsons were fully equal to all Axis ships except Yamato. All-round, Bismarck was probably slightly more capable (and that's from I guy who thinks the Bismarcks are way overrated). I have always heard the Nelsons were fairly unstable and not the best gun platforms, plus they were significantly slower and smaller that Bismarck. Plus, the Romas were no slouch and Mutsu was a pretty tough customer.

[Van Owen]

50% main armament gone with one salvo. Bismarck does not have the firepower, and does not not have the protection of Rodney. Her best bet is to run away.

Even though Bismarck was at a huge disadvantage in the final showdown, most of the Battleship gurus at Warships 1 agree that Rodney could likely have taken Bismarck in a one-on-one duel. Bismarck has weakly protected main armament, and an outdated incremental armor scheme, vs the All or Nothing armor scheme of the Nelsons. I have never heard anything about the class being poor gun platforms. Considering the high freeboard of the class, I'd say the opposite was the case. I'm not saying by any means that Bismarck couldn't win, but my money would be on Rodney.

[JLCook]

One thing about Rodney, that I think is certain, and that is, that under no circumstances whatsoever would RODNEY (or NELSON) EVER consider the need to retreat from an encounter with BISMARCK. For one thing, she's slower than Bismarck so she cannot in fact run, , and for another, her armor would be more than adequate for dealing with 15"L47 shellfire, and more important, RODNEY mounts 9x16"L45 main armament herself and rather decidedly outguns her opponent. RODNEY has very little to fear from BISMARCK, and the one serious problem RODNEY would face is "how to compell BISMARCK to hang around long enough for RODNEY to get in enough hits to disable her"!

[Grey Wolf]

Reading the main post I have to agree with Reed, the death of Churchill is not being stated as requiring the sinking of Rodney, only some damage

And IMHO the death of Churchill WOULD lead to a peace between Britain and Germany

OTL on Chamberlain's resignation the choice was between Churchill and Halifax. The latter had the backing of the king. It is one of the strength's of the British system that his advisors were able to convince him to go with Churchill instead despite his own prejudices.

Even if Chamberlain doesn't suffer the same fate as in OTL with Churchill dead, he is still a lame duck, and a dying one at that. Halifax was associated with a completely different tradition of Conservatism than was Churchill

His succession would bring peace IMHO. I am not saying Halifax was a traitor or a coward, far from it, he just did not have Churchill's convictions about Htler's evil and his belief about British victory come what may. He saw more greys and less shining white hopes. He also had associations with members of the Conservative party who would have pushed him that way, people like Vansittart IIRC

Grey Wolf

[wiking]

Bump. Rather than start a new thread about this topic, I thought it would be better to just reply to this one, for those of you who like to call 'thread necromancy'.

So what happens if Churchill dies in this incident? Do the British surrender, or does his death make him a martyr for the nation to fight on?

[Tank Cdr]

I believe that without Winston Churchill as Prime Minister, the British government would have entered into peace negotiations with the Germans. As to what these negotiations would have produced is dependent on a lot of factors that I will not get into. I believe that the British people drew a great deal of their strength from the never say die fighting spirit of Mr. Churchill. Without that rock to cling to, I think that the government for sure, and a majority of the British people would be willing to take a negotiated peace, as long as the Empire remained fairly intact.

[wiking]

Originally Posted by Tank Cdr

I believe that without Winston Churchill as Prime Minister, the British government would have entered into peace negotiations with the Germans. As to what these negotiations would have produced is dependent on a lot of factors that I will not get into. I believe that the British people drew a great deal of their strength from the never say die fighting spirit of Mr. Churchill. Without that rock to cling to, I think that the government for sure, and a majority of the British people would be willing to take a negotiated peace, as long as the Empire remained fairly intact.

Even with the untrustworthy Hitler? My read of events is that the British didn't trust that Hitler would keep any treaty after betraying the Munich accords.

[Lord Brisbane]

In October 1939, with the death of Churchill, could we see perhaps Eden take his place as First Lord of the Admiralty, which brings him into the War Cabinet and then, depending on butterflies in the war of course, as a serious candidate when Chamberlain falls after the end of the 'Phony War'?

[CaliBoy1990]

Originally Posted by wiking

Bump. Rather than start a new thread about this topic, I thought it would be better to just reply to this one, for those of you who like to call 'thread necromancy'.

So what happens if Churchill dies in this incident? Do the British surrender, or does his death make him a martyr for the nation to fight on?

LMAO at bumping a 5-year-old topic.

[Mr Qwerty]

Yeah, well, your descendants will probably still be arguing WWII what-ifs 500 years from now...

I wonder if the Germans would just ask too damn much from the English in any peace negotiations. Yes, he'd "guarantee" the British Empire, but who'd trust him?

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by wiking

Even with the untrustworthy Hitler? My read of events is that the British didn't trust that Hitler would keep any treaty after betraying the Munich accords.

But it would not be in Hitlers interest to break a peace with Britain as long as he had a free hand on the continent.

[Mostlyharmless]

There is a third course between making peace with Hitler and continuing the full mobilization of Britain's economy with the trust that the USA will pay once the money runs out. Britain could have scaled back on all but defensive weapon's if she had not expected something like Lend-Lease and continued to produce exports. Thus no heavy bombers, far fewer tanks etc. Churchill's mother was American and he uniquely believed in something called “The English Speaking Peoples”. Any other British leader would not have trusted the USA. It is also possible that any other leader would have tried to buy off the Japanese.

ps. I doubt if another leader would have attacked the French fleet or sent troops to Greece.

[wiking]

Originally Posted by Stephen

But it would not be in Hitlers interest to break a peace with Britain as long as he had a free hand on the continent.

But would the British realize this? They think the Germans are all powerful after the fall of France and don't trust Hitler to keep the peace, considering he broke his other agreement. I've read that this was a major reason for the British to stay in the war; no one expected terms that would be acceptable to Britain and even then Hitler could not be trusted.

The question is whether the British people could inspire and rally the population to continue the war after the major losses early on. Also, would another British leader actually consider allying with Stalin like Churchill did?

Originally Posted by Mostlyharmless

There is a third course between making peace with Hitler and continuing the full mobilization of Britain's economy with the trust that the USA will pay once the money runs out. Britain could have scaled back on all but defensive weapon's if she had not expected something like Lend-Lease and continued to produce exports. Thus no heavy bombers, far fewer tanks etc. Churchill's mother was American and he uniquely believed in something called “The English Speaking Peoples”. Any other British leader would not have trusted the USA. It is also possible that any other leader would have tried to buy off the Japanese.

ps. I doubt if another leader would have attacked the French fleet or sent troops to Greece.

If they were going to take this route then the British realize they have no hope and they might as well cut a deal. Ultimately you're right, the British would have to have faith the Americans would supply them and eventually join in on the fight. Would they hold out until Lend-Lease kicks in and would the new British prime minister have the same relationship with Roosevelt that Churchill did? Lend-Lease started in March 1941, which would require the British to want to gut it out until Roosevelt was able to persuade Congress to pass it. There was no guarantee it would happen or that another British prime minister would reach an understanding with Roosevelt and have faith to wait until Roosevelt came through.

Perhaps Churchill was truly the great man at the right moment in history. Could anyone else have convinced the nation and parliament to stick it out until the US got involved?