British Response to a Worse BoB

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

How would the British respond to a more bloody battle of Britain? I mean specifically if the civilian casualties were worse. Lets say the Germans have some functional long range bombers (4 engines), equipped with napalm and employed at night like the RAF was historically. Britain suffers much worse, with several hundred thousand dead and the bombing continues into 1941-2. Does gas and anthrax get used against Germany?
 

Cook

Banned
If the Germans had had long range four engine bombers they’d be better employed hitting aircraft factories in the industrial areas of England rather than targeting civilians.

Both sides in World War Two had large stockpiles of poison gas. The threat of retaliation prevented its use; I don’t imagine that would change.

Same for Anthrax, it’s a crap weapon but a gift that just keeps on giving years afterwards.

The moment the Germans stopped targeting the RAF airfields and radar facilities and began bombing the city of London they’d lost the Battle of Britain.
 
Several hundred thousand dead??!
Just how are you going to achieve this with 1940-1 bombers??

If Germany builds very expensive 4 engine bombers, what are they NOT building instead? (German economy was maxed out, there isnt any capaability to build them as well as everything else)
 
Several hundred thousand dead??!
Just how are you going to achieve this with 1940-1 bombers??

If Germany builds very expensive 4 engine bombers, what are they NOT building instead? (German economy was maxed out, there isnt any capaability to build them as well as everything else)

And so the spirit of Bill Cameron lives on...
 
Bomber Command didn't do much to help Fighter Command during the BoB or Blitz. If the BoB/Blitz was more successful for the Germans then BC could be re-tasked to attack German airfields and other Luftwaffe targets.
 
How would the British respond to a more bloody battle of Britain? I mean specifically if the civilian casualties were worse. Lets say the Germans have some functional long range bombers (4 engines), equipped with napalm and employed at night like the RAF was historically. Britain suffers much worse, with several hundred thousand dead and the bombing continues into 1941-2. Does gas and anthrax get used against Germany?
Not just for larger casualties, but maybe if there could have been some kind of possibility of invasion after more intense bombing.
Correct if I am wrong, but I remember that Churchill was indeed prepared to use chemical weapons -40 - 41 if situation went worse. And yes, the germans could have built 4-engine bomber with four propellors, just different kind He 177 and there you have it. And no extra resources needed.
 

Deleted member 1487

Not just for larger casualties, but maybe if there could have been some kind of possibility of invasion after more intense bombing.
Correct if I am wrong, but I remember that Churchill was indeed prepared to use chemical weapons -40 - 41 if situation went worse. And yes, the germans could have built 4-engine bomber with four propellors, just different kind He 177 and there you have it. And no extra resources needed.


I suppose that gets into a wider POD that I intend to pose soon, this was a bit more about the effects of that POD, and how the British would respond to it. I do wonder though if the British would risk using gas or something worse if there is the indication that Germany could retaliate in kind. Historically the bombing campaign over Germany got really nasty once it was obvious that the Germans would not be able to retaliate the same way.
 
And no extra resources needed.
Except you're consuming twice as many engines as for the same number of medium bombers. That either means a major ramp up in engine production (quite a long process... and a dramatic increse in resuorces consumed); a redirection of engines from other areas (that the fighters and Stukas cut back...) or a reduction in the number of bombers being built.
 
I would suggest the reading of 'A Better Show' by Michelle, probably the best of the LW-does-better-in-the-BOB stories.

Actually, 4 engines planes tend to consume quite a lot more resources than 2 engined ones. Not just double the engines, bigger planes, higher crew, but all the ancilliary stuff - those bigger planes require proper concrete runways, for example, they cant fly off unprepared strips.

So when your 2 engined planes are close enough to visit the target with a reasonable bomb load, building 4 engine bombers is rather pointless.
 
I would suggest the reading of 'A Better Show' by Michelle, probably the best of the LW-does-better-in-the-BOB stories.

Actually, 4 engines planes tend to consume quite a lot more resources than 2 engined ones. Not just double the engines, bigger planes, higher crew, but all the ancilliary stuff - those bigger planes require proper concrete runways, for example, they cant fly off unprepared strips.

So when your 2 engined planes are close enough to visit the target with a reasonable bomb load, building 4 engine bombers is rather pointless.

Luftwaffe Victorious by Mike Spick (which can be bought on amazon for less than 5 bucks) examines this in heavy detail. His POD being that Weaver lives and that the Germans select the DO-19 for production (although Spick kills Goering off to let the Luftwaffe develop differently during the war)

Strategic bombing would involve multiple POD's having to be done for the Germans. It wasn't a question of them having the economic capacity to build 300 four engined bombers because with certain choices and priority changes they could have and still had their other models in service. The big POD would have to be aircrew recruiting and training. This was the Luftwaffe's main weakness. From 1941 on they had hundreds of spare aircraft available and no pilots to fly them.

There are two things that absolutely needed to be done to address that failing.

1. Open additional pilot schools (the British did this massively during the BOB so they had a constant stream of new pilots ready for duty)
2. Rotate experienced pilots back and forth between combat duty and training so that they can pass their experiences on to new pilots as instructors. This was done in the western air forces whereas the Germans just flew their experienced pilots without rest until they got tired, made mistakes and got themselves shot down
 
I kind of wondered about a worse blitz. My thoughts included acquiring a large bomber force from France (| do not know what Air force France had in 1940 or what happened to it) and maybe buying stuff from Stalin who was being a very loyal ally to Hitler just then.
 
maybe buying stuff from Stalin who was being a very loyal ally to Hitler just then.

Stalin was as ever, being a very loyal ally to Stalin, although not always a useful one. ;) Stalin banked on British resistance to Germany because he was convinced the Germans would never begin a two-front war by attacking the USSR before defeating Britain. Hence during the worst moments of the BoB, Soviet supplies started to go "missing in transit" (and this was also when Stalin was constructing his buffer zone by converting the theoretical clauses of the M-R pact into actual military forces); when we started to win and Destroyers-for-Bases was signed, they were found again.

The Soviets would be digging their own grave to send assembled bombers (which they could use for themselves) to help their untrusted "ally" destroy the country which the Soviets viewed as the guarantor of their safety and their freedom to build up enough to defy the Germans.

Stalin was of course dead wrong, but he certainly wouldn't undertake a nakedly anti-British policy.
 

Deleted member 1487

What about Italian bombers? I know they had their own concerns and didn't dislike the British, but they could divert resources from the mediterranean this way.
 
What about Italian bombers? I know they had their own concerns and didn't dislike the British, but they could divert resources from the mediterranean this way.


The Italian air force was rather obsoletee. I remember reading a biography of the British air ace Tuck mentioning an Italian raid when the bombers were escorted by bi-planes. (incidentaly this tends to correct the view that Italians were cowardly. Going up against Hurricanes in bi planes was not smart but obviously quite brave.
 

Markus

Banned
How would the British respond to a more bloody battle of Britain? I mean specifically if the civilian casualties were worse. Lets say the Germans have some functional long range bombers (4 engines), equipped with napalm and employed at night like the RAF was historically. Britain suffers much worse, with several hundred thousand dead and the bombing continues into 1941-2. Does gas and anthrax get used against Germany?

The RAF used liquid incendiaries against german towns, even napalm late in the war. It´s not going to have the desired effect. Even with the bigger bomber fleet the RAF killed no more than 200,000 to 400,000 german civilians over a course of four years. The LW has no chance of getting near these numbers, not even with bombers that have a higher payload.

The use of gas for retaliation can be ruled out because the germans could have retaliated in kind. IIRC the fear of CW attacks made the UK weary of the idea of using nukes on Germany.

The most likely respone would bea more of the same approach. Bomber Command get´s an even higher priority than IOTL.
 
Actually, 4 engines planes tend to consume quite a lot more resources than 2 engined ones. Not just double the engines, bigger planes, higher crew, but all the ancilliary stuff - those bigger planes require proper concrete runways, for example, they cant fly off unprepared strips.

A RAF memo prepared by Tedder in 1938/39 on the financial requirements of enough medium twin (average bombload 2,500lb) or heavy four engined (average bombload 10,000lb) bombers to deliver 4,000 tons on Germany concluded the heavy bomber route was more cost effective

The heavy bomber route required 896 aircraft, using 3,584 engines, 6,720 aircrew and 14,000 maintenance personnel and cost £47 million.

The medium bomber route required 3,584 aircraft, using 7,168 engines, 22,400 aircrew and 42,000 maintenance personnel and cost £79 million

The flying school ratio was 1:4 in favour of the heavy bomber

But as has been pointed out, what would Germany have to cut to make the equivalent 4,000 ton delivery aircraft fleet, we know the effects attempting it had on the other British services and other parts of the RAF itself.
 
Last edited:
Bomber Command didn't do much to help Fighter Command during the BoB or Blitz. If the BoB/Blitz was more successful for the Germans then BC could be re-tasked to attack German airfields and other Luftwaffe targets.

From Stephen Bungay’s ‘The Most Dangerous Enemy, A History of the Battle of Britain’ (A very good book by the way).

‘Bomber Command’s efforts against the invasion forces peaked during September, when some 60% of its strength was directed against the Channel ports. For several nights the whole of the available force attacked the barges. Between the end of July and the beginning October, 36% of Bomber Command’s sorties were made against invasion shipping and destroyed about 13% of the assembling craft. A further 17% were against airfields and 14% against the German aircraft industry.’

He goes on to say that because of the numbers involved, it would have been very difficult to achieve anything against the airfields.



From Tami Davis Biddle’s ‘Rhetoric and Reality in Air Warfare: The Evolution of British and American Ideas About Strategic Bombing, 1914 – 1945

Page 187

‘in return for 1,097 sorties against airfields (and the loss if sixty-one aircraft), Bomber Command destroyed five German aircraft on the ground and damaged twelve. Damage to airfields was hard to assess, but, as the official historian of the Battle of Britain explained dryly, it “seems to have caused the enemy no serious embarrassment”.




Interestingly, this should have been foreseen



From ‘Dowding of Fighter Command’ by Vincent Orange

Page 116

By now, Dowding had foreseen that attacks would be made on his aerodromes and wondered what would happen to fighters dispersed around them. In his usual way, he urged a test and after long argument was allowed to have 30 obsolete Bristol Bulldog fighters spread in a circle on Salisbury Plain. They were attacked for a week in July 1938 by various bombers from high and low level, with large and small bombs, incendiaries and machine gun fire. At the end of the week, Dowding composed a report more devastating than the bombing: 22 tons of high explosive bombs, 1,000 incendiaries and 7,000 rounds of machine gun fire had destroyed three bulldogs, damaged one beyond repair, left 15 with minor damage and 11 completely unharmed. These shockingly bad results indicated that dispersal alone might give fighters a fair chance of survival, unless the Luftwaffe proved to be more accurate than Bomber Command. The test also demonstrated the appalling gulf between theory and practice in RAF doctrine with regard to bombing.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Continued focus on bombing aircraft factories and fighter sweeps would probably do the trick, although a better replacement for the Messerschmitt Bf 110 than the Me 210 (ie improving it to the Me 410 standard in one go) and switching production fully over to the new model would help even more. This would require an earlier Daimler-Benz DB 603 aviation engine. Something that would improve the Bf109 and make an ideal power plant for the push-pull Do 335 too.
 
Last edited:
Except you're consuming twice as many engines as for the same number of medium bombers. That either means a major ramp up in engine production (quite a long process... and a dramatic increse in resuorces consumed); a redirection of engines from other areas (that the fighters and Stukas cut back...) or a reduction in the number of bombers being built.
This is a little bit out of topic, but anyway, take a look at Heinkel He 177:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_177

Which, btw, was my favorite. It actually was four-engine bomber, but with much smarter design it could have been really something, who knows...

And to use of chemical weapons, did someone said that "desperate times need desperate measures..." What other can you do when there's thousands of evil nazis conquered your precious island and there's nothing you can do? "We will never surrendah!! Use the gas..."
 
Except you're consuming twice as many engines as for the same number of medium bombers. That either means a major ramp up in engine production (quite a long process... and a dramatic increse in resuorces consumed); a redirection of engines from other areas (that the fighters and Stukas cut back...) or a reduction in the number of bombers being built.

I know where the exrta engines could come from, Me110s not being used as night fighters. Also planes such as the Do17 and He111 could cease production if a good heavy bomber was in service, so production could concentrate on the heavy and the Ju88.
 
Top