British Response to a Worse BoB

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

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..."

Desperate times??? That would mean the extinction of civilization in many parts of Germany and Britain! It is suicide to contemplate its use, something both sides understood (or should have!). Basically, while not as bad as nuclear weapons, chemical weapons would a extremely deadly against civilians and require the evacuation of major cities and the dispersal of the population to many other parts of the country. Starvation would result in many places, as the infrastructure would not support millions of extra people suddenly thrown into areas that are unprepared to accept them.

Beyond that the Germans have nerve gas, which would be even worse than regular chemical weapons. No gas mask can protect against it and what's worse is that the British have no idea that Germans have it. Of course if the British turn to Anthrax, then its game over. It is worse than nukes in just about every way, as it can then spread all over the continent. The collateral damage to everyone would catastrophic, truly a civilization ender. Churchill would go down as the greatest barbarian in the history of the world and would rightly put his nation in a category worse than the Nazis.

Given all this, and that the Nazis were not viewed as truly all that evil to the men in charge (Churchill's bluster notwithstanding) at this point, I do think it would come to some sort of deal before turning to chemical weapons, provided the Germans did not start it first. And really, were the Germans even going to be capable of successfully landing on British soil? Given that the cost of a heavy bomber fleet is going to be so much, the money will have to come from somewhere, which would probably be the navy. Hitler stated during the war that he wished he focused on a coastal navy, something that probably could have happened if the Germans decided to focus on building bombers instead of battleships and aircraft carriers that were never completed.
 

Deleted member 1487

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...


Okay, seriously, why did anyone think of making this into a dive bomber?! And what was the fetish for dive bombing with everything that flew?
 
Desperate times??? That would mean the extinction of civilization in many parts of Germany and Britain! It is suicide to contemplate its use, something both sides understood (or should have!). Basically, while not as bad as nuclear weapons, chemical weapons would a extremely deadly against civilians and require the evacuation of major cities and the dispersal of the population to many other parts of the country. Starvation would result in many places, as the infrastructure would not support millions of extra people suddenly thrown into areas that are unprepared to accept them.

Beyond that the Germans have nerve gas, which would be even worse than regular chemical weapons. No gas mask can protect against it and what's worse is that the British have no idea that Germans have it. Of course if the British turn to Anthrax, then its game over. It is worse than nukes in just about every way, as it can then spread all over the continent. The collateral damage to everyone would catastrophic, truly a civilization ender. Churchill would go down as the greatest barbarian in the history of the world and would rightly put his nation in a category worse than the Nazis.

Given all this, and that the Nazis were not viewed as truly all that evil to the men in charge (Churchill's bluster notwithstanding) at this point, I do think it would come to some sort of deal before turning to chemical weapons, provided the Germans did not start it first. And really, were the Germans even going to be capable of successfully landing on British soil? Given that the cost of a heavy bomber fleet is going to be so much, the money will have to come from somewhere, which would probably be the navy. Hitler stated during the war that he wished he focused on a coastal navy, something that probably could have happened if the Germans decided to focus on building bombers instead of battleships and aircraft carriers that were never completed.
I have just thinking that maybe it was just a big bluff, considered what kind of persons (mr. Hitler & co.) were against british. Make sure that they didn't even think about conquering England. Who knows?
 
Okay, seriously, why did anyone think of making this into a dive bomber?! And what was the fetish for dive bombing with everything that flew?
That appears to be Udet's mania. Which is what you get when you pick your procurement guy on being a good Nazi & loyal to Göring, rather than on actually being qualified.
 
Desperate times??? That would mean the extinction of civilization in many parts of Germany and Britain! It is suicide to contemplate its use, something both sides understood (or should have!). Basically, while not as bad as nuclear weapons, chemical weapons would a extremely deadly against civilians and require the evacuation of major cities and the dispersal of the population to many other parts of the country. Starvation would result in many places, as the infrastructure would not support millions of extra people suddenly thrown into areas that are unprepared to accept them.

Beyond that the Germans have nerve gas, which would be even worse than regular chemical weapons. No gas mask can protect against it and what's worse is that the British have no idea that Germans have it. Of course if the British turn to Anthrax, then its game over. It is worse than nukes in just about every way, as it can then spread all over the continent. The collateral damage to everyone would catastrophic, truly a civilization ender. Churchill would go down as the greatest barbarian in the history of the world and would rightly put his nation in a category worse than the Nazis.

Given all this, and that the Nazis were not viewed as truly all that evil to the men in charge (Churchill's bluster notwithstanding) at this point, I do think it would come to some sort of deal before turning to chemical weapons, provided the Germans did not start it first. And really, were the Germans even going to be capable of successfully landing on British soil? Given that the cost of a heavy bomber fleet is going to be so much, the money will have to come from somewhere, which would probably be the navy. Hitler stated during the war that he wished he focused on a coastal navy, something that probably could have happened if the Germans decided to focus on building bombers instead of battleships and aircraft carriers that were never completed.


Actually, Churchill did plan chemical retaliation to an attempted German invasion. Only Himmler believed the British would do such thing.

In latter part of 1944, he did also plan to end the war quicker, with a major chemical attack on Germany.
 
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?

Seems quite plausible to me (if Wever was still around) to have developed the Do-19 in service. At the time of the BoB the Luftwaffe had about 250 Do-17 in service, 90% of which were with bomber squadrons the rest on recon. If the Do-19 was in production instead of the '17' then obviously not as many - but enough for a couple of Kg's. If the Lw still needed a light bomber, then a version of the Me-110 similar to the French Potez 63 series.
BUT, if the Germans had a four-engined bomber - it wouldn't be a secret. Seems more likely cannon armed aircraft would be more advanced with the RAF. And, production of four-engined aircraft for the RAF is not delayed.
Once the BoB is won by the RAF, or at least not lost by the RAF, then the night blitz still goes on as OTL - only difference more large bombs carried!
 

Larrikin

Banned
Seems quite plausible to me (if Wever was still around) to have developed the Do-19 in service. At the time of the BoB the Luftwaffe had about 250 Do-17 in service, 90% of which were with bomber squadrons the rest on recon. If the Do-19 was in production instead of the '17' then obviously not as many - but enough for a couple of Kg's. If the Lw still needed a light bomber, then a version of the Me-110 similar to the French Potez 63 series.
BUT, if the Germans had a four-engined bomber - it wouldn't be a secret. Seems more likely cannon armed aircraft would be more advanced with the RAF. And, production of four-engined aircraft for the RAF is not delayed.
Once the BoB is won by the RAF, or at least not lost by the RAF, then the night blitz still goes on as OTL - only difference more large bombs carried!

Cannon armament in the RAF was as advanced as it was going to get. They had realised several years earlier that cannons were the way to go, but were having problems getting the H-S to work in wing mounts. Pushing any harder wasn't going to make it happen faster, as they were already going as hard as they could.

And if the BoB and the blitz were worse, there would have been more fighter production, quite probably a push on Beaufighters for night work, and more Whirlwinds for day work, as both of those, with their fuselage mountings, didn't have the installation problems the single engine fighters did.

It might even see the lateral instability problem of the early Beaufighters solved earlier, rather than having it solved in Australia in 1942.
 
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 italians actually did send about 80 bombers to participate. I can't remember the exact figures, but only about 50 even made it to france. Italy at this point is entirely unready for any sort of modern aerial combat, much less strategic bombing.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
And so the spirit of Bill Cameron lives on...


Yes, there remain a few of us here who actually look at the facts. Sad, but true. Perhaps we will be wiped out by some sort of natural disaster.

Hope springs eternal.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
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?

There are a number of problems with this scenario.

1. Napalm has not yet been invented. Once it was (in the U.S.) it wasn't introduced into the ETO until after D-Day.

2. The Luftwaffe DID use incendiaries, in considerable numbers, during the Blitz. They never had the level of success that made the rare appearance in the ETO (Hamburg, Dresden) not so much because of the number of aircraft, although it was significant factor, but because the proper weather conditions to allow for firestorms are rare, even more rare in England than on the Continent.

3. The buildings in the major British cities did not lend themselves to easy destruction by fire. This was true across all of Europe (and in the U.S. as well for all that it matters). The firebombing campaign in the Pacific was successful in great part because of the way that Japanese cities were built.

4. If one looks at the fire bombings in Japan, which is the level of success that would be required for the scenario to work, they were only possible because the IJA utterly failed in its responsibility to protect the Japanese homeland. Anti-aircraft defenses were pitiful, both in fighter aircraft and in AAA. IT is doubtful that a similar campaign would have been successful in the ETO, where AAA was plentiful and effective, and where fighters were actually armed with weapons that could shoot down bombers in some numbers.

5. The state of the art in 1939-40 was not capable of building a bomber forces that could achieve the scenario. The true heavy bomber didn't really come into its own until 1942 with the large scale introduction of the Halifax, B-17E, and B-24. Prior to that time the "heavy" bomber had been anything but capable of carrying a heavy bomb load. The Do 19 was designed to carry a MAXIMUM bomb load of 1,600kg, which was in the general ballpark for the four engine bomber of the era. Compare that war load with the max loads of the Halifax (5,900 kg), B-17E (7,800kg, although a more reasonable figure is 3,400kg), B-24 (3,600kg)
or the later Lancaster (6,300kg or a single 10,000kg weapon) and B-29 (9,000kg).

6. The resource problem is not something that can be handwaved away. A heavy bombers, say a German B-17C copy, would use the same resources as three He-111 or 6-7 Bf-109. The reason that the BoB is remembered for "The Few" is that the RAF had devoted almost all of its effort into building heavy bombers on the theory that "the bomber will always get through", something that was demonstrated as false during the Spanish Civil War. The RAF would not have found itself up against the wall if it had constructed 1,000 more Hurricanes and Spitfires and 300 fewer Wellingtons (and even more so if the number are doubled).
 
Cannon armament in the RAF was as advanced as it was going to get. They had realised several years earlier that cannons were the way to go, but were having problems getting the H-S to work in wing mounts. Pushing any harder wasn't going to make it happen faster, as they were already going as hard as they could./QUOTE]
You could be right, yet still seems plausible that given the 'extra' need with a bigger target to shoot down - hit one engine with a twin, and its got problems, hit one engiine with a four-engine - so what - a purpose built single engined cannon armed fighter is ordered e.g. Boulton Paul P88a or P88b (OTL Air Ministry wanted but Treasury said no). In this situation the problem with the guns in the wings could be apparent earlier!? Conversly, maybe the wing could accomodate the cannon, without a problem - unlike the Hurricane & Spitfire.
 
And so the spirit of Bill Cameron lives on...

Yes, there remain a few of us here who actually look at the facts. Sad, but true. Perhaps we will be wiped out by some sort of natural disaster.

Hope springs eternal.

Aye, fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live... at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM!!!

:D:D:D
 
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.

That's about the size of it. The old British are kind of stubborn, and I don't think the systematic destruction of their war industries would have forced them to the tables. I suppose if something political happened and Winnie got himself no-confidence and replaced, then a political settlement perhaps?
 

Blair152

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.
Ah, but they did. They were Kondor Maritime patrol bombers. Theoretically, they had the range to reach the United States.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Ah, but they did. They were Kondor Maritime patrol bombers. Theoretically, they had the range to reach the United States.


Only if the crew rowed the last 1,500 miles in a life raft.

This was pointed out to you in one of the many lunacy threads you have initiated here in the last few weeks.
 

Deleted member 1487

The reason I asked was specifically because the Blitz was generating demands within Churchill's cabinet for a negotiated settlement with Hitler. That was with less than 60,000 deaths. If the Blitz was worse and topped 100k or more (when I stated 100's of thousands in the OP, I meant by 1942), the calls would have risen quite a bit higher, especially if it seems the German bombers are unlikely to stop. I think the British, despite their resilience, were never tested as hard as the Germans were later and given that Hitler was not yet the bloodthirsty tyrant that he became known as, there was still to possibility of a deal in the eyes of enough British politicians and voters.
 
Top