What if Germany opted out of Battle of Britain

What if Hitler and OKW decided that the Navy was too weak after Norway and the Air Force also needed rest after France and decided In July 1940 that Britain wouldn't be invaded until May 1941. The air force wouldn't bomb Britain at all until then concentrating on building up strength, training and fuel reserves. No barges would be gathered in the channel ports. No British counter bombing of Germany would occur. S boats wouldn't be used for picking up pilots in the channel and could attack commerce immediatly.

Lets also assume that Hilter decides to invade Russia anyway in January 41 as in OTL and so the invasion of England get called off as in OTL then.

Would the extra air force not consumed in B of B be decisive in Russia? Would the British start bombing Germany at some point anyway?
 
I was under the impression that a large problem was insufficient ability to deploy the aircraft that they had close enough to the battles after they had progressed far into russia. So a change but maybe not as much as you might think...?
 
Do you mean June of 1941? The Germans invaded the Soviet Union in June of 1941--I hate to be so nitpicky, but Hitler wouldn't have wanted to invade Russia in mid-winter. :) In fact, the Russian winter is probably the reason why the increased supply of airplanes which a nonBattle-of-Britain would generate would not contribute that much. In OTL, Germany pretty much swept the Red Air Force from the skies in the summer months into the fall. When the winter came, though, the Luftwaffe couldn't get their planes into the air due to the cold and inclement weather. The Soviets had aircraft designed for such weather and used them to their advantage in knocking the Germans back from Moscow. Though, if Hitler allocates his resources right, he might be able to reduce pockets of resistance behind his lines from his encirclement battles sooner, freeing up his troops for a faster drive on Moscow--but he'll still be facing the arduous task of capturing the city in December or mid-to-late November if he's extremely frugal with his resources and expedient in breaking the Soviet resistance. And the first snows that year came in October, so the odds are still pretty long.
 
I was thinking the actual official decision to invade Russia was officially made in January 1941 (with the actual invasion in June 1941 of course). Just trying to keep with Hitlers OTL Russia plans. Sounds like though that the thought is more air force would have been difficult to apply effectively (perhaps extra J52s dropping supplies would have been the most help).

Steve
 
One possibility that occurs to me; while more airpower might not have made as much of a difference to the Eastern Front, it could definately shift the balance in the Mediterranean. If, just for a random example, increased German airpower is able to neutralize or greatly reduce Malta as a threat to Axis logistics in North Africa the change could be significant.
 
... it could definately shift the balance in the Mediterranean. If, just for a random example, increased German airpower is able to neutralize or greatly reduce Malta as a threat to Axis logistics in North Africa the change could be significant.

In the little attention that the theater received OTL, Malta was reduced to a dangerous point right ... I was thinking their anti air defense was almost worn down to nothing before some last minute fighters arrived right around the point where the Germans gave up. If Malta is taken out, you probably do see a change in Africa IMO. How much is another matter. Either way, I'm sure fool Hitler would find just another way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Like mentioned, the only impact on the EF could be quicker destruction and envelopment of the Kiev pocket or allow German armor/forces to go around the marshes ... thus dramatically speeding up the trip to Moscow. They might just have got in ... and I feel if Stalin was forced to evac you change the battle for Moscow completely, and if Moscow falls or even if the Soviets don't have their 41 winter offensives ... the door is wide open.
 
In the little attention that the theater received OTL, Malta was reduced to a dangerous point right ... I was thinking their anti air defense was almost worn down to nothing before some last minute fighters arrived right around the point where the Germans gave up. If Malta is taken out, you probably do see a change in Africa IMO. How much is another matter. Either way, I'm sure fool Hitler would find just another way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Like mentioned, the only impact on the EF could be quicker destruction and envelopment of the Kiev pocket or allow German armor/forces to go around the marshes ... thus dramatically speeding up the trip to Moscow. They might just have got in ... and I feel if Stalin was forced to evac you change the battle for Moscow completely, and if Moscow falls or even if the Soviets don't have their 41 winter offensives ... the door is wide open.

I agree with you, lack of air power was hardly a concern with Barbarossa anyways. The Germans lost simply because they overextended their supply lines in their attempt to force a knockout blow on the Soviets.

North Africa with a full strength Luftwaffe would be interesting too. You very well could see Malta, Egypt and much of North AFrica in Axis hands. If you get the Suez in Axis hands, this might convince Franco that joining the Axis is a good idea and that would net them Gibraltar too effectively giving Mussolini his Mediterranian Empire he wanted.

Of course the Axis would have this glaring weakness in their defenses called Spain for the allies to invade...
 
Here is a question that I have been thinking about the past few days. Maybe I'll start a thread on it.

If Germany had reached Moscow, what are the odds that it would have been able to take it? Wouldn't the battle have turned into a sort of super-Stalingrad? It seems like people always say that Germany "almost" got to Moscow, but little is ever said about what the battle would have been like.

What do you all think? Without researching the actual battle formations at the moment, maybe it would have been much easier for the Germans to take Moscow than I think.
 

Stephen

Banned
If Germany avoids the Battle of Britain and adopt a defensive posture on the chanel, then the war momentum in Britain may die down enough for them to agree to peace offers from Germany.

Peace with Britain could free up enough resources for a spring assault on Russia pehaps going deep enough to encircle Moscow, once encicled there is no need to engage in street fighting they can starve them out.
 

Markus

Banned
What if Hitler and OKW decided that the Navy was too weak after Norway and the Air Force also needed rest after France and decided In July 1940 that Britain wouldn't be invaded until May 1941.

Lets also assume that Hilter decides to invade Russia anyway in January 41 as in OTL and so the invasion of England get called off as in OTL then.

Would the extra air force not consumed in B of B be decisive in Russia? Would the British start bombing Germany at some point anyway?

S...L... was de facto cancelled in October 1940. IIRC S...L... did not delay Barbarossa and the LW had recovered form the losses of the BoB.
 
Here is a question that I have been thinking about the past few days. Maybe I'll start a thread on it.

If Germany had reached Moscow, what are the odds that it would have been able to take it? Wouldn't the battle have turned into a sort of super-Stalingrad? It seems like people always say that Germany "almost" got to Moscow, but little is ever said about what the battle would have been like.

What do you all think? Without researching the actual battle formations at the moment, maybe it would have been much easier for the Germans to take Moscow than I think.

IMO with better luck and planning they could have "taken" Moscow. It would have probably been very much a Stalingrad situation, but they could have done it, albeit at a very high and frankly Pyhrric cost.

Of course actually taking Moscow doesn't automatically translate into victory. Holding it might have been worse than not reaching it at all. Ask Napoleon about his winter vacation in Moscow some time.
 
True. But Moscow wasn't nearly as important in Napoleon's day as it was when Hitler invaded. It was the nerve center of the Soviet Union. While its capture wouldn't translate in to automatic victory, it would be a crushing blow for the Soviets.
 
Here is a question that I have been thinking about the past few days. Maybe I'll start a thread on it.

If Germany had reached Moscow, what are the odds that it would have been able to take it? Wouldn't the battle have turned into a sort of super-Stalingrad? It seems like people always say that Germany "almost" got to Moscow, but little is ever said about what the battle would have been like.

What do you all think? Without researching the actual battle formations at the moment, maybe it would have been much easier for the Germans to take Moscow than I think.

Leo euler

I think the key factor would have been that most intangible factor of moral. If the bulk of the population of Moscow and a lot of the troops assigned to the city fight then the Germans lose. They might take most of the city but will burn out Army Group Centre in the process. Especially with winter coming on with the effects on logistics and equipment I can't see the Germans being able to afford a big grind through a major urban area. If their lucky their command disobeys Adolf and calls off the offensive when he realises there's no hope. If not I could see a slightly later and weaker Soviet winter offensive - because forces have been drawn into the battle to hold the city - forces the Germans back as far as OTL and possibly breaks it completely.

If many of the people don't realise what their facing and think they can surrender and escape a bloody slaughter, you could see a collapse of moral in the defenders, especially if the Germans have avoided some of the delays and gets to Moscow before the weather worsens and many of the defences are built. They might then be able to rush the city and gain a relatively quick and cheap victory.

Even then, provided some of the Soviet/Russian forces stay resistant the Germans have the probably that advancing deeper into Russia could stretch their supply lines far more.

Steve
 

Nietzsche

Banned
Leo euler

I think the key factor would have been that most intangible factor of moral. If the bulk of the population of Moscow and a lot of the troops assigned to the city fight then the Germans lose. They might take most of the city but will burn out Army Group Centre in the process. Especially with winter coming on with the effects on logistics and equipment I can't see the Germans being able to afford a big grind through a major urban area. If their lucky their command disobeys Adolf and calls off the offensive when he realises there's no hope. If not I could see a slightly later and weaker Soviet winter offensive - because forces have been drawn into the battle to hold the city - forces the Germans back as far as OTL and possibly breaks it completely.

If many of the people don't realise what their facing and think they can surrender and escape a bloody slaughter, you could see a collapse of moral in the defenders, especially if the Germans have avoided some of the delays and gets to Moscow before the weather worsens and many of the defences are built. They might then be able to rush the city and gain a relatively quick and cheap victory.

Even then, provided some of the Soviet/Russian forces stay resistant the Germans have the probably that advancing deeper into Russia could stretch their supply lines far more.

Steve


Why take the city when you could just level it? Surround it and begin shelling and unrestricted aerial bombardment until everyone is either dead or they surrender.
 

Stephen

Banned
If Starlin is crzy enough to stay in Moscow taking him out could have an effect on the war also. A more sane leader could have a positive effect on the Rusian war effort, or it could lead to the disorganised remains of Russia quickly trying to sue for peace.
 
Here is a question that I have been thinking about the past few days. Maybe I'll start a thread on it.

If Germany had reached Moscow, what are the odds that it would have been able to take it? Wouldn't the battle have turned into a sort of super-Stalingrad? It seems like people always say that Germany "almost" got to Moscow, but little is ever said about what the battle would have been like.

What do you all think? Without researching the actual battle formations at the moment, maybe it would have been much easier for the Germans to take Moscow than I think.

Hitler's armies reached Moscow's suburbs, OTL. Stalin had the entire Soviet government, industry and military centralized around Moscow, it would be very, very difficult for him to setup shop somewhere else and get the war effort going again at even fifty percent of what he had before. To say nothing of the blow to Russian morale that would have.

Chances are if Hilter siezed Moscow and held on to it through the winter, come spring Russian resistance would crumble. Oh you'd have mass amounts of Partisan activity don't get me wrong, and I doubt they'd be able to project any real power beyond the Urals. Not to mention Japan would almost certainly jump on Russia's back had it the chance. This might even have Japan's high command scrap Pearl Harbor in prepration if Moscow fell in October 1941.
 
If Moscow goes down, Leningrad probably goes down too, since the supply lines to Leningrad are going to get severed with the loss of Moscow. Leningrad may then become a good way to use Baltic shipping to shorten logistical strains and perhaps give a partial answer to Germany getting overextended.

I think Stalin losing Moscow is a game changer, but Hitler will still manage to dork up the war in the East in spite of his previous victory. Stalin will not accept any peace that Hitler will offer him, and even in the case of Stalin dying in the Moscow battle the Red Army has no choice but to fight on, since Hitler is going to kill them all.

Of course, this changes WW2 around greatly, but Germany still has a second front in Russia, it is probably stuck on the huge size of its target and sooner or later the Allies will sweep into France and follow up with atomic bombardment of Germany. It would be a far more painful WW2, with the Western Allies having to fight Germany to Konigsburg. But it would probably end in Europe united in Democracy.
 

Deleted member 1487

DDp, Whoops!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted member 1487

Nobody has mentioned what Britain would do. They won't operated in a vacuum either. They will have a trained bomber force earlier and would hit Germany soon. The most profitable course for Germany is to switch to the Mediterranean and take Malta and harass the British throughout North Africa.

The Axis can never take Egypt or break into the Middle East due to logistics and RN superiority, but with German help the Brits will have a much harder time driving the Italians back in 1940. Who knows, maybe Tobruk never falls, which makes the Axis forces that much harder to deal with when Rommel comes around.

The extra 1,000+ planes and pilots will definitely help the Luftwaffe, which hopefully prevent the "lone warrior" mentality that drove Goering to overfly his best pilots, preventing them from teaching others. Sure you don't have individuals then racking up massive totals, but I'd rather have a solid force of good pilots than a few excellent pilots. Overall German benefits more, as it cannot replace men and equipment like the British can, who shrugged of the losses easier than the German. Also, by not bombing British cities, the Allies lose the moral highground that they achieved in American sympathies. Not only that, but if Hitler doesn't break the taboo, then it become harder for the British to justify their bombing campaign, if and when it occurs.

The campaign in Russia is unlikely to change appreciably. The air war in the West is going to be the big change. If North Africa goes better for the Axis, which if they are remotely intelligent it will when Malta is gone and the LW is stronger in Libya, then the British are going to have to focus harder on that theater, depriving over sectors, like the Pacific. If and when the Americans get involved, the LW is able to put up a tougher resistance, and the losses that are prevented here are likely to improve quality. The war probably is still lost, but the Germans get a slightly less tarnished reputation and the Allies look worse in the world's eyes because of the bombing campaign (It's really hard to justify without "But they did it first!")

More Allied deaths on all fronts, but primarily in the air war. It stays contested longer, but the outcome likely stays the same, with interesting divergences....like perhaps the North African campaign lasts longer with stronger Axis supply lines. This might be a big deal to the Sicily and Italian campaign too.
 

Nietzsche

Banned
If Moscow goes down, Leningrad probably goes down too, since the supply lines to Leningrad are going to get severed with the loss of Moscow. Leningrad may then become a good way to use Baltic shipping to shorten logistical strains and perhaps give a partial answer to Germany getting overextended.

I think Stalin losing Moscow is a game changer, but Hitler will still manage to dork up the war in the East in spite of his previous victory. Stalin will not accept any peace that Hitler will offer him, and even in the case of Stalin dying in the Moscow battle the Red Army has no choice but to fight on, since Hitler is going to kill them all.

Of course, this changes WW2 around greatly, but Germany still has a second front in Russia, it is probably stuck on the huge size of its target and sooner or later the Allies will sweep into France and follow up with atomic bombardment of Germany. It would be a far more painful WW2, with the Western Allies having to fight Germany to Konigsburg. But it would probably end in Europe united in Democracy.

Or destroyed in nuclear fire.
 
Top