WI: Battle of Britain never happened.

elkarlo

Banned
It was 400 during 1941 (and surviving pilots lost as POWs) - for less than 100 Luftwaffe (surviving piltos obviously recovered) - yes I am quite cross about that - not specifically for the losses themselves but for the

But the upshot would be that the RAF fighter command could not horde resources into late 41 under the pretext that they were needed to defend Britain verse a 2nd BoB / Invasion and we would likely see Spitfire in Malta and North Africa Earlier with larger numbers of P40s and Hurricanes pushed further afield
True it was a bit more.
Oddly enough going to Malta wouldn't change much in the short term. Despite the islands being incredibly at risk to an invasion, none came in 40. So it'd be good, but it'd be against something that isn't coming.
Churchill liked aggression, so I'm sure they'd waste the extra pilots somewhere attacking Airfields somewhere. The BoB was great attrition wise for the British. Take that out and the Luftwaffe is probably a threat much longer.
 
At work.

Though..... isn't the 'Hailstone' a tad too advanced?

From what I rember reading here on the forums the pulse jet weapon was in development quite early enough. It just wasn't 'Pushed' with enough funding/resources untill after the attrition of the BoB? But my greying memory could be a tad wrong about things.

Cheers
 
True it was a bit more.
Oddly enough going to Malta wouldn't change much in the short term. Despite the islands being incredibly at risk to an invasion, none came in 40. So it'd be good, but it'd be against something that isn't coming.
Churchill liked aggression, so I'm sure they'd waste the extra pilots somewhere attacking Airfields somewhere. The BoB was great attrition wise for the British. Take that out and the Luftwaffe is probably a threat much longer.

It was mainly in 41 that the husbanding of fighter command squadrons impacted ops in the Med and North Africa (and by extension the other fronts and ultimately Malaya) - as you say little happened until early 41 and a far stronger RAF Figher command coupled with no or a lesser invasion fear during 1940 would result in stronger RAF precence outside of the UK and FAA strength coupled with less of an impact to those developmentsthat were OTL impacted or even ended by the the invasion threat (such as the Griffon Engine).
 
my scenario is a trifecta of magnetic mines, butterfly bombs, and some version of later Hailstone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_&_Voss_BV_246

in addition to home advantage they might be able to provoke an earlier Dieppe-type raid(s)

Though..... isn't the 'Hailstone' a tad too advanced?

From what I rember reading here on the forums the pulse jet weapon was in development quite early enough. It just wasn't 'Pushed' with enough funding/resources untill after the attrition of the BoB? But my greying memory could be a tad wrong about things.

my understanding the BV-246 Hailstone did not work (well) in terms of accuracy, also they schemed a radar-seeking version so any testing may have started from scratch? (of course they were developing multiple weapons under dire conditions)

my speculative scenario was simply to launch them towards London not specific targets, since they have a 25 to 1 ratio they could almost be launched from Calais?


 
Italy, due to pride, would not accept German help in the Balkans/North Africa until they had took a battering. This was the OTL position and there is little that could change it, German success in France meant that Mussolini wanted to prove Italy could be as successful. With no battle of Britain then North Africa and Malta would be reinforced, more help sent to Greece and overall it goes not so much different to OTL except that all sides take heavier losses as they deploy more.
 
my understanding the BV-246 Hailstone did not work (well) in terms of accuracy, also they schemed a radar-seeking version so any testing may have started from scratch? (of course they were developing multiple weapons under dire conditions)

my speculative scenario was simply to launch them towards London not specific targets, since they have a 25 to 1 ratio they could almost be launched from Calais?


Ah! *Nods* The unguided version being used to supplement the V-1's kind of thing. Got-cha.
 

thorr97

Banned
Why should Germany bother with the Med at all?

If we start this POD with no BoB then why would Germany need to distract itself in the Med? If Germany decides to "woo" Britain then it wouldn't be conducting the Blitz - in any form - and it would be saving itself up to "rid the world of those eeeevile Bolsheviks." The Mediterranean would be Italy's realm, not Germany's. Sure, make a show out of Sea Lion preparations and make sure the British know just how "lucky" they are that the Luftwaffe never got loosed to bomb flat every city in the entire UK. Propaganda, propaganda, propaganda. And in this OTL, there'd not be that certainty that England could "stand alone" as it hadn't had to. One "benefit" of the BoB was that the British realized that they were able to "take it" - as Churchill was fond of proclaiming. In this ATL, that's an unknown. And the German war machine is still unbeaten at this time and composed of nothing but ten foot tall inhuman killing machine soldiers with unbeatable Me-109s to back 'em up.

So if the Germans don't give the British any opportunity to learn otherwise it's to their advantage.

A Luftwaffe not ground up by the BoB would be in a better position to support the Italians in Greece. And any German troops deployed there would be a lot easier to then redirect east once Barbarossa started - this, as compared to troops and equipment sent off to help the Italians in Africa. No, this wouldn't much help the Nazi / Fascist alliance but what did Germany get out of that anyway? If Germany pretty much left the Italians to their own devices then the British would wind up directing most of their ire at the Italians rather than the Germans. It'd be the Italians that were killing British troops in Africa - not the Germans. Germany could further stir things up by quietly - and quite privately - get the word back to the "right people" in England that the Fuhrer really doesn't much care what Britain does to the Italians and won't come rushing to Mussolini's aid. Yes, it'd be yet another of Adolf's "solemn vows" but such poisonous words whispered in the right ears in England could play merry hell with any war plans Churchill came up with.

The overall intent of this being to portray Germany as being focused eastward, focused on being only a Continental power, not being an enemy of the British people, and only wanting peace between them. This, while at the same time subtlety reminding the British that it was only Germany's peaceful intent toward them which had spared them the defeat the French had earned.

With that as the propaganda message going out engaging in a Blitz or creating an Africa Korps would be counter productive.

And with such an otherwise free hand, or at least a "freer hand," Germany's Barbarossa could then enjoy an even greater initial success. That, in turn, would play right into the "let's not go an aggravate the Fuhrer" attitude being played up in England.

Once the Japanese step into the mess then this would only amplify. The Japanese would be attacking the British Empire directly. Germany's war with the British was only because of those "messy" Continental entanglements which those "stupid" politicians had gotten Britain into. Oh, and the French. Blame it all on the French.

The political chaos this could cause would be of enormous benefit to the Reich.

And really, what did the fighting against the UK actually gain Germany in OTL? Once chased off the Continent, what threat was England to Germany? No matter what it would be years before the British Army had reconstituted itself enough to even have considered a cross-channel invasion. What opportunity there was for Germany to have invaded England was one which disappeared entirely by the summer of 1940 and was unquestionably gone once Barbarossa started. So even the U-boat campaign wasn't necessary. it was just a waste of resources. It was never enough to bring England to the point of surrender as the UK was self-sufficient - if but barely - without any imports. Better then, to have used all that steel and manpower on the Eastern Front.

So this ATL presents the Reich the perfect opportunity for that.
 

thorr97

Banned
'adroit Nazi propaganda'.... did they ever manage that? What little I've seen in books on the war seems pretty crude...

Dave,

By today's "media savvy" 24/7 entertainment culture desensitized folks? Yes. Back then? They were pretty slick at it for what it then was.
 
Why should Germany bother with the Med at all?
The following:
  1. To secure the southern flank of Operation Barbarossa which AFAIK/IIRC was why the Germans intervened in the Mediterranean IOTL.
  2. To distract Stalin from the preparations for Operation Barbarossa.
  3. To intimidate the Balkan countries into joining the Axis. For example helping the Italians perform better in their invasions of Greece and Egypt might prevent the pro-British coup in Yugoslavia.
However, I think Hitler should help Mussolini "behind the scenes" and confine the supply of front line soldiers to parachutists and air landing troops. That is he should send Ju52s and gliders to fly more supplies to Libya and help the Italians carry out airborne landings to seize the coast road and railway. He should also send construction troops to expand the ports, build more roads and extend the railways in Libya.
 
what aircraft are they building if not losing what they had at a fair clip? building up some number of JU-252/352s transports and sorting out the ME-210 fiasco would have put them in a much better situation.
 

thorr97

Banned
NOMISYRRUC,

Okay, what could Britain realistically do that'd threaten Germany's southern flank? Again, Britain would have to conduct an amphibious landing in great numbers to be much of a threat. And they'd have to cross through some really appalling terrain even to get at Germany troops directly. Distracting Stalin would always be a good thing but that wouldn't require much major involvement of the Wehrmacht against the British Army. Keeping the Balkan countries in line would be a major objective but that could be handled on the ground and not really require securing the rest of the Med. Keeping the Adriatic secure would be a must. However, the Royal Navy would be losing ships at a ferocious rate if they tried operating in such contested waters with so many land based aircraft overhead against them.

So the Germans could stick to the land and that'd be land which they'd already secured and pretty much leave the rest of the Med to the Brits and the Italians have squabble over. Yes, definitely support the Italians "behind the scenes" and "on the down low." But avoid direct confrontation with the British whenever possible. And when it does occur make sure it is the British who are clearly instigating it.
 
NOMISYRRUC,

Okay, what could Britain realistically do that'd threaten Germany's southern flank? Again, Britain would have to conduct an amphibious landing in great numbers to be much of a threat. And they'd have to cross through some really appalling terrain even to get at Germany troops directly.
Churchill sending a dozen RAF squadrons and an army corps to Greece was enough to make Hitler invade Greece IOTL. Britain couldn't realistically invade Italy from Libya in 1941 but that didn't stop Hitler from sending the Afrika Korps to Libya and X. Fligerkorps to Sicily.
 
At work.

Wasn't the filming of one of the rallies considered quite ground breaking/revolutionary?

The techniques used were slick and well edited. They also spent money on high quality cameras and film stock. The techniques were not revolutionary in themselves. Putting it all together in a superior package was not common. Ordinary commercial news services did not spend that kind of money. The nazi party used government money to pay for a artful piece of propaganda.

Dave,

By today's "media savvy" 24/7 entertainment culture desensitized folks? Yes. Back then? They were pretty slick at it for what it then was.

'Fake News' and saturation news are not new. In those days it was radio and print. Anyone here remember when cities had multiple news papers, and afternoon news papers? In the US, UK, Fraance, ect.. the completing papers fought it out as viciously as the present US TV networks. In the nazi era the core propaganda technique was the "Big Lie" Repeat a outrageous lie over and over claiming it to be the truth and after a while it sinks in as a sort of pseudo truth. Some of the crap Gobbels pushed in the 1930s & 40s still surfaces as factoids. No different than Soviet propaganda, or Japanese, or Facist Italian. In the democracies the concept of the 'Neutral Press' was a fiction. While the press was independent it was also heavily politicized. Every news publisher had a political agenda of some sort.
 
The techniques used were slick and well edited. They also spent money on high quality cameras and film stock. The techniques were not revolutionary in themselves. Putting it all together in a superior package was not common. Ordinary commercial news services did not spend that kind of money. The nazi party used government money to pay for a artful piece of propaganda.

The UK Ministry of Information had the last laugh.
 
It was 400 during 1941 (and surviving pilots lost as POWs) - for less than 100 Luftwaffe (surviving piltos obviously recovered)

Once again we have a comparison between British losses to all causes, against the (alleged) combat losses of JG2 and JG26 alone. In reality the two German units lost, according to the official records, a total of 236 fighters in the second half of 1941, and we know that there were other losses that weren't recorded: on one day Adolf Galland was shot down twice, and on the second occasion his wingman was also shot down and bailed-out over the sea - yet his aircraft is not included in the list of losses. On top of this, there were also 2 or 3 gruppen from other German units present, as well as second-line units such as Jagdfliegerschule 5, which also took part in the defence. These other units probably lost at least a further 100-150 fighters.

Also 'aircraft lost to unknown causes' in the RAF were listed as air-combat losses; 'aircraft lost to unknown causes' in the Luftwaffe were listed as non-combat. It's why the RAF loses 411 fighters and ascribes 140 to flak and non-combat causes, while JG2 and JG26 lose 236 and only attribute 103 to air-combat.
 
But the upshot would be that the RAF fighter command could not horde resources into late 41 under the pretext that they were needed to defend Britain verse a 2nd BoB / Invasion and we would likely see Spitfire in Malta and North Africa Earlier with larger numbers of P40s and Hurricanes pushed further afield

The Fall of Singapore in 1942 doesn't happen. More British air power is deployed, turning the tide of the battle in favour of the Allies. In OTL Japanese air superiority was a major contributing factor to the collapse of morale and the loss of the city.

The largest surrender in British military history saw 80,000 men taken into captivity. It was the worst defeat in the history of the British Empire. Averting this catastrophe may have a significant impact on the war in the Far East.
 
Once again we have a comparison between British losses to all causes, against the (alleged) combat losses of JG2 and JG26 alone. In reality the two German units lost, according to the official records, a total of 236 fighters in the second half of 1941, and we know that there were other losses that weren't recorded: on one day Adolf Galland was shot down twice, and on the second occasion his wingman was also shot down and bailed-out over the sea - yet his aircraft is not included in the list of losses. On top of this, there were also 2 or 3 gruppen from other German units present, as well as second-line units such as Jagdfliegerschule 5, which also took part in the defence. These other units probably lost at least a further 100-150 fighters.

Also 'aircraft lost to unknown causes' in the RAF were listed as air-combat losses; 'aircraft lost to unknown causes' in the Luftwaffe were listed as non-combat. It's why the RAF loses 411 fighters and ascribes 140 to flak and non-combat causes, while JG2 and JG26 lose 236 and only attribute 103 to air-combat.

A well made point Dupplin I have always been wary of comparing statistics like that* so thank you - what I mean to say is that the 400 losses were a result of the Rhubarbs and other plant life which did very little to change the strength of the Luftwaffe or have an impact on the war while those same units would very likely have had a major impact if used in the other theatres.

We know that Spitfires operating over Malta and eventually when they turned up in North Africa made a terrific impact.

The losses JG27 suffered in the month following the arrival of a Spitfire Wing in North Africa including the loss of all of its 'superstars' (including their best ace Marseille who seems to have died of Carbon Monoxide poisoning) and it had to be pulled out and this resulted in the DAF totally dominating the air from Sept 42 onwards

One can only surmise what the case would have been if the latest Spitfire had been available on strength a year or more earlier replacing those P40 and Hurricane equipped units

*One that some other students threw at us when I was doing Aircraft Engineering was that the Spitfire took several times more man hours to make than a 109 but one of the instructors commented that the Germans probably recorded their man hours differently to the British so we will never really know!
 
Top