Without RADAR would we have lost the Battle of Britain?
If so, would the allies have lost WW2?
SOURCE URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPwDicTQVBo
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
However, the Battle of Britain was as Churchill put it "similar to Waterloo in that it was closely run affair." Also, "Never has so much been owed, by so many, to so few."
What makes WWII history so fascinating is the complex tapestry of timing, technology, politics, personalities, and decisions. Had Britain not developed both radar and decoded Ultra, the outcome just may have been different. But the question that has been posed here is had Britain lost the air war by say, August 15,1940, what would be the outcome?
It is likely Hitler would have proceeded with Operation Sea Lion and would have begun a cross channel invasion. It was being readied to go. Part of that plan was to use the U-boats to severely hamper the large British Navy in the tight confines of the Channel.
If Britain fell, so would the Navy fall into the hands of the Nazi's. A truly global influence. The "unsinkable air craft carrier" that served for the Allies to bomb the heartland of Germany would have been lost. Egypt and the British controlled mid-eastern oil fields would have fallen to the Nazi's. Churchill was on the death list.
Hitler could have turned his attention then to Russia without the much feared war on two fronts. He would not have had to make the dash to the Caucasus oil fields. He could have taken Russia without delaying the invasion to save the Italians from their Greek debacle. Nor had to save the Italians in North Africa.
db, you have posed one huge "What If" parallel time track here.
On another note, I had the extreme good fortune to see the Battle of Britain Lace. It is a huge woven tapestry commemorating the air war over Britain that took a gaggle of old ladies nearly two years to sew after the war was over. In 2005, it was on display in the Royal Australian Air Force Museum in Bull Creek, just south of Perth, Australia.
Had any of these factors been absent, it is likely that the air war would have been lost leaving the now German controlled air space to continue domination on the Brit mainland in support of the wide spreading occupation. The minute significant occupation began on the British mainland, German air support from local captured bases would just steam roller the effect.
There is no doubt, it would have been epic, on par with Hastings, with much German machinery at the bottom of the channel, but huge losses by the British also on the bottom. And the loss of the homeland to German occupation by late 1940. No phony war. It is over. And Hitler has another 6 months to plan the invasion of Russia without the worry of two fronts and no distractions from the "soft underbelly". And the Nazi juggernaut continues.
Ha! It feels like a WWII "What If?" game! But good lord! The contemplation of the turn of events should such pivotal events have gone otherwise is awesome and daunting!
On the subject of shooting his generals in the Great Purge of 1937 and 1938, the evidence points to a rather logical cleansing of the useless political and incompetent appointees from the Civil War. The good general were mostly retained and promoted, while his practice of jailing some of them and then, directly out of jail, giving them command of entire Armies, seemed to generate unexplainable loyalties.
I think this is just the tip of the iceberg. The Soviet tanks were built around western technology for instance.
If we acknowledge the strength of this information and back up to my previously posited position that if Britain had fell, Germany would have been able to begin the invasion when originally planned, on a one front war, without diversion to Greece and North Africa, without diversion of running to the Caucasus for oil, and now with a wholly unsupported Russia in dire straits - holy moly, Hitler may have had it all.
Another factor to consider is that Stalin was also paranoid of a two front war. A little heard of front was the skirmishes the Soviets had with the Japanese culminating in a decisive Soviet victory at Nomomhan in 1939. Right before the start of WWII. Right when the Non-aggression Pact was being signed. This underscores that Stalin was also having to watch his backside so to speak right during the critical time period we are considering of summer 1941 through 1942. Japan had been long maintaining a crushing military presence in Manchuria and were testing the waters with the Soviets at the Mongolian border.
Consider the Pacific theater if Britain had fallen. Japan may have re-intensified aggression in Eastern Russia in the summer of 1941. It is interesting to speculate that Japan, also seeking to gain all the resources of the South and Southwest Pacific - would have considered a neutral United States a threat? What if they just bypassed (or not) the weak American presence in the Philippines and roared through a now stranded Singapore and Malaysia much earlier than they actually did? Australia would be on its own without Britain and possibly with a still neutral United States. And then there is India, now without Britain. Wow, the possibilities get endless for what would have ended up a completely different world. "Never has so much been owed, by so many, to so few"
Would the United States have declared war on Germany as early as late 1940 had Britain fallen? Could that have been the shocker changing North American opinion?
This is one hell of a fantastic discussion.
The question then would be this: Does Japan and Germany then go at each other throats or remain as the remainder of the Tri-Partite? (Italy is long submerged as vassal to the Germans)
Do they then gang up on the western hemisphere and divvy it up? Or more likely it would be determined by who gets the bomb first and we have one nuked world.
But, your scenario says that Germany would be overextended in occupying Britain? Or in just subduing the population? If the invasion had occurred in August/September/October of 1940, they would have nearly 8 months to subdue the nation. They would not invade Russia until May 1941 as planned.
Your premise would be that it would take longer than that to subdue the British Isles, or at least the key strategic controls, or having successfully subdued Britain, that even just an occupying force would still have represented a second front of sorts while Russia is going on?
Interesting.
One thing is for sure, that if successfully occupying Britain, there is little chance for the second front in the west as it happened in history, to Hitler's downfall.
Much of Western aid was food and wheeled transport (trucks, jeeps, Katyusha platforms - Studebakers) and high octane av-gas. Western tanks were sent as aid and Stalin asked for others things instead since they could not be used on the Eastern Front. Aircobras had some success, but trucks and food were of most value.
Of interest is that through the auspices of FDR and his communist-infested State Department, part of Lend-Lease shipments included some very interesting details on the A-bomb design (certainly of much greater value to the Russians than the useless information that Rosenbergs’ were executed for).
The USSR's problem was production: they couldn't field the tanks and artillery to match the Panzer Grenadiere battalions on the Russian Front. That and Stalin didn't really care about the people at all. He was more than happy to sacrifice a few million foot soldiers armed with whatever rifles he could cobble together.
The deciding factor of Germany v Russia in WWII was Hitler's disastrous decision to attack Stalingrad in the dead of winter. Between supply problems, mercenary forces, and the weather, the entire German force on the Eastern Front was decimated at the conclusion of the battle - a loss Hitler couldn't afford.
As for production, compare these numbers: Germany had slightly over 3,500 tanks when it attacked USSR, with many being Panzer I and II, e.g., slightly more than tinfoil on skinny tracks. USSR had more than 5,000 T-34 alone, which was brand new and far superior to anything the Gremans had, and thousands of other types as well. Their big problem was leadership and the fact that many preferred to surrender than fight for communism. That is, until they found out that nazism was even worse.
What they lacked in engineering might, however, they made up for in numbers. At Prokhorovka (the final engagement in the Battle of Kursk), the Russians outnumbered the more heavily armored (and armed) Germans nearly 4-to-1, but would have lost if not for rather unconventional tactics: they simply drive up onto the tracks of the German tanks and abandoned them! The additional weight effectively stalled the German tanks, whose crews were forced to abandon the armor. I loved the presentation by History Television in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greates....
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/the-new-...
Until Stalingrad, the Russians were on their heels and desperately calling for Churchill and Roosevelt for aid. It was only Stalin's pleas for help that forced the US and Britain to move up their timetable and invade first Algiers, then cross into Italy that gave the Russians the time to develop the IS at all. And if the crossing at Normandy had been repulsed by the Panzer divisions that Hitler inexplicably held in reserve too long...
It made it easier to feed the population after the war
I think it has been a constant theme to overestimate the strength of the USSR. Socialism does not work and the USSR would have collapsed before WW2 but for the shameful help it received by western companies and governments.
I have though the American revolution can also be understand in these citizenship terms. The colonists were demanding that they be treated as English citizens, and England said no.
Superior technology has always had an effect on who wins and who loses, in war. The advent of radar would, definitely, have had an effect.
Imagine if our enemies had obtained nuclear technology, before us...you can well imagine how that would have turned out.
What Germany lacked was a leader willing to leave military tactics to the military. Hitler's armchair quarterbacking was what led to their fall.
I liked this: http://www.thetoptens.com/fighter-pla...
What really doomed the Luftwaffe was the Battle of Britain, which (like the Battle of Midway in the Pacific) saw a vast depletion in trained pilots for the Axis forces. That and the insistence of Field Marshall Goering to ignore the heavy bomber projects and focus on the Stukka medium dive bombers.
Watched a great documentary on the Mosquito, which was faster than the spitfire, but not in service until after the Battle of Britain.
Machine guns? The Germans began fielding them with devastating effect in WW I. Their machine pistols and machine guns were very high quality and rarely experienced field problems. No other nation had such effective infantry weapons until very late in the war.
Anti-tank guns? Germans for entire war with the 88. One could also include the Panzerfausts.
Artillery? The Wespe was brutal. And who can forget Big Bertha (the rail-launched massive cannon that never saw action but could hurl tank-size shells more than twenty miles?
Battleships? Germans (until both the Bismarck and Tirpitz were taken out of action). Then one can argue the Yamamoto was king (until the Americans sank it).
Submarines? Until the devastation of the U-boat fleet to American convoyed destroyers, the Germans were king here as well. Later on, the Americans would take the crown, but mainly in the Pacific.
Aircraft carriers? Of minor importance until Midway. They were never used in the Atlantic with the exception of the Ark Royal to disable the Bismarck (with a lucky torpedo to the rudder). They were king of the sea in the Pacific, however.
Rockets? Germany. One can complain because the V-1's weren't very accurate, but their psychological effects and cost made them very effective nonetheless. If the V-2's had gotten off the ground earlier in the war (pun intended) it could have been devastating to British manufacturing.
Aircraft? For fighters it went back and forth. It started with Germany and the -109 and ended with the -262. In between, the Allies fielded outstanding craft. Bombers are where the Germans fell flat, failing to even develop heavy bombers, in which the Americans excelled.
Tanks? Until the Russian T-34, the German Panzers were king. Then came the Tigers and finally the IS line. So while the Germans started strong, faded, then came back, the Russians finished on top.
The Bomb? The Germans were only months from having it, and there is no question that Hitler would have used it on the Russians to halt their advance. He feared the Americans, but the truly bad blood was reserved for the Russians. The Americans were in the race and were the only ones to deploy the bomb, but did so as a last resort to invasion of the Japanese homeland.
Top to bottom, I keep seeing one nation continuously pop up. Were they perfect and always dominant? No. But the breadth and superiority of what they fielded makes them king IMO.
But since you've brought up the subject, I will categorically disagree with you that the Germans were "only months from having it," as in fact they lacked the basic infrastructure to build it. Even with theoretical knowledge, which they did not have (they never had a working reactor, like Fermi's), the Manahattan Project-like enterprise was completely beyond Germany's capability.
The 'battle tech' of an organized military unit, even with comparable weaponry, would have won. Face it: the French armored cavalry were considered by the people of that time to be higher tech than the English at Crecy and Agincourt. It is also theorized that the organized fighting of the North, in addition to its far superior logistics, were what resulted in Northern victory even against the brilliant generalship of the South. In the cases of Crecy, Agincourt, and the South, those armies set a higher priority on individual accomplishment than 'marching in ranks'. But - much as I (a fan of the heroic) hate to say it - marching in ranks can win battles. Not always, but most of the time.
Jan
Many American soldiers, in the Revolutionary War, had rifled versus smoothbore firearms, like the British. However, our tactics played an immense part. We utilized snipers and shot British officers from their mounts....an unfathomable manner of warfare to the Brits, which assisted in our winning that war.
The problem is...tech, used poorly, can also hasten the users loss of a battle. If you rely too heavily upon your technology and not enough on tactics...you will surely suffer.
And Napoleon was a hellova exception.
Jan
http://www.history.co.uk/study-topics...
From Churchill's 'The Second World War'-
When in Moscow in 1942, Stalin said he wanted to show Churchill's accompanying technical staff a recent invention and hoped there could be a trade in such.
Churchill said, no trade, we will give you as an ally everything we have got, but then said except for anything which if captured would give the enemy an advantage. With hindsight the reader knows he was referring to radar.
There are allies and there are allies, radar gave the US Navy an edge in several of the crucial Pacific battles.
In Asia, the Chinese hated the Japanese bitterly. Japan invading China was a true example of the Prince trying to rule 'in the face of the direct opposition of the people'; fleeing Chinese refugees stopped to build airstrips with their bare hands to provide the Allies with a means to strike back against their enemies.
Wars are won by logistics. They can, however, be marvelously shortened by the correct application of technology.
Jan
Any army that can do this can hold for a very long time.
Jan
Obama with his vast experience still considers troops to be cannon fodder.
The French absent Foreign Legion never did learn.
As for Radar it allowed the Brits to gain and maintain air superiority which denied an exploitable beach head to the Germans. Then along came Monty and played cannon fodder with his troops again. What did they all have in common? Either they had no experience and ran the war as a PC festival or they had gone to trade school and had brains of cement.
Without radar? And with spotty sea superiority meaning next to nil doubtful.
But of an interesting side note, would be to study the real blitzkrieg achieved by the Soviet armies through the supposedly impassable Mongolian desert and an annihilation of the Japanese army within less than a month over terrain that had no roads or communications.
Hind sight is always 20 20 when no one objectively, knew although after the two test bombs in new Mexico, certainly suspected the outcome of comparatively instant capitulation.
The Japanese were fairly stubborn and somewhat like the jihadists many willing to die for their Emperor be he named Allah or Hirohito. Could have gone the other way BUT for Hirohito himself. That edict from the Son of Heaven saved face for the others.
How our military saves face if the let Obama coerce them into becoming the Waffen SS is beyond me. No matter those of you still living in occupied North America can enjoy saluting blood red baraks on a field of black and be ashamed.
In all discussions about the Battle of Britian everyone always forgets that even if succesful the NAZI's would have had to invade England via the channel. The royal navy would have wreaked havoc with the invasion transport.
The Normandy invasion took a lot of firepower and manpower because it was against a fortified defense, both on the beach and in depth. Britain in 1940 had none of it.
The battleships that you mention would have been not much more than juicy targets - they are not designed to fight off waves of aircraft and small vessels, especially in restricted waters.
What was once the USA would be filled with Caucasian goose-steppers. No other race would be allowed to survive here.
There would be no Cold War. The Nazis would have nuked the Soviet Union big time by 1948.
Japan would be carpet nuked before they could split the atom also.
Red China would not be allowed to exist.
The world would only have room for the "master race." Everyone else would be slaves or dead.
The first man on the moon would arrive during 2001 and be killed on impact. By this date we would never have heard about it.
I've been convinced for years that those two would have gone to war after they World War 2 conquered the world.
Der vorld ist only for der master race! When Nazis chanted, "Today Europe! Tomorrow the world!--I'm sure they meant all of it."
Italians don't look Teutonic either.
Secondly, We would have won, no matter whether we had radar or not. It might have taken longer, but it took WW2 for the world to recognize that no country on earth could defeat us. Since then, we've thrown that ability Almost away. Not because of lack of resources, but because of lack of will.