The History Channel TV documentary was very interesting and inspiring, but I haven't been able to find it on the web, including even a mention of it on history.com. (Their Modern Marvels episode on radar was a different show.)

strugatsky is correct, the UK and US governments had a private joke that 'our German scientists are ahead of their German scientists'. They were doing the research but were about 10 years behind.

The original topic was the influence of radar on the Battle of Britain and the effects that lack of the radar in that battle would have had on the world. Therefore, I limit all my comparissons to technologies and tactics that existed in 1940 and possibly 1941. There were many great accomplishments from many nations later on, but they would not have affected the Battle of Britain or its immediate consequences.
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.

I don't disagree, but your contention was continuously that countries other than Germany had better engineering entering the war, and that simply isn't true. Did they develop good stuff as a necessity of war? Yes. But so did the Germans. You keep bouncing around from year to year picking and choosing which parts of the war you want to focus on. I'm looking at it from beginning (1938) to end (1945) and doing a side-by-side comparison.

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.

So, the New American Empire will not be as free as Rome. It's a shame.

I think part of the stupidity was not just encircling Moscow etc. and moving on.

I do not think that Rome (the western Empire lasted about 350 years) was totalitarian originally. In fact up to the beginning of empire (death of Caesar) it was probably one of the freest countries in the world at the time. One of the things Rome did that was unique at the time was to give a citizenship to most of the people they conquered. Most countries at the time turned everyone into a slave.

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.

Of course in the long run all totalitarian systems rot from the inside.

very interesting

A downside of the Spitfire originally was that it was not fuel injected and had to be careful pulling negative g's or the engine would cut out.

Watched a great documentary on the Mosquito, which was faster than the spitfire, but not in service until after the Battle of Britain.

Then you point is well made, however I will still press my argument that the Germans would have had a very difficult time and that the success of the Dunkirk evacuation shows that the Germans were not up to the task, even before being decimated in the battle of Britain.

Again, the 262 did not exist until 1944, Even then, although it was unquestionably superior in the air to anything the Allies had, it's survival rate due to accidents and manufacturing sabotage has horrendous.

Photos, yes. The ships need to keep their distance. But they were escorting and fighting (and sunk).

Socialism, or slavery, does not work from the perspective of a slave; from the perspective of a master, it works well enough. The Soviet Empire lasted almost a hundred years, the Roman Empire lasted half a millennium; once the transformation is complete, the American Empire may last just as long...

Agree, and as a good socialist, FDR has done more damage to the USA than Stalin.

Huh.....the photos I have seen of the attack only show the Yamato. FYI...not disputing you.

The Yamato's escort was six destroyers and a light cruiser. Only one destroyer survived.

He had no choice (within his framework). Stalin was all set to attack Germany at the end of June, 1941.

I have heard the "legends" of jumping out of planes before, but have never seen any proof. Please send me a reference. BTW, all pilots had parachutes, as far as I know.

Trustworthy? What's that?

Perhaps another way of looking at it is that it was Hitler's megalomania that got Germany onto the top (in Europe) for as long as it lasted, against all odds. Hitler took all reasonable and unreasonable chances against powers much stronger than his, until his luck at bullying and his resources ran out.

Until the Spitfire, the British were sorely outgunned by the superior Messerschmidt ME-109. And if the Germans had been able to field the 262 (jet-powered) in any numbers, they may have been able to turn the tide of air superiority. The Mustang was unquestionably the American's best fighter (along with the P-38 Lightning), but neither started the war like the 109.

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.

My possible scenario would have a huge chunk of the world divvied up by Germany and the Japanese Empire, leaving North and South America in question. Especially South America. Somebody gets Africa.

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.

Here's a good rundown on the introduction of the Tiger (and in general a comparison of both German and Russian forces):
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...