[pugsville]

About 1926 the british government bails out Rolls Royce. What if they didnt?

No Rolls Royce
No Rolls Royce Merlin Engine
No Spitefire & hurricane
Dunkirk does get kicked seroiusly from the air.
The luftwaffe does kick the RAF in the battle of britain
England invaded and conquored in 1940.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

Nup. As much as the Battle of Britian was a great moral boost to the Brits and a kick up the bum to the Jerries it was pretty small beer in the scheme of things. The Germans could have never have invaded the south of England (or more importantly) kept the invasion supplied as long as the Royal Navy was intact. My view is that it was one of four things:
a) The invasion of the Soviet Union
b) The change of plan that shifted the attack from Moscow to the south
c) The declaration of was on the USA by Hitler
and
d) The loss of control of the Atlantic by the U-boats

Of these I would give it to b) with d) a very close second.
Reasons:
b) the change of axis in 1941 meant that the political capital of the USSR stayed in soviet hands and gave hope to the anti German forces around the world. It was/is the main rail hub of Russia and would have meant that forces could have been spared to capture/seige Lenningrad completely. It will never be known but I don't think even Stalin could have survived such a loss.
d) Britain could be defeated without being smashed in battle. Loss of control of the seas is the death knell for Britian as she cannot feed her population with out them and supplying an army would be almost impossible.
a) It is probably true that Hitler would not have declared war on the US as there would not have been a need to involve the Japanese in the conquest.
c) Operation Barbarossa was achievable as long as the main theory of blitzkrieg was adhered to and the plans weren't interfered with by a man with no real grasp of operational necessities. The declaration of was was incredibly short sighted but IMO probably just meant that the war ended quicker with Western Europe in non-soviet hands.

Notable mentions to the Dunkirk evacuation (who knows what 200,000+ bargaining chips might have brought) and Kursk (no more blitzkriegs for the Panzer Armees).

[Oxymoron]

Ummm yeah well there would be other companies who could make engines.Supply and demand baby.

[Thunderhawk]

No Spitefire & hurricane

Spitfire was by Supermarine, part of Vickers.
Hurricane was by Hawker, also a seperate company.

There were alternative engine designs from other companies.
Hell, if Rolls Royce went under Vickers would take up the slack.

Dunkirk does get kicked seroiusly from the air.

Not applicable. The Germans held back their aircraft for various reasons, non of them being allied air presence.

The luftwaffe does kick the RAF in the battle of britain

Luftwaffe's ultimate failure in the BoB was because of the political dirrectives it was running on and poor planning, which would not have changed much if Britain was flying non-RR powered aircraft.

England invaded and conquored in 1940.

The Royal Navy kept GB safe from invasion, not the airforce. In case you didnt know, the RN had subs with dedicated crews, a German invasion fleet might survive its voyage to GB, but not the troop transports.

[guzzipat]

Nup. As much as the Battle of Britian was a great moral boost to the Brits and a kick up the bum to the Jerries it was pretty small beer in the scheme of things

Although I agree that the defeat of the Luftwaffe over Britian was not decisive, it was a lot more significant than you say. Sometimes for reasons not immediately apparant.

The immediate effects were that Germany had to retain more troops in Western Europe. The losses sustained by the Luftwaffe plus the number of guns and aircraft needed to defend Germany against increasing RAF attacks cut the aircraft available for Russia.

You are also discounting the Empire and Commonwealth troops. They played a significant part in defeating the Italians in N. Africa and forcing Hitler to divert troops there. They also forced the invasion of Greece. Without this Germany would have been able to commit more troops to Russia.

The final significance could not have been seen at the time, but if Britain had been defeated, what you describe as one of the most significant events, Hitlers declaration of war on America, would have been of little importance. With no secure base, no big increase in bombing, no D Day, no invasion.
Even if you discount the other effects I have described, that alone make the victory over the Luftwaffe significant and far from small beer. What could America have done against Germany without a British base?

) Operation Barbarossa was achievable as long as the main theory of blitzkrieg was adhered to

This I do not agree with.
The tactic now known as Blitzkreig, was a long narow thrust, there is always a limit imposed on the depth of such a thrust, the deeper it gets the greater the supply problems. In the case of the Germans of 1941, we are not talking about a mechanised army. For Barbarossa there were 750,000 horse drawn guns and other vehicles. Every three horses used for transport needed another two to haul feed. They lost an avergage of 1000 horses a day.
They had 600,000 motor vehicles, including 3,500 fighting vehicles. The majority of supply therefore was horse drawn.
That meant that the troops meant to move up to consolidate the ground taken by the armoured colomns mainly went on foot along with horse drawn supplies.

All this worked fine in 1940, but it is less then 300 miles from Germany to the Channel, so the possible supply strains had no significant effect.
It was a very different story in Russia, vast distances, an enemy that was prepared to destroy everything of use in the German army's path and later constant threats to supply lines from partisans. Made the tactics ineffective in the long term. Add to that the winter and total ceasation of most supply and the inability of the motorised units to keep moving and the folly of attacking Russia becomes clear. The enforced lull caused by winter, enabled the Russians to regroup. The capture of Moscow would have been a big blow, may even have resulted in the end of Stalin, but the surrender of the Soviet Union? I don't think so. The historical answer of Russia to invasion is to give ground, but never give in. there is no reason to assume that the loss of Moscow would have been the end, It wasn't for Napoleon.

Perhaps we should leave the last word on Barbarossa to General Heinze Gudarian, who was among the originators of the Blitzkreig tactics.
Writing in his book "Panzer Leader"

On hearing of the decision to attack Russia, he said:
"When they spread out a map of Russia before me I could scarcely believe my eyes. Was something which I had held to be utterly impossible now to become a fact?"

About the actual plan, he said;
"Three army groups of approximately the same strength, were to attack with diverging objectives; no single clear operational objective seemed to be envisaged. Looked at from a professional point of view, this did not appear at all promising, I arranged for my Chief of Staff to convey my views to OKH, where they produced absolutely no effect"

My conclusion is similar, there was no realistic chance of a total defeat of the Soviets and that decision was the decisive error that cost Hitler the war.

[Thunderhawk]

The final significance could not have been seen at the time, but if Britain had been defeated,

Lossing the BoB would not result in Britain being defeated.



Regarding Moscow: if the Nazi stuck to their plans (or changed them) to take Moscow, what is to say battling in Moscow would not develop along the same lines as Stalingrad?

[Rojik of the Arctic]

Nup. As much as the Battle of Britian was a great moral boost to the Brits and a kick up the bum to the Jerries it was pretty small beer in the scheme of things

You have to use the full quote to put things in the right perspective.

Nup. As much as the Battle of Britian was a great moral boost to the Brits and a kick up the bum to the Jerries it was pretty small beer in the scheme of things. The Germans could have never have invaded the south of England (or more importantly) kept the invasion supplied as long as the Royal Navy was intact.

The British were never going to be defeated by air power alone. Especially airpower that used two engined bombers as their main strike force and that had no fighter escort that could help them effectively bomb the aircraft factories and engine works of the north. Even if the Luftwaffe had have silenced the RAF there was not one General that thought that Sea-Lion had a snowballs chance in hell of succeeding as long as there was an intact Royal Navy.

Regarding Moscow: if the Nazi stuck to their plans (or changed them) to take Moscow, what is to say battling in Moscow would not develop along the same lines as Stalingrad?

At the time Hitler diverted his Guderian Panzer Gruppe to the south the defences of Moscow were non-existent. It was joked by the citizens of Moscow in October that a German paratroop division could have taken the city.

You are also discounting the Empire and Commonwealth troops. They played a significant part in defeating the Italians in N. Africa and forcing Hitler to divert troops there. They also forced the invasion of Greece. Without this Germany would have been able to commit more troops to Russia.

No I don't. I had family fight in Nth Africa. It was still a side show as far as the Germans were concerned. The question was about what was the decisive moment. Nth Africa never gets close.

This I do not agree with.
The tactic now known as Blitzkreig, was a long narow thrust

I knew as I posted it that blitzkreig was the wrong way to explain it but the invasion of the USSR was not a blitzkreig style attack. Had the Germans concerntrated on the North and Centre as objectives there was a very good chance that the Soviet Union would have not survived the blows. As your Gudarian quote says it was a diverging attack on three seperate objectives with no main spearhead.

My conclusion is similar, there was no realistic chance of a total defeat of the Soviets and that decision was the decisive error that cost Hitler the war.

Total defeat is a relatively new term in warfare. There was always the chance of an armistice or treaty not unlike 1918. If you agree that Slain might have fallen because of the capture of Moscow then is reasonable to assume that whatever faction grabbed power would be more interested in consolitating power at the expense of territory, not unlike the bolshievics.

[Oxymoron]

Had the Germans concerntrated on the North and Centre as objectives there was a very good chance that the Soviet Union would have not survived the blows.

Or be flanked and encircled.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

Or be flanked and encircled.

In 1942 maybe and 1943 definately. In 1941 not a hope.

[Oxymoron]

In 1941 not a hope.

The operation was launched late, no matter how many troops were in group center they wouldnt have made it to Moscow before the Mud and Snow. Even if Moscow fell, it wouldnt mean an end to the war, Moscow would become a Street by street battle while the Siberian forces could have struck and encircled the overstretched Germans.

[Thunderhawk]

At the time Hitler diverted his Guderian Panzer Gruppe to the south the defences of Moscow were non-existent. It was joked by the citizens of Moscow in October that a German paratroop division could have taken the city.

Invading the city is quite a bit different from occupying and quelling the city.
I dont believe taking the city would be easy at all, as I see it becoming a quagmire like Stalingrad - even if the initial resistence would be pidly.

Is this an "agree to disagree situation" ?

[pugsville]

Aircraft Engines were the most important part of the whole, virtually the whole RAF flew throughout the war on Rolls Royce engines, maybe some other engine maker steps forward and produces a good or good enough engine maybe not. Maybe the designers & technicains are absorbed elsewhere or maybe the entire british aero engine manufacture is recduced in significantly in size and quality. Push back fighter development a year? The RAF just got there planes develpoed in the nick of time, without rolls royce there were historically no other really viable british engines, and was the real limiting factor in plane production. Almost all planes (not all though) were better planes with a rolls royce merlin.

If the spitfire and hurricane flay but significantly less powered simply not the planes they were. Not a great aircraft expert just reading and the bailout mentioned in passing.

No doubt that the Russia was the main show. major gafs in the lack of any real strategic planning, the underestimate of russian strength (I have a book published in 1938, "the militrary strengthof the powers" (the left book club) which was better the the german estimates of russian strength, and the six weeks screwing around in the unimportant balkans.

[Thompson_NCL]

I concur with others, the BoB was not of major importance, Britain would have fought on in the face of endless bombing all the same. I do however believe North Africa was more important than others suggest as not only would victory there have ensured access to the oil fields, but it also would have knocked out the Suez canal for the British and potentially allowed a second front to open against Russia.

The reason Germany lost WWII in my opinion was that they fought on too many fronts at once. Had they focused on victory in say North Africa and THEN moved on Russia, they may well have won in the East. I doubt Germany could have ever won the war against the British Empire, especially with US involvement, but they could have totally dominated mainland Europe and Russia.

[Oxymoron]

they focused on victory in say North Africa and THEN moved on Russia, they may well have won in the East.

I am more then certain that Stalin would have invaded Europe and Germany if operation Barbarrosa didnt interupt his plans. Also concentrating on N Africa would mean controling the seas, how else would you move large troop numbers there and supply them?

[guzzipat]

The British were never going to be defeated by air power alone. Especially airpower that used two engined bombers as their main strike force and that had no fighter escort that could help them effectively bomb the aircraft factories and engine works of the north. Even if the Luftwaffe had have silenced the RAF there was not one General that thought that Sea-Lion had a snowballs chance in hell of succeeding as long as there was an intact Royal Navy.

There was never an atempt to win by air power. The attacks were designed to eliminate the RAF and gain control of the air space.
It was thought that with total air superiority they could prevent the Navy from intervening. It was assumed with some accuracy, that a surface fleet could not operate effectively without air cover in an area dominated by an enemy air force
If the RAF was defeated I doubt the Navy could have got to the barges.
It was control of the airspace that Germany wanted and with that there was a good chance of a successful invasion.

At the time Hitler diverted his Guderian Panzer Gruppe to the south the defences of Moscow were non-existent. It was joked by the citizens of Moscow in October that a German paratroop division could have taken the city.

By October the German army was sinking into a sea of mud. They could not be supplied, or move armour. The roads in the Soviet Union were little more than dirt tracks and became impassablr in the rains.
Then they where attacked by 11 fresh, well equipted Siberian divisions. In the end they were forced to retreat from Moscow and later lost thousands of men to the winter. After the winter of 41 the German Army was never as good again.

You are also discounting the Empire and Commonwealth troops. They played a significant part in defeating the Italians in N. Africa and forcing Hitler to divert troops there. They also forced the invasion of Greece. Without this Germany would have been able to commit more troops to Russia.


No I don't. I had family fight in Nth Africa. It was still a side show as far as the Germans were concerned. The question was about what was the decisive moment. Nth Africa never gets close.

I never claimed it was decisive, I said that it reduced the number of troops available for the Eastern Front. As did the invasions of Jugoslavia and Greece, Hitler is on record as complaining about Italy's inneffective attacks diverting rescources.

I knew as I posted it that blitzkreig was the wrong way to explain it but the invasion of the USSR was not a blitzkreig style attack. Had the Germans concerntrated on the North and Centre as objectives there was a very good chance that the Soviet Union would have not survived the blows. As your Gudarian quote says it was a diverging attack on three seperate objectives with no main spearhead.

It wasn't only the plan Gudarian was complaining about, he considered the whole invasion was an impossible task. You have selcted one out of two quotes, the other was;
"When they spread out a map of Russia before me I could scarcely believe my eyes. Was something which I had held to be utterly impossible now to become a fact?"

My conclusion is similar, there was no realistic chance of a total defeat of the Soviets and that decision was the decisive error that cost Hitler the war.


Total defeat is a relatively new term in warfare. There was always the chance of an armistice or treaty not unlike 1918. If you agree that Slain might have fallen because of the capture of Moscow then is reasonable to assume that whatever faction grabbed power would be more interested in consolitating power at the expense of territory, not unlike the bolshievics.

This is a serious misreading of the political situation.
It was clear form the outset that Hitler was determined on the total elimination of the Bolshevics, who he called a "Yewish Clique".
There was never the slightest chance of peace negotiations. You assumption that after the capture of Moscow he would have made peace is fantasy. He would never have ended the war untill the Bolshevics were eliminated and the Red Army destroyed. He wanted all authority in the Soviet Union destoyed and replaced by occupation. He wanted the total elimination of all the intelligensia and all Russian culture.
He would have been well aware that any "peace" could only be temporary and that allowing the Red Army to regroup would have been a disaster.
Stalin could have fallen, not to make peace, but because he he would have seen to have failed. Peace was never on offer and never would be.
From the outset this was a fight to the finish and recognised as such by both parties. That is why it was the most brutal war in modern times.

[Thunderhawk]

It was assumed with some accuracy, that a surface fleet could not operate effectively without air cover in an area dominated by an enemy air force
If the RAF was defeated I doubt the Navy could have got to the barges.
It was control of the airspace that Germany wanted and with that there was a good chance of a successful invasion.

Why does everybody forget or dismiss the British subs?

[Rojik of the Arctic]

There was never an atempt to win by air power. The attacks were designed to eliminate the RAF and gain control of the air space etc.

The Germans never had a hope in hell of taking Britain with their resorces. As I pointed out there was no way to destroy the ability of the RAF to replace aircraft due to the short ranges of the fighter escort and the low bomb load of the heavies. The ports of the RN were effectively out of reach and even if (and a big if) they could have destroyed the navy by air the flat bottom barges that were to transport and supply the attack were not fit for the attack - a storm in the channel would have been enough to capsize a heavy proprtion of the craft. Sea Lion was viewed with nothing short of dismay by both the Army and Navy. If the Luftwaffe couldn't prevent the evacuation of Dunkirk or Crete by air power then there was no way thay could stop the might of the RN creating absolute havoc among the invasion forces and supply lines. Remember that with 2 and 1/2 years of planning, overwhealming odds at the point of attack and complete air power over the front the invasion of France was a close run thing for a while. That is including PLUTO, mulburries and Herberts "funnies". Also remembering that the British would have thrown everything they had at the invaders and not counted the cost. If it cost them a navy to stop the invasion they would have done it.

By October the German army was sinking into a sea of mud etc

The joke was in October but Moscow lay wide open before that. If the forces had not have been shifted south the city was there for the taking. Not all captures of cities resembled Stalingrad. In fact only Stalingrad resembled that. Karkov, Minsk, Kiev, Smolensk etc all fell with minimal fuss. But the point remains that the city was undefended for a period of time before the attack was switched.

I never claimed it was decisive, I said that it reduced the number of troops available for the Eastern Front. As did the invasions of Jugoslavia and Greece, Hitler is on record as complaining about Italy's inneffective attacks diverting rescources.

Yep. But irrelevant to the topic.

It wasn't only the plan Gudarian was complaining about, he considered the whole invasion was an impossible task. You have selcted one out of two quotes etc

Didn't mean to look like I was selectivly quoting. I'll put etc so that you know I mean the whole lot. I just don't think requoting everything makes for good reading. But on Gudarian - I agree. The man was a legend and knew his stuff, and the invasion of the USSR was always a tough ask but it was achievable. But I ask you - if Moscow in September was such a bad thing why did Gudarian and other generals plead with Hitler to keep the eye on the prize and not move south?

This is a serious misreading of the political situation etc

No. The plan was always the Archangel/Astrakhan line. This would have meant some sort of political solution at some point. Maybe it would have been a temporary truce but the Germans would have benefited as much, if not more, from the lull as they repaired and resupplied their army ie rail, depots etc as well as stockpiling spares and fuel.

[Oxymoron]

The joke was in October but Moscow lay wide open before that. If the forces had not have been shifted south the city was there for the taking.

If they werent shifted the Russians would have attacked from the rear of group center couples with fresh troops from Asia which would mean encirclement.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

If they werent shifted the Russians would have attacked from the rear of group centre couples with fresh troops from Asia which would mean encirclement.

With what? The winter offensives only succeeded on a small territorial scale and resulted in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of troops. A German army dug in and prepared would have stopped the encirclement. The High Command and the Generals were all happy to play out that scenario but none but the boot-lickers thought the southern drive was anything but a tactical victory. You also have to remember that the Soviets had yet to develope the idea of deep penatration offensives and were using their tanks as infantry support rather than grouped break through units.

[Oxymoron]

You also have to remember that the Soviets had yet to develope the idea of deep penatration offensives and were using their tanks as infantry support rather than grouped break through units.

evidence of that.