World War II: Germany vs Britain (minus USA)

[seeker]

The German airforces superiority over the RAF was short lived, immediately following the Battle of Britain, RAF fighter, light, and heavy bombers were ranging across France, the Low Countries, and in the case of latter, in large numbers over Germany sowing the whirlwind that Bomber Harris promised Churchill! The total tonnage of bombs dropped on Germany by the RAF was huge compared to what the Germans achieved over Britain. The Lancaster alone could drop two-to-three times the tonnage of a US Flying Fortress, it's closest rival up until the deployment of the Super Fortress. Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons were shooting down more German fighters over France than they were losing in air-to air engagements, even before the US entered the war.

Some people here need to do some research!

I would agree and maybe we should start with you.

Anglo French prewar strategy envisaged a wartime period of two years to build up their military. The plan was to hide behind the Maginote line until until they could go on the offensive against Germany. This relied extensively on bombing of Germany to attenuate the war of attrition against the German industrial complex [accelerated WW-I].

We all know what happened to the Maginote line , but by mid 1941 , Churchill was puzzled as to why the Strategic bombing seemed to have no effect against the Germans. So he commissioned a study by his science advisor. This became known as the Butt report and its conclusions were nothing short of shocking.

Of the about 6000 bombing missions that were studied only 1 out of 3 dropped their bombs within 5 miles of the intended target. If you factor in all the missions that crashed due to mechanical error before they reached target or got lost enroute and had to return or just shot down; the figure was more like 1 bombing mission out of 20 reached to within 5 miles of the intended target over Germany. It makes you wonder just how effective they really would have been if the Germans had actually crossed the Channel while the Battle of Britain was raging over head.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butt_report

As Butt did not include those aircraft that did not bomb because of equipment failure, enemy action, weather, or simply getting lost, the reality was that about five per cent of bombers setting out bombed within five miles of their target

 

[lalitghag]

I think German were in position to win world war II. Biggest mistake Hitler did was invention of Soviet Union.Hitlers ignorance about USA cost Germans.

 

[seeker]

I think German were in position to win world war II. Biggest mistake Hitler did was invention of Soviet Union.Hitlers ignorance about USA cost Germans.

Germany would have been ready to wage war by 1940 had Hitler not intervened in the rearmament process from the mid 1930s on. The strategic plan envisaged stockpiling armaments, resources, munitions and fuel to prosecute 12 months of continous campaigns, storming across Europe secquentially.

However even the most optimistic assessment in the mid 1930s predicted that the goal of a 'total war economy' could not be reached until 1943/3 period, going on peace time development rate. That meant the risk that if Europe was not occupied inside of this first year,Germany could get bogged down in a war of attrition that they ultimately could not win if it becomes a duplication of WW-I. :shudder

Hitler baulked at this plan and instead imposed his own strategy in 1936. Their would be no stockpiling or preperation for total war. The countries of Europe were weak and would fall one after another to German racial superiority and his unshackable will power

Instead he would make treaties and deals to carve up Europe politically giving Germany more time to defeat these enemies. Occupying these countries would also allow him the room to fast track the total war effort to 1940/41. He would cut a deal with the UK , allowing them to keep their empire in exchange for non interference in European affairs. Hitler believed the Brits were part of his so called Aryan race and would see the sence of letting Hitler get on with the job of slaughtering the Jews and Slavs. :loony He would cut a similar type deal with Russia in the form of a non aggression pact , until Germany was ready to invade .....however invade he would. Infact that was the main reason he went to war in the first place.

Hitler had a revelation during the Munich affair. He desided that Roosevelt was the leader of the international Jewish cause and therefore Germany's unltimate foe. Since America 'seemed' weak, isollationist and far away, the sooner he got Europe under his occupation the quicker he could turn his attention to defeating the USA. He argued that this was nothing less than Germany's war for cultural and racial survival. His delusions got so far as to believe that the UK could be convinced to join him in his crusade against the USA nfloorl:

 

[Tavarisch]

Some of you guys are neglecting the fact that the Soviet Union would've invaded Germany.

Consider this, Stalin and Hitler are of two opposing political ideologies. Let's not forget that Stalin was just as bloodthirsty, crazy, paranoid and sick like Hitler. The only reason he made the Molotov-Ribbentropp pact was to ensure the safe build up of his Polish buffer zone. When that was done, he would build up his own Soviet Army and trampled over the Nazis. And when that was done, Stalin would've taken his war to the Capitalists. He'd win of course, out of attrition. He managed to conscript more than 20 million soldiers.

Of course, had it not been for Barbarossa, the Tehran conference and what not, Great Britain could've been renamed to the Soviet Republic of Britain.

 

[A.Mookerjee]

I was wondering, What if the German Forces had annihilated the Home Fleet of the British Navy, based at Scapa Flow? What if a Pearl Harbor like attack had been planned on the Home Fleet and the Reserve Fleet simultaneously? Then, the British Empire would have been divided, and would not have been defended. The Germans, I believe, could have built better naval and escort aircraft, than the Japanese. If the Electro Submarine, had been introduced in 1941, and if the Germans had employed superior Naval Bombers, and had ordered a port assault on Scapa Flow, then after a devastating air attack on the port, the submarines could have finished the battleship fleet, if this was possible by the electro submarines.

 

[swerve]

Of the about 6000 bombing missions that were studied only 1 out of 3 dropped their bombs within 5 miles of the intended target. If you factor in all the missions that crashed due to mechanical error before they reached target or got lost enroute and had to return or just shot down; the figure was more like 1 bombing mission out of 20 reached to within 5 miles of the intended target over Germany. It makes you wonder just how effective they really would have been if the Germans had actually crossed the Channel while the Battle of Britain was raging over head.

Different class of problem. Finding a fleet of barges chugging across the Channel at walking speed in daylight was trivially easy. Even at night it wasn't too hard. The invasion fleet would be a very big target, a very short distance away from the British coast. You could navigate by the gun flashes of the coastal artillery, if all else failed.

Bombing targets hundreds of miles away, at night, was much more difficult. Many times harder. Night navigation techniques were poor, took a high degree of skill, & even for the best crews, were very imprecise. It took a couple of years of hard work improving techniques & equipment, & intensive training of carefully selected crews, before the Pathfinders could locate & mark targets at night with any degree of accuracy.

 

[Palnatoke]

I would say that Germany had the win within it's reach:

Had Operation Barbarosa not been delayed 2-3 months there is a good chance that Der Wehrmacht could have practically destroyed the red army and penetrated deep into the last industrial areas behind and around Moscow before the winther. Eventhough this perhaps would not have brought a strategical collapse of Russia, the Russian abillity to rebuild their forces would have been weakened by the loss of the remaining officer corps and trained technical personal in a decessive battle around Moscow not to mention the loss of industrial base.

With a weakened or perhaps even defeated Russia, Germany would have been able to throw a lot of weight into the N. african theatre and would have been able to advance into the ME. If Germany had been able, not only to secure the ressources of the ME, but establish a defensive line in North africa/ME, Germany would have held a very strong position.

The respite this scenario would give germany, would also have allowed it to re-start it's armament process, which in many ways was more advanced than the US/UK same.

The war would have been stalemate, even with the US as an enemy.

 

[Firn]

What few people take into account that Germany would not have had to invade Britain to at least greatly reduce the ability of Britain to conduct the war. In a scenario where the USA would have not supported Britain with the lend&lease and later direct military aid it would have been quite likely that Germany would have won the shipping war in the Atlantic. Given how hard Churchill tried to bring the USA into to give so desperately needed help in 1940 it seems a very likely outcome.

So without war between the Sovietunion and Nazi Germany and no massive US aid the continuation of the vast commercial exchange between the two powers I'm quite sure that Britain would have not stood a chance in a prolonged conflict.

 

[USNlover]

Germany would have defeated Britain if he didn't invade USSR. That way he could have held overwhelming Air, Sea, and land forces (submarines). Also Without US's industral capacity Britian would "starve" like Hitler wanted to. But it also depends if America did the Lend -lease pact. Operation Torch was manly an American operation with some British help. :ar15 :ar15 :ar15 :ar15 :type :ar15 :ar15 :ar15 :ar15 :ar15 :type :ar15 :ar15 :ar15 :ar15

 

[riksavage]

Prior to Germany's invasion of Russia, Britain was already outproducing Germany with regard to combat ships and aircraft. Germany never achieved Maritime supremacy over the UK. At the beginning of the Battle of Britain, the RN had 30 Destroyers covering the English Channel to Germany's 9.

Don't forget in exchange for the US Governments assistance, Britain passed on all the proprietary technology covering radar, sonar and the jet engine - it wasn't all one way traffic!

 

[cavalrytrooper]

Germany's England

Often watching those History and There Discovery channel programs about German Military's victories over other European powers makes me wonder if Germany would have defeated Britain had US not intervened? German scientists came up with some amazing new inventions such as the Jet engine and the V2 which, although the Germans could not utilise properly, would have given them huge advantage over Britain if the war had gone on a little longer.

So whats ur opinion?


Any stats on the British and Gemrna Military from World War II would be interesting. I googled but didnt find anything.

There is no doubt that Germany would have taken England. Without US war material England would not have anything or the fuel to make things go. Without any groceries from the states they would be awful hungry. The Germans would have taken without US help.

 

[cavalrytrooper]

Prior to Germany's invasion of Russia, Britain was already outproducing Germany with regard to combat ships and aircraft. Germany never achieved Maritime supremacy over the UK. At the beginning of the Battle of Britain, the RN had 30 Destroyers covering the English Channel to Germany's 9.

Don't forget in exchange for the US Governments assistance, Britain passed on all the proprietary technology covering radar, sonar and the jet engine - it wasn't all one way traffic!

England won the Battle for Britain, but without the aviation fuel their former colony was sending them the Spitfires and Hurricanes would not have gotten off the ground. The United States was supplying all of the allies.

 

[Firn]

Let us assume that Britain stands alone against Nazi Germany without massive aid from the USA. After a closer look at the war in the Atlantic I frankly think now that Britain would have been brought on it's knees in 1942 or 1943. At least if you can believe the (British) testimonies - plus Churchill - in the posted videos ( ASW warfare) in which they describe how dire the supply and war situation was - and that with heavy USA aid and support and Germany's main effort by far directed against the east...


With the sea lanes cut or reduced to tiny trickles a serious war effort could have been hardly been sustained by Britain. It would have been in an ever closer stranglehold, whith ever less chance to escape the firm grip of the U-boats...

 

[riksavage]

Let us assume that Britain stands alone against Nazi Germany without massive aid from the USA. After a closer look at the war in the Atlantic I frankly think now that Britain would have been brought on it's knees in 1942 or 1943. At least if you can believe the (British) testimonies - plus Churchill - in the posted videos ( ASW warfare) in which they describe how dire the supply and war situation was - and that with heavy USA aid and support and Germany's main effort by far directed against the east...


With the sea lanes cut or reduced to tiny trickles a serious war effort could have been hardly been sustained by Britain. It would have been in an ever closer stranglehold, whith ever less chance to escape the firm grip of the U-boats...

You forget the support provided by the Dominions.

Britain domestically by 1942 was out producing Germany with regard to weapons manufacturing. The Royal Navy had destroyed most of Germanys surface raiders and destroyer squadrons (latter during the Norway campaign) resulting in the home fleet UK Destroyer Squadrons greatly outnumbering their German counterparts. The U-Boat war would have been close, but it would not have straggled Britain, the same way it failed to strangle Britain in WWI. Even if Germany had won the battle of Britain the Royal Navy would have caused devastating losses to the German invasion fleet. 30 RN destroys alone against 9 German. Not forgetting the RN's own submarine flotilla.

Agree Britain could not have invaded continental Europe alone without US help, the same way the US could not of invaded continental Europe without Britain's help (the largest proportion of Naval assets assigned to D-DAY where British and Commonwealth).

Sooner or later Germany and Russia would have come to blows, they were so ideologically opposed -Hitler's and Stalin's ego's were too great, there simply wasn't room for both.

Churchill's priority (before Pearl Harbour) was:

1. Defend the British mainland (ensure the continued supremacy of the RN and bomber command attacks)

2. Defend the ME Oil Fields (Defeat Rommel)

3. Keep the Arctic Convoys going (he knew Russia and Germany would come to blows, and as a keen historian, he also knew that Russia would bleed Germany white, the same way it bled Napoleon white in 1812)

4. Keep India and thus a critical foothold in the East


And if we want to start the 'what -if' game then we should also consider putting the shoe on the other foot, for example: Sir Frank Whittle's jet engine design which was finalised in 1937. If this had been taken up earlier by the Air Ministry we could have witnessed Gloster Meteors over France in 1941. Instead of 1943 (declared operational in 1944). The same engine could then have been fitted to Mosquito's and heavy bombers the same way the Merlin Engine was. And not forgetting Churchill's experiments with Anthrax biological weapons and potential for using the agent across Germany to cuase unprecedented human losses.

Whilst Germany reigned supreme on land, they did not reign supreme against Britain at sea or in the air - with or without the US.

 

[Firn]

I'm certainly not forgetting the impact made by the dominions - especially the Canadian Royal Navy. But I wonder if you really took a close enough look at the second Battle of the Atlantic to appreciate the situation regarding shipping and supplies. Nota bene I don't talk about invading Britain for the time being, I talk about cutting the supplies off and starving the war industry and people. Even under most unfavorable circumstances and relative small funding compared to the main German effort the impact of the submarines on the supplies and shipping put the fear into Churchill.

It all depends on how we frame the situation. If we assume that USA does support GB in same way the Sovietunion and there is no war on the continent than there is practically no hope for GB to avoid defeat by strangulation. In a thread "Britain vs Germany" this seems to be a "fair" assumption. As you see I don't take any technological "what if " in consideration, although the one's developed by the Germans should have arguably made a bigger impact in the war. But I want to keep things simple.

You state that GB outproduced Germany 1942 in weapons - can you back that up? Even with all the help and supplies it got from the USA it would be quite a surprise if it would overall outproduce Germany.

 

[riksavage]

I'm certainly not forgetting the impact made by the dominions - especially the Canadian Royal Navy. But I wonder if you really took a close enough look at the second Battle of the Atlantic to appreciate the situation regarding shipping and supplies. Nota bene I don't talk about invading Britain for the time being, I talk about cutting the supplies off and starving the war industry and people. Even under most unfavorable circumstances and relative small funding compared to the main German effort the impact of the submarines on the supplies and shipping put the fear into Churchill.

It all depends on how we frame the situation. If we assume that USA does support GB in same way the Sovietunion and there is no war on the continent than there is practically no hope for GB to avoid defeat by strangulation. In a thread "Britain vs Germany" this seems to be a "fair" assumption. As you see I don't take any technological "what if " in consideration, although the one's developed by the Germans should have arguably made a bigger impact in the war. But I want to keep things simple.

You state that GB outproduced Germany 1942 in weapons - can you back that up? Even with all the help and supplies it got from the USA it would be quite a surprise if it would overall outproduce Germany.

If the US had remained isolationist as Kennedy Snr wanted then Britain would have looked elsewhere and if necessary got into bed with the devil - Russia. Churchill would through necessity given the Russian's access to Enigma, which would have provided invaluable intelligence to the Russian's during the Barbarossa Campaign. He could have also passed on the UK's proprietary information pertaining to radar, sonar and the jet engine.

If I was in his situation I would have gone further and signed a number of JV initiatives, such as:

1. Manufacturing of T34's in Britain (fitted with a 17pdr)
2. Sent Lord Beaverbrook to Russia and set-up a production base for Mosquito's, Lancaster's and as the war progressed the British designed and engined long range fighter the Mustang.
3. Sent Commonwealth bomber and fighter crews in large numbers to support Russian ground offensives
4. Opened the files on the Anthrax experiments. (Churchill deemed them too horrific to continue, Stalin would not have been that squeamish)
5. Maybe even considered moving Russian Divisions to UK soil as a potential second front. Landing Siberian Divisions in Norway during winter forcing the Germans to divert resources West. You will see below the RN certainly had the Naval assets to do it, with or without the Americans.

Remember Germany too relied on outside help, if Sweden hadn't supplied them with coal and iron ore they would have suffered during the War and military production nose-dived.

Anyway here are the figures, which can be easily gleaned from Wiki or other military stats sites.: Military Production 1938-1945 (pay particular attention to Naval assets - critical for an invasion)

Artillery
Artillery includes anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons with calibres above 37 mm.
Germany = 159,147
United Kingdom = 124,877 , Canada = 10,552, Other Commonwealth = 5,215

Mortars (over 60 mm)
Germany = 73,484
United Kingdom = 102,950, Commonwealth = 46,014

Machineguns - Machineguns do not include sub-machineguns, or machine guns used for arming aircraft.
Germany = 674,280
United Kingdom = 297,336 , Canada = 251,925, Other Commonwealth = 37,983

Military trucks
Germany = 345,914
United Kingdom = 480,943, Canada = 815,729

Military aircraft of all types
Germany = 119,307
United Kingdom = 131,549, Canada = 16,431, Other Commonwealth = 3,081

Aircraft carriers
Germany = 0 None completed by the end of the war. Two were in production , Graf Zeppelin and Flugzeugträger B.
United Kingdom = 14

Battleships (built during the war)
Germany = 4
United Kingdom = 5

Cruisers
Germany = 0
United Kingdom = 32

Destroyers
United Kingdom = 240
Germany = 17*

*Note: How the hell was Germany going to beat the RN with 17 Destroyers (reduced to 9 following Norway) vs. 240, and invade the UK

Convoy escorts
Germany = 23
United Kingdom = 413, Canada = 191

Submarines
Germany = 1,141 *
United Kingdom = 167

*Note: the War in the Atlantic was largely won by the RN & Commonwealth Forces - the convoy system, better sonar, tactics and depth charges defeated the U-Boats

Merchant tonnage
Germany Unknown
United Kingdom = 6,378,899 , Canada = 3,742,100, Commonwealth = 2,702,943

 

[Firn]

I think we are talking a bit astray.

I repeat once again that an invasion of Britain would have out of the question in the first years - but an strangulation would have been the most likely outcome given the situation outlined in my post before.
If we don't agree on that we should rename the thread "Sovietunion and Britain vs. Germany"

I'm also very well aware of the military production in WWII, but the figures don't show that overall GB - even with the massive aid by the USA - outproduced Germany in 1942.

Anyway this will be my last post in this thread, given that it is hard to add something new to the discussion and most prefer to conserve their point of view. This is not directed against you, riksavage

 

[riksavage]

I think we are talking a bit astray.

The figures I have produced represent vehicles, guns, tanks and ships BUILT in the United Kingdom, in British factories and ship yards, NOT in the USA and shipped over in Convoys. Tell me how the US influenced the building of Britain's Navy? Tell me how the US influenced the building of Britain's Lancaster's, Spitfires, Hurricanes and tanks (other than the Sherman).

I think you need to read a bit more about the Battle of the Atlantic rather than simply watching the Discovery Channel and see what impact the RN & Canadian Navies had on Germany's U-Boats. Whilst Britain couldn't have beaten Germany, Germany couldn't have starved Britain into submission - she tried in WWI and failed and she would fail again.

You talk about strangulation, just look at the size of the RN surface fleet compared to that of Germany's. Add to that the increasing number of bombing raids against German U-Boat construction yards and pens, plus the advances in sonar and convoy techniques resulting in the pendulum swing away from the U-Boat in favour of the Escort's by the end of 42.

Look at the following British designed aircraft, all built in UK factories using components derived largely from the Empire (rubber, metals etc.)

Supermarine Spitfires: 33,198
Hawker Hurricanes: 12,975
Mosquito: 7,781 (6,710 during the war)
Avro Lancasters: 7,377
Wellingtons: 11,461
Halifax: 6,176

Our American Allies supplied the Brit's with large numbers of Liberators though.

 

[Palnatoke]

I think we are talking a bit astray.

The figures I have produced represent vehicles, guns, tanks and ships BUILT in the United Kingdom, in British factories and ship yards, NOT in the USA and shipped over in Convoys. Tell me how the US influenced the building of Britain's Navy? Tell me how the US influenced the building of Britain's Lancaster's, Spitfires, Hurricanes and tanks (other than the Sherman).

I think you need to read a bit more about the Battle of the Atlantic rather than simply watching the Discovery Channel and see what impact the RN & Canadian Navies had on Germany's U-Boats. Whilst Britain couldn't have beaten Germany, Germany couldn't have starved Britain into submission - she tried in WWI and failed and she would fail again.

You talk about strangulation, just look at the size of the RN surface fleet compared to that of Germany's. Add to that the increasing number of bombing raids against German U-Boat construction yards and pens, plus the advances in sonar and convoy techniques resulting in the pendulum swing away from the U-Boat in favour of the Escort's by the end of 42.

Look at the following British designed aircraft, all built in UK factories using components derived largely from the Empire (rubber, metals etc.)

Supermarine Spitfires: 33,198
Hawker Hurricanes: 12,975
Mosquito: 7,781 (6,710 during the war)
Avro Lancasters: 7,377
Wellingtons: 11,461
Halifax: 6,176

Our American Allies supplied the Brit's with large numbers of Liberators though.

First of all. You just can't compare vehicle to vehicle. There is a difference between a "Churchil" and a Pzkv IV (aus F2), one of them being that the panzer was more ressource intensive and another being that it would destroy the churchill in all but the most unfavorable circumstances.

Second of all 1942 is before german industry was converted into total war production (that happens early in the UK), when that is done you see f.ex. german tank production peak, dispite ressource shortings and bombings in late 43 early 44. Again the german tanks was more elaborate and difficult to produce than
allied tanks, though (from Pz IV and onwards) held a decissive advantage on the battlefield, while having complete advantage over western allied tanks the russians fielded tanks that could content at a disadvantage.

You are also forgetting that the UK drew heavely on financial surport from the US, without that the UK could not have mobilised such large part of the production into armament (btw the finance part of the deal spelled the doom of the british empire).

You focuss a lot on the RN, but forget the reality, displayed in Lord Pound's admission the Churchill that the RN could no longer gurantee the isles. It was air power and not hulks of steel that mattered - as displayed in the pacific.

I agree that particulary the sluggish german production of airplanes became a factor in it's defeat. It's an interesting subject that the nazi regime failed to stream line production of a few workhorses be that airplanes, tanks or trucks but again and again made the error of diverting huge ressources into development and production of a number fantastic but always scarce types. Though it has to be underlined that the german types as a rule were superior from a technological point of view. In the air war the german technical superiority becomes potentially "war winning" a year or so too late.

 

[Grim901]

In the air war the german technical superiority becomes potentially "war winning" a year or so too late.

Care to elaborate on that? As far as I can see the german attempt at air superiority failed even with superior numbers thanks in a large part to British innovation in radar and fighter aircraft.