All out war between Germany and Britain after Fall of France

[Marcelo Jenisch]

I was thinking about this scenario, specially in regard to Churchill historically have being against the policy of unconditional surrender for Germany. The reason for this is not hard to presume: had Britain, it's Empire and perhaps the Americans fought Germany to unconditional surrender, Stalin could well have fully occupied Poland, the Balkans and several other territories, while the British and the Americans would not have conditions to oppose him.

If Britain was historically already bankrupted by the wars end, it would not be the smartest decision to went in an even more deeper hole and still give terrain to the Communists.

[phylo_roadking]

The reason for this is not hard to presume: had Britain, it's Empire and perhaps the Americans fought Germany to unconditional surrender, Stalin could well have fully occupied Poland, the Balkans and several other territories...

Er.....

[ljadw]

<afaics,the claim that Churchill was opposed to the Unconditional Surrender demand,is a post war invention,when there was a lot of crtiticism of the Casablanca Proclamation

[Marcelo Jenisch]

What would be size of the Red Army by 1945-46? Even more gigantic, and also: well equipped. It's naviness to belive that the Russians would not be interested in pick the fruits Germany dropped. BTW, they already proved capable of this kind of thing in Poland and Manchuria.

[phylo_roadking]

What would be size of the Red Army by 1945-46? Even more gigantic, and also: well equipped.

The Red Army was running headfirst into a gigantic manpower shortage in 1945...and you're forgetting the second and rear echelon units armed with older LL tanks, lighter tanks etc...

[Marcelo Jenisch]

The Rred Army was running headfirst into a gigantic manpower shortage in 1945...

After the USSR lost 28 million people, not to mention other casualities, not a surprise. But if they remained neutral, the same cannot be said.

[phylo_roadking]

After the USSR lost 28 million people, not to mention other casualities, not a surprise. But if they remained neutral, the same cannot be said.

If they remain Neutral, they cannot build, maintain/feed and field the same armed forces as they could after four years of war and total mobilisation for war...

[Marcelo Jenisch]

But the size of the Red Army was already enormous by 1941, and it's strategy was of offensive operations, even if they were attacked. If you are suggesting that by 1945-46 the Red Army would not be able to launch a big offensive against Germany, specially after she was weakned by the Allies, I found that hard to belive. And it's not only question of numbers: quality is also very important. By this period the Russians would have, for example, thousands of modern planes with pilots much better trained.

Germany could have put 50% of it's Army in the East in the defensive role, so as to desincourage Russian action. But this would inevitably affect it's capabilities against the Allies. Also: when the pressure start in the East, the Germans would strip the East of it's defenses, what would open way for the Russians anyway.

[phylo_roadking]

But the size of the Red Army was already enormous by 1941, and it's strategy was of offensive operations, even if they were attacked. If you are suggesting that by 1945-46 the Red Army would not be able to launch a big offensive against Germany, specially after she was weakned by the Allies, I found that hard to belive.

...except Hitler is going to have to attack the USSR before that, due to all the historical/economic imperatives. I realy doubt he can put it off to 1945-6 until the Soviets attack him!

And it's not only question of numbers: quality is also very important. By this period the Russians would have, for example, thousands of modern planes with pilots much better trained.

This I REALLY doubt; the USSR went to war in the East in 1941 with huge numbers of outmoded aircraft that it regarded as top of the line...but weren't. Even by the end of the war, it's best designs still contained suprising numbers of wooden airframe compnents here and there, for example. How is it going to know how its designs benchmark against a potential enemy??? And there's going to be no LL aircraft starting in 1941 for it to crib or back-engineer anything from.

[Marcelo Jenisch]

the USSR went to war in the East in 1941 with huge numbers of outmoded aircraft that it regarded as top of the line...

This is bad faith of yours. The Russians were well aware that their planes were obsolete. When the war broke out, modern designs were already operational in small numbers. True, they suffered from problems due to being put into production prematurely, but they were still there, and like historically give time and the problems would go way.

Even by the end of the war, it's best designs still contained suprising numbers of wooden airframe compnents here and there, for example.

The Russians used wood because there was a shortage of aluminum. The use of wood was by no means a critical problem. The Russians had the excellent La-7 by 1944.

How is it going to know how its designs benchmark against a potential enemy???

By something called engineering. It's naiviness (not intending to be offensive here) to belive that the specifications of a new aircraft can only be obtained by capturing enemy models. There's always an evolutionary line that all engineers would follow. For example, by 1940 the aircraft engines producing about 1,000 hp. By this time, engines in the 2,000 horsepower mark were already a consensus as the next evolutionary step for engines by engineers all over the word, and a few years later they started to appear.

BTW, for those interested, here's an excellent documentary about the Russian fighters in WWII:

[phylo_roadking]

This is bad faith of yours. The Russians were well aware that their planes were obsolete. When the war broke out, "modern" designs were already operational in small numbers. True, they suffered from problems due to being put into production prematurely, but they were still there, and like historically, give time and the problems would go way.

"Modern" designs - but not as modern as the combatants were turning out for the last couple of years...see below!

And remember exactly how they found out their problems and lack of performance etc...

The Russians had the excellent La-7 by 1944.

...by way of a number of unimpressive or average aircraft from the same design table/factory The 1940 LaGG-1 with its "Inadequate range, ceiling and manouverability, and potentially dangerous handling characteristics"? (Green&Swanborough) The LaGG-3, made in large numbers but still outperformed by German types? The La-5...

You see - you're making the same mistake that all the OPs in threads on German strategic bombers etc. make - the Soviets have to LEARN that their aircraft are outmoded or underperforming in the white heat of combat to accelerate development of newer types ;)They aren't going to achieve the La-7 by 1944 because there's nothing to drive the previous types into obsolescence, and because development etc. will proceed at peacetime rates and investment levels I.E. low, and....low.

By something called engineering. It's naiviness (not intending to be offensive here) to belive that the specification of a determined aircraft can only be measured by captured enemy models.

Er....no; having to FIGHT enemy aircraft determined that an aircraft specification was outdated FAR faster!

For example, by 1940 the fighter engines were producing about 1000 hp.

...which is a bit of a bummer, as in 1940 the Bf109E was producing 1350 hp....

BTW, for those interested, here's an excellent documentary about the Russian fighters in WWII:

You see - there's the problem in an nutshell - development and re-equiping will piddle along at pre-war speed or only slightly faster...until the USSR IS actually "in" WWII...

[BDV]

The British war effort, especially in the air, could be pursued more efficiently.

If Adolf can hold his hysterical nerves in check, the fight will be concentrated in Western Europe and North Africa. Without Barbarossa there will be time and resources for amphibious-airborne Axis actions in the Med in 1941.

[phylo_roadking]

The British war effort, especially in the air, could be pursued more efficiently.

They could determine earlier than mid-1941 that strategic bombing was atrociously inaccurate;

They could decide to abandon "Nickelling", the dropping of leaflets, far earlier than they did - there were still Nickelling operations right into 1942!

Arguably the Fighter Command offensive campaign of 1941 and 9142 was a bit too wasteful - but it DID put the LW onto the defensive apart from night operations - the Baedecker Blitz, the Baby Blitz, the tip-and-run raids etc.

The War Cabinet could authorise a FULL camapign against German war production targets in France; there were of course some raids - but there were actually quite few in 1941 and 1942. Question is - how would this affect relations with De Gaulle???

The problem with most of the above, however - is that the British have to find out that their current tactics are wasteful/inaccurate/useless - it's not the change of tactics that's the necessary POD - it's the initial finding out!

If Adolf can hold his hysterical nerves in check, the fight will be concentrated in Western Europe and North Africa.

This is what the British DIDN'T want him doing, and set out to ensure he spread his forces all over the map. Look at Adolf's reaction to the Vaagso and Lofoten Islands' commando raids, for example..."Island Madness" and 385,000 men tied up in Norway by the end of the war!!! This is what the British WANT.

[Gooner1]

If Adolf can hold his hysterical nerves in check, the fight will be concentrated in Western Europe and North Africa. Without Barbarossa there will be time and resources for amphibious-airborne Axis actions in the Med in 1941.

It would be a while before they could put a Crete on again, Cyprus is (probably too far), so good luck with Malta.

[BDV]

@ Gooner
You say Crete, I say Dodecanese, you say Compass, I say Gazala. It would be a seesaw, but while tactics favor the Axis, the supply situation favors the British, until such time that Alexandria falls to the Axis (if maybe). Merkur had the promise of solving the Crete issue schnell, which given what was about to kick off in June 1941, was a must. The Dodecanese campaign shows what Germans were capable of with proper time and airsupport.

Whether Balkans go down as historically to begin with is highly debatable, but of course that in turn alters how thing shape up in Tripolitania and whether Rommel can effect his historical breakout, or is reduced to a slogfest.


@Phylo
A Britain+RKKA scenario (with US funding, which the OP gave no reason for interruption of) is pretty much like historical, maybe with a 10-15 division BEF (CEF?) in Kuban/Southern Ukraine, with softer conditions to the Romanians and Finns if they flip somewhere in say '43 Fall - '44 Spring. Still, with Russians busy, what keeps the samurai-junta from pulling their fatal stunt against US?