Battle of Britain
Re: Battle of Britain
Hi v.S
Your at it again, just picking random numbers from thin air!
Why 200,000 deaths?, why 500 raids?-Are these figures important and if so based on what equation?, given your premise.
Regards
Andy H
PS: Can I remind everyone not to set WI's within WI's as it makes the thread hard to read and understand, as members cross discuss different alternatives
Your at it again, just picking random numbers from thin air!
Why 200,000 deaths?, why 500 raids?-Are these figures important and if so based on what equation?, given your premise.
Regards
Andy H
PS: Can I remind everyone not to set WI's within WI's as it makes the thread hard to read and understand, as members cross discuss different alternatives
- phylo_roadking
- Member
- Posts: 17488
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
- Location: Belfast
Re: Battle of Britain
Answer - never.If the Germans win the BOB and the Luftwaffe are able to roam at will over all of SE England, just how long is it before Churchill, who would never surrender, orders the RAF bombers at bases out of reach on the N.Sea coast, on a virtual one-way mission to drop gas on German cities, and would he be obeyed?
Bomber Command was to be "used up" attacking the invasion bridgehead - with Fighter Command providing escort to insert them into the Luftwafe air umbrella.
it was the specially-formed Operation BANQUET force that was to drop gas.....the RAF's speedily-converted armed trainers and student/trainee pilots...and THEN opnly on the invasion beaches and forces. For they would be frighteningly vulnerable to the Luftwaffe, and wouldn't survive more than a couple of sorties at most as a force.
And Harris became OC Bomber COmmand 18 months AFTER the lessons of the Blitz were learned, that civilian populations were more resilient than anyone expected them to be.Harris thought that by raising Berlin from end to end he would end the war.
THEY DID ALL national air forces in that period had their adherents of Douhet.WI the Germans also thought that by bombing solely London, the British would surrender ie all bombers focus on London only
Last edited by phylo_roadking on 27 May 2010, 18:21, edited 1 time in total.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...
Re: Battle of Britain
This idea would make Britain stronger, not weaker. London is of little strategic importance, only propaganda importance.Von Schadewald wrote:Harris thought that by raising Berlin from end to end he would end the war.
WI the Germans also thought that by bombing solely London, the British would surrender ie all bombers focus on London only. London ends up being much more heavily damaged than in OTL, with whole boroughs resembling the City in devastation, evacuation of a large part of the population occurs, and deaths reach 200,000.
But as with Harris, bombing a city fails to end the war.
The most important British installations were the east coast ports, at which the vital convoys unloaded food, fuel and supplies. Now if all German bombers focused on completely wrecking the port of Liverpool, that would hurt Britain far worse than a devastated London.
Re: Battle of Britain
you mean :the west coast ports ?
Re: Battle of Britain
Yes, sorry! Don't know left from right, so east from west is way over my head.....
- bf109 emil
- Member
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 25 Mar 2008, 22:20
- Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada
Re: Battle of Britain
Yes it might have hurt Britain more, but destroying the Ports would not have brought upon the decision that Hitler or Göring was hoping for...not to hinder Britain's war efforts in so much as to force Britain to capitulate/surrender/sue for peace...but IIRC the main reason for bombing London was 2 fold,Tim Smith wrote:This idea would make Britain stronger, not weaker. London is of little strategic importance, only propaganda importance.Von Schadewald wrote:Harris thought that by raising Berlin from end to end he would end the war.
WI the Germans also thought that by bombing solely London, the British would surrender ie all bombers focus on London only. London ends up being much more heavily damaged than in OTL, with whole boroughs resembling the City in devastation, evacuation of a large part of the population occurs, and deaths reach 200,000.
But as with Harris, bombing a city fails to end the war.
The most important British installations were the east coast ports, at which the vital convoys unloaded food, fuel and supplies. Now if all German bombers focused on completely wrecking the port of Liverpool, that would hurt Britain far worse than a devastated London.
1. to draw up British fighters which would defend London en mass (and still hope for a defeat of the RAF)
2. as well as a retaliatory response for bombing Berlin (with the hopes the British would perhaps sue for peace to prevent further destruction)
Re: Battle of Britain
let your left hand not know what your right hand is doing(or something like that)Tim Smith wrote:Yes, sorry! Don't know left from right, so east from west is way over my head.....
- bf109 emil
- Member
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 25 Mar 2008, 22:20
- Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada
Re: Battle of Britain
Then again to what effect would the Luftwaffe have had on Liverpools docks in the summer of 1940, flying in daylight across England, lacking fighter support and be apt to carry out enough destruction, accurately in order to hamper Liverpool"s ports/docks. Although this might have provided 13 group with some training along with 10 group had the raid to Liverpool came from the North. IMHO though I can't see the docks of Liverpool being destroyed, when in reality the docks in London, which faced a large number of sorties and vast tonnage of bombs, more so then ever could have been dropped on Liverpool, never ceased to stop functioning completely and only slowed when a threat to ships themselves became a peril concern, but mostly due to travel and sea/coast mines IIRC
Re: Battle of Britain
No. The bombing of Liverpool docks would have to be done at night. It could not be bombed in daylight, since unescorted German bombers would suffer appalling losses if they tried to get through to Liverpool against many squadrons of Spitfires and Hurricanes.bf109 emil wrote:Then again to what effect would the Luftwaffe have had on Liverpools docks in the summer of 1940, flying in daylight across England...
-
- Member
- Posts: 2065
- Joined: 17 Nov 2004, 00:17
- Location: Israel
Re: Battle of Britain
What was the route German bombers used to reach Liverpool, and what was the return route?
And to Belfast?
And to Belfast?
Re: Battle of Britain
Just as an side the British Air Ministry estimated the scale of any German bombing campaign at 1800tons per day come early July 1940. This figure had been revised down from an intial 4800tons (an alarmist figure in Churchills view) based on 80% a/c availability and planes averaging 1 1/2 missions a day. The revised figure was reached by averaging the missions a 1 per day and only around 50% a/c availability. Though they duly noted that these figures would increase as Sqns were re-inforced etc
Regards
Andy
Regards
Andy
Re: Battle of Britain
Yes, if Hitler had been a bit more wiser he could have eventually defeated Britain at great cost. Assuming he stopped while he was a head and didn't invade Russia,and assuming Russia didn't invade him. He could have built up a highly sophisticated air force and amphibious landing fleet. Had he waited until at least '45 he would have accumulated an air force that would have easily destroyed the RAF and wreaked terrible damage on British warships moving into the channel. He would have lost many thousands of elite infantry and countless transport ships (that he would have needed to build), but he would ultimately have won out
However, he was better off trying to just get a peace with Britain (also, if he could have had Churchill assassinated) and then putting everything into defending against Russia.
However, he was better off trying to just get a peace with Britain (also, if he could have had Churchill assassinated) and then putting everything into defending against Russia.
Re: Battle of Britain
Possibly but probably not.woden wrote:Yes, if Hitler had been a bit more wiser he could have eventually defeated Britain at great cost.
Not at all likely at that point. The combined air forces and navies of Britain and the US would have meant he proably wouldn't even have been able to assemble such a force.Assuming he stopped while he was a head and didn't invade Russia,and assuming Russia didn't invade him. He could have built up a highly sophisticated air force and amphibious landing fleet. Had he waited until at least '45 he would have accumulated an air force that would have easily destroyed the RAF and wreaked terrible damage on British warships moving into the channel. He would have lost many thousands of elite infantry and countless transport ships (that he would have needed to build), but he would ultimately have won out
Assassinating Churchill would be no guarantee of peace, indeed it might produce an even more determined Britain and gained them more international support.However, he was better off trying to just get a peace with Britain (also, if he could have had Churchill assassinated) and then putting everything into defending against Russia.
- phylo_roadking
- Member
- Posts: 17488
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
- Location: Belfast
Re: Battle of Britain
Even by the squadrons of Defiants that were clustered around there to patrol the North West and the Irish Sea later in 1940....which would still be VERY effective once the bombers were shorn by distance of fighter escort!No. The bombing of Liverpool docks would have to be done at night. It could not be bombed in daylight, since unescorted German bombers would suffer appalling losses if they tried to get through to Liverpool against many squadrons of Spitfires and Hurricanes
Up the Irish Sea, picking up the coast of Ireland and following it; black-out in the Free State didn't matter - following a sea-land delineator in good night visibility is absurdly easy. One bit shines....And to Belfast?
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...
Re: Battle of Britain
You are correct, actually, and if he tried then that would be most unwise. With only a fraction of the resources he could have eventually taken enough Mediterranean possessions to exchange them for a peaceLWD wrote:Not at all likely at that point. The combined air forces and navies of Britain and the US would have meant he proably wouldn't even have been able to assemble such a force.