glenn239 wrote: ↑20 Feb 2020, 20:10
The USSR may well indeed enter the war without Barbarossa, but whoever said the target would be Germany?
Yes, Finland would be easy picking for a resurgent Soviet Army.
[
glenn239 wrote: ↑20 Feb 2020, 20:10
The assumption is that Axis surface, air and subsurface forces working together - combined arms - would be more effective than U-boat working on their own. You are not
actually disputing that, are you?
Your assuming that German surface, air, & subsurface forces combined with Italian surface, air, and subsurface forces all come together in a perfect harmony. Yet, where do we see this happening in WW2? Not very often for the Axis. Indeed, very few British convoys had ships sunk by Axis surface, air, and subsurface forces.
You seem to forget that this failed miserably when the Germans tried to coordinate with the Italian submarines. The Italian submarines were actually better off on their own. Quite contrary to your assumption.
glenn239 wrote: ↑20 Feb 2020, 20:10
In terms of Luftwaffe support, this would be limited by aircraft type, base location, and carrier availability. The most useful aircraft in the BoA was the Condor due to its long range. One side effect of no Barbarossa would be to allow increased production of this type, (but not in enough numbers to matter once the USA was in the war.)
Probably not, as I would think that fighter & bomber production would be increased so as to maintain the more immediate pressure of bombing Britain. Or will this be yet another PoD, the death of Goring?
The Fw-200 was only the "most useful" because it was all the Germans had for this type of work. In reality, it was not all that great, and suffered heavily in the face of fighters and better shipboard AA.
Also, the Fw-200 threat was nullified when the British altered their convoy routes to avoid the Bay of Biscay.
glenn239 wrote: ↑20 Feb 2020, 20:10
The Allied problem was that their 21kt battleships couldn't effectively protect the SLOC against a strong enemy squadron. Carriers were much better.
The 21knot battleships worked well enough in the Atlantic & Med. The British also had several carriers to confront this "threat."
glenn239 wrote: ↑20 Feb 2020, 20:10
A submarine might be able to see the smoke of a convoy at maybe 50 miles and travel at 10kt in day, maybe 15 miles at 10kt at night. Let's call it a 2,000nm search area for one day. An aircraft travelling to 250nm on a dogleg search might be able to search 15,000 square miles in its flight, or about 10 times as efficient as a submarine. A line of ships therefore considerably more efficient than a wolfpack strung out on a search picket - its search area with the ships and aircraft is far greater, and so is its speed of concentration.
Unfortunately for you, the German capital ships hardly ever used their Arados to search for targets. They relied on radar and the eyeball. Indeed, when the Scharhorst & Gneisenau sorties on their commerce raid, it was their fast support ships that accounted for the majority of first sightings. Thus nixing this supposed advantage. Therefore you are limited to land-based aircraft which will be far less effective due to their limited range.
glenn239 wrote: ↑20 Feb 2020, 20:10
(U-boats struggled to move fast enough to intercept convoys due to their slow speed. If a convoy was moving at 10kt and a U-boat at 14kt, the submarine's intercept ability is poor - a 4kt tail chase closing speed. A 10kt convoy versus a 26kt warship squadron is a 16kt tail chase closing speed - 400% better for the attackers).
U-boats are not scared off by British capital ship escorts...Axis surface vessels are.
glenn239 wrote: ↑20 Feb 2020, 20:10
Repeat what? How one R Class battleship deters four attacking battleships? It can't. It gets sunk. How four "R" Class battleships can protect a convoy? Sure, but what about the 18 other convoys?
How many of those 18 convoys are in range of the short-legged Italian battleships...Few?...None?
glenn239 wrote: ↑20 Feb 2020, 20:10
The British will need the American Atlantic Fleet if Gibraltar falls, otherwise, they'll be hard pressed in the Atlantic and will suffer greater losses in the campaign.
Not if they take the Azores, which they will probably do if Gibraltar is under threat of falling.
Further, concentrating all Axis surface forces at Gibraltar essentially defeats the German Twin Pole naval strategy.
It also implies that the Axis surface fleet will suffer greater losses in the campaign. Difference is the British can absorb losses better than the Axis can.
glenn239 wrote: ↑20 Feb 2020, 20:10
"Greater losses" doesn't mean the Axis win the war. It just means more of a pain for the RN in the Atlantic, more US assistance would be necessary, and the date of the KM's defeat in the BoA would be pushed back from May 1943 into as late as 1944.
So? The war being more of a pain for Britain is implied by no Barbarossa.
However, it does not imply that the KM's defeat in the BoA would be pushed back from May, 1943. Indeed, it points to the opposite, especially with more US assistance, the Italian abandonment of the Med, no need to continuously reinforce Malta, etc.