No Battle of Britain, Luftwaffe better off?

[Meeko987]

What if, in a syphilitic haze (or equivalent) Hitler had decided that he did not want to fight the the British? He had France and Spain was neutral, so his western flank was in his mind relatively safe. And he REALLY wanted Russia.

As such, he decided in say July 1940 that there was no need to prepare for an invasion of Britain. There is no attempt to win air superiority to cover Eumetopias Jubatus, and no Blitz.

How would Britain continue to persecute the war against Germany. Whilst Britain are still at war with Germany, there would seem to be a bit of a gap as to what would actually be possible. Britain would continue attacks on Germany, but Germany could focus all of the 'lost' fighters' on defense against these attacks (not at night I guess).

Germany may or may not continue attacks on "strategic" targets (e.g. aircraft factories, ports) in a de facto defensive manner and the Battle of the Atlantic may/may not continue.

What are the implications for the wider conflict? Obviously short term, Germany and Britain don't lose nearly as many aircraft. Britain can continue to build a bigger war machine unmolested, but does the savings of aircraft and pilots help Germany in the East? Might this lead to greater savings in North Africa?

[stg 44]

Just in terms of the losses, hell yes. They did no long term damage to the British, but lost a heap of their best, most experienced airmen right after the losses of France; in fact the losses were worse than they were in France. In retrospect totally not worth the result. The issue is that they needed to do something to try and force Britain to the table.
Just for perspective, the RAF Fighter Command lost fewer airmen during the entire BoB than Bomber Command lost in one Nuremberg bombing raid in Spring 1944. In fact the Luftwaffe, given the loss ratios they inflicted during the 1940-42 Channel air defense phase would have been far better off if they had sat on the defensive, only to say launch the Blitz.

[maltesefalcon]

There is no attempt to win air superiority to cover Eumetopias Jubatus, and no Blitz.

Germany may or may not continue attacks on "strategic" targets (e.g. aircraft factories, ports) in a de facto defensive manner and the Battle of the Atlantic may/may not continue.

Little confused. You say no Blitz (my emphasis added to original text sorry) ...but attacks continue?

Which is it?

[ljadw]

No Battle of Britain would mean the RAF better off .

[hucks216]

No Battle of Britain would mean the RAF better off .

But with no Battle of Britain the evolution of RAF fighting tactics might of been slower and more pilots with less combat experience.

[ljadw]

The same can be said for the Luftwaffe .

[maltesefalcon]

Italy joined the war shortly before the end of the Battle of France. They were eventually involved in North Africa vs UK. However it did not go well and Germany was forced to lend a hand. So we end up with the two powers fighting anyway. Only a matter of time before fighting escalates to European airspace IMHO.

[Kingfish]

Just for perspective, the RAF Fighter Command lost fewer airmen during the entire BoB than Bomber Command lost in one Nuremberg bombing raid in Spring 1944.

While this is true in terms of raw numbers the comparison is not exactly apples to apples. It only took the loss of 106 planes in the Nuremberg raid to surpass the BoB tally, which in fighters alone was well over 1,200.

[stg 44]

Just for perspective, the RAF Fighter Command lost fewer airmen during the entire BoB than Bomber Command lost in one Nuremberg bombing raid in Spring 1944.

While this is true in terms of raw numbers the comparison is not exactly apples to apples. It only took the loss of 106 planes in the Nuremberg raid to surpass the BoB tally, which in fighters alone was well over 1,200.

Sure, the aircraft themselves were larger, so more people to lose, but also it was over enemy territory. Plus fighter pilots tended to have a greater ability to bail out and continue on. Lancasters were notoriously hard to bail out of.

[T. A. Gardner]

The Luftwaffe gains a little, the RAF gains a lot. For example, given the same rates of production and pilot acquisition, the RAF in Malaya would have had better planes and pilots possibly making a significant difference in the outcome there. The RAF in the Middle East, Crete, etc., probably would do much better too simply because more and better aircraft would be available for use. Crete might well have failed in this scenario. The Luftwaffe in Greece might have suffered much heavier casualties or lost control of the air in North Africa much sooner.

For the Luftwaffe, many of the aircraft used in the BoB, particularly the bombers, were already obsolescent to obsolete. Replacement with newer types really doesn't grow the Luftwaffe but rather just gives them better planes. I doubt that German pilot training would have made a substantial difference either. Unlike the RAF, the Germans weren't really expanding their training program while the British massively expanded theirs. Additionally, the British program was moved mostly overseas to Canada, the US, Australia, and elsewhere so it could go on unimpeded by air raids, bad weather (in comparison to Germany), etc.

So, I'd say this is a bigger win for the British than the Germans.

[maltesefalcon]

As to above. Are you seriously suggesting that Canada has better flying weather than Germany? I am Canadian and lived in Germany for four years. I can assure you most emphatically that is not the case.

Canada did have advantages. Plenty of empty space for gunnery and bomb practice. Also less collateral damage in inevitable crashes.

Of course they were out of reach from enemy air raids as you've stated.

[T. A. Gardner]

As to above. Are you seriously suggesting that Canada has better flying weather than Germany? I am Canadian and lived in Germany for four years. I can assure you most emphatically that is not the case.

Canada did have advantages. Plenty of empty space for gunnery and bomb practice. Also less collateral damage in inevitable crashes.

Of course they were out of reach from enemy air raids as you've stated.

I'm suggesting in Canada's case, you have no threat of aerial opposition. While in the US, Australia, or South Africa you have good weather and no enemy air activity to worry about.

The US southwest was found to have in excess of 300 days of good flying weather so pilot training could be done non-stop.

[stg 44]

The Luftwaffe gains a little, the RAF gains a lot. For example, given the same rates of production and pilot acquisition, the RAF in Malaya would have had better planes and pilots possibly making a significant difference in the outcome there. The RAF in the Middle East, Crete, etc., probably would do much better too simply because more and better aircraft would be available for use. Crete might well have failed in this scenario. The Luftwaffe in Greece might have suffered much heavier casualties or lost control of the air in North Africa much sooner.

For the Luftwaffe, many of the aircraft used in the BoB, particularly the bombers, were already obsolescent to obsolete. Replacement with newer types really doesn't grow the Luftwaffe but rather just gives them better planes. I doubt that German pilot training would have made a substantial difference either. Unlike the RAF, the Germans weren't really expanding their training program while the British massively expanded theirs. Additionally, the British program was moved mostly overseas to Canada, the US, Australia, and elsewhere so it could go on unimpeded by air raids, bad weather (in comparison to Germany), etc.

So, I'd say this is a bigger win for the British than the Germans.

That is just silly, the Germans lost 500% more aircrew than the British!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain
Most of the aircraft lost were modern bombers and fighters. The air crew were irreplaceably experienced too. The RAF pilots were mostly newer recruits; the BoB was a massive British victory historically because it maimed the Luftwaffe.

[T. A. Gardner]

[That is just silly, the Germans lost 500% more aircrew than the British!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain
Most of the aircraft lost were modern bombers and fighters. The air crew were irreplaceably experienced too. The RAF pilots were mostly newer recruits; the BoB was a massive British victory historically because it maimed the Luftwaffe.

No, it's not. The Do 17 was being replaced. The He 111 should have been replaced. It was obsolescent at best. The Ju 87 was another should be gotten rid of... So, the majority of the German bomber force was obsolescent at best. Replacing it wouldn't have increased numbers but rather just given the crews better aircraft.
Of course, that probably still wouldn't have happened as the Bomber A (He 177) and B (Ju 288 / FW 191) weren't working as advertised and were a long way from being operational. The Do 17 being replaced by the Do 215 then Do 217 was the one bright spot, even if not a lot of either plane were built.

It would have given the Germans more experianced air crew, that's true. But, I don't think it would have helped with numbers of aircraft in service.

[maltesefalcon]

As to above. Are you seriously suggesting that Canada has better flying weather than Germany? I am Canadian and lived in Germany for four years. I can assure you most emphatically that is not the case.

Canada did have advantages. Plenty of empty space for gunnery and bomb practice. Also less collateral damage in inevitable crashes.

Of course they were out of reach from enemy air raids as you've stated.

I'm suggesting in Canada's case, you have no threat of aerial opposition. While in the US, Australia, or South Africa you have good weather and no enemy air activity to worry about.

The US southwest was found to have in excess of 300 days of good flying weather so pilot training could be done non-stop.

Ah yes. That makes sense now. Sorry for misinterpreting.