What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Locked
User avatar
JAG13
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 23 Mar 2013, 02:50

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#106

Post by JAG13 » 25 Sep 2019, 08:35

T. A. Gardner wrote:
31 Jul 2017, 07:18
So, if the Germans were to build 4 or so carriers by 1939 how does that change what the RN would do? They can't lay down a carrier larger than 23,000 tons. They are limited in total tonnage as well. How do they build more? Look at how the US built the Wasp because of that tonnage limitation, for example. The US forewent armor protection to keep the air wing size the same on the lower tonnage that remained to them under treaty.

The Germans and Japanese will lie about their tonnage per ship but that isn't going to be obvious right off.
In almost nothing, part of the 1935 AGNA and subsequent treaties established the obligations to provide a building plan, and within the 35% of RN tonnage the KM was allowed 3x15.000t carriers were contemplated and notified to the UK, that was, of course, before the RN started to build more carriers which would make more tonnage available for the KM.

Let me repeat foe the people that were contesting your point, ALL THE RN DID IRL WAS BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THE KM WOULD BE BUILDING THREE CARRIERS! Up to that, there is no reason for the RN to change anything.

So, with some cheating the KM could have 3x20.000t (Yorktown size) CVs ready by 1939 with at least one more in the pipeline.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15585
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#107

Post by ljadw » 25 Sep 2019, 10:18

During the war Britain was less depending on imports than before the war .
On the oil : as tankers were sailing in convoys who were protected by escorts, attacks would be risky and attacks on the trans-Atlantic convoys would increase the risk of wat with the US.
On food : Britain imported less food during the war than before the war,but still its food situation was better during the war .
In 1940 it imported 19.3 million ton of food, in 1944 11 million ton .Before the war it imported 2/3 of the calories it consumed,during the war this was cut by the half .Before the war its agricultural output was 19 billion calories ,of which 4 billion depended on imports .In 1943/1944 it was 29 billion calories of which only 1 billion depended on imports,this medans that the wartime output was almost the double of the pre-war output .
During the war, British dry-cargo imports were down by 50 % ( attacks by submarines/aircraft were only one of the causes, and I am not convinced that they were the main cause ,there were other constraints ),but still British military production increased dramatically .
About the ME and the Indian Ocean : Britain did not import oil from the ME after the DOW by Italy, thus I don't see that the presence of German warships in the IO would be useful .
About the Axis supplies to NA : 15 % of these were lost by the attacks of aircraft ,surface ships and submarines . Only 15 % . And the Axis had enormous problems to transport the other 85% to the front . Thus the arrival of more supplies ( if this was possible, which I doubt ) would not change much .
It was the same for Britain : I doubt very much that the arrival of more imports would have any result on the course of the war .
As Marc Milner wote in ''Atlantic,battle of the,'' in Dear and Foot,Oxford Companion,54
"'It remains to be demonstrated ,however,wether war losses of shipping materially affected the course of war .''
My general source is "Erin Weir : German submarine blockade,overseas imports,and British Military Production in World War II.


User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#108

Post by T. A. Gardner » 07 Oct 2019, 02:12

JAG13 wrote:
25 Sep 2019, 08:35
T. A. Gardner wrote:
31 Jul 2017, 07:18
So, if the Germans were to build 4 or so carriers by 1939 how does that change what the RN would do? They can't lay down a carrier larger than 23,000 tons. They are limited in total tonnage as well. How do they build more? Look at how the US built the Wasp because of that tonnage limitation, for example. The US forewent armor protection to keep the air wing size the same on the lower tonnage that remained to them under treaty.

The Germans and Japanese will lie about their tonnage per ship but that isn't going to be obvious right off.
In almost nothing, part of the 1935 AGNA and subsequent treaties established the obligations to provide a building plan, and within the 35% of RN tonnage the KM was allowed 3x15.000t carriers were contemplated and notified to the UK, that was, of course, before the RN started to build more carriers which would make more tonnage available for the KM.

Let me repeat foe the people that were contesting your point, ALL THE RN DID IRL WAS BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THE KM WOULD BE BUILDING THREE CARRIERS! Up to that, there is no reason for the RN to change anything.

So, with some cheating the KM could have 3x20.000t (Yorktown size) CVs ready by 1939 with at least one more in the pipeline.
And, as I have pointed out, a KM that is carrier-centric with a well established air force for these ships using modern aircraft (I've suggested the He 112, Ju 87, and FI 167, or alternately a He 170 designed to operate much like the Japanese B5N) would have given the RN absolute fits at sea. The RN's own carrier forces in 1939 were just short of pathetic. They had crap aircraft, and in insufficient numbers.

That would leave the RN scrambling to build carriers and put decent aircraft into production. I suppose they could have bought some from the US like the F2A Buffalo or the SB2U Vindicator, in hopes of putting something at least marginally competitive up against the Germans quickly. Their own crappy aircraft wouldn't have stood a chance.

In 1939, they had the Blackburn Skua. This is like using an SBD or SB2U as a fighter. It would have been hopelessly outmatched. Then there was the even more pathetic Blackburn Roc that could barely stay airborne and couldn't even overtake slow, old, biplane seaplanes like the He 59. They also had the Swordfish torpedo plane. Acceptable when there was no opposition, but in the face of actual CAP fighters these planes were just targets.
They also had the Sea Gladiator. An obsolescent, if not obsolete, biplane fighter.
Any of this going up against a navalized He 112 or Me 109T would have been dead meat. The Skua has just 4 .303 guns to fight with. That against cannon equipped (typically 2 x 20mm MG FF and 2 x 7.92) would have been easy kills. The slow Sea Gladiator is the same way.
But, given that RN doctrine in 1939 was the Skua escorted themselves, and the Swordfish were usually sent unescorted, the FAA would have found its strikes devastated by defending German CAP operating much like IJN CAP did.

Add in some cheap merchant conversion carriers for commerce raiding in distant oceans, and the RN truly would have been on the ropes into 1941.

User avatar
JAG13
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 23 Mar 2013, 02:50

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#109

Post by JAG13 » 07 Oct 2019, 02:30

T. A. Gardner wrote:
07 Oct 2019, 02:12

And, as I have pointed out, a KM that is carrier-centric with a well established air force for these ships using modern aircraft (I've suggested the He 112, Ju 87, and FI 167, or alternately a He 170 designed to operate much like the Japanese B5N) would have given the RN absolute fits at sea. The RN's own carrier forces in 1939 were just short of pathetic. They had crap aircraft, and in insufficient numbers.
I fully agree, one caveat, I think the Ju87 could have been modified to carry torpedoes, as it was the Cesar was capable of carrying a 1t payload oveer a short range, and since a CV aircraft would need more range they could have been modified for extra range with more wing tanks limiting the payload to 500 for dive bombing and 750 for torpedoes.
That would leave the RN scrambling to build carriers and put decent aircraft into production. I suppose they could have bought some from the US like the F2A Buffalo or the SB2U Vindicator, in hopes of putting something at least marginally competitive up against the Germans quickly. Their own crappy aircraft wouldn't have stood a chance.

In 1939, they had the Blackburn Skua. This is like using an SBD or SB2U as a fighter. It would have been hopelessly outmatched. Then there was the even more pathetic Blackburn Roc that could barely stay airborne and couldn't even overtake slow, old, biplane seaplanes like the He 59. They also had the Swordfish torpedo plane. Acceptable when there was no opposition, but in the face of actual CAP fighters these planes were just targets.
They also had the Sea Gladiator. An obsolescent, if not obsolete, biplane fighter.
Any of this going up against a navalized He 112 or Me 109T would have been dead meat. The Skua has just 4 .303 guns to fight with. That against cannon equipped (typically 2 x 20mm MG FF and 2 x 7.92) would have been easy kills. The slow Sea Gladiator is the same way.
But, given that RN doctrine in 1939 was the Skua escorted themselves, and the Swordfish were usually sent unescorted, the FAA would have found its strikes devastated by defending German CAP operating much like IJN CAP did.

Add in some cheap merchant conversion carriers for commerce raiding in distant oceans, and the RN truly would have been on the ropes into 1941.
Yep, the worst problem they had was their doctrine, they simply didnt believe in single seat carrier fighters and wouldnt see the need for them until reality hit them as it did IRL.

KM CVs would pose a very serious threat causing most NA shipping to stop while being very hard to locate and intercept, it could have been a war winning weapon.

Luckily, they didnt have someone willing to think outside the box, so they made BBs... just because, and without even thinking about their possible operational use.

nota
Member
Posts: 214
Joined: 21 Aug 2006, 17:35
Location: miami

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#110

Post by nota » 31 Oct 2019, 06:48

he needs a united axis all pulling 100% to have a chance in 40-41
but that was never even thought of let alone planned

the japan fleet could cut off england from trade
japans battleships are not need or usefull to old slow ect
but they have good DD and CA and the flat top have the best aircraft
good subs also with long range

but one carrier battle group could take out escorts of any convoy
and capture the transports
6 of them could shut down trade sink capital ships
brits subs may get a few but war has risks
maybe without any invasion or support one if cutting trade is not significant
at least keep any mass fleet from being in the invasion routes

japan gets india plus the places they took in 41 if they win
but the real axis was too much a viper pit to work together

pugsville
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 05:40

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#111

Post by pugsville » 31 Oct 2019, 08:13

T. A. Gardner wrote:
07 Oct 2019, 02:12
The RN's own carrier forces in 1939 were just short of pathetic. They had crap aircraft, and in insufficient numbers.
Compared to other carrier aircraft in service in 1939? I petty sure biplanes were pretty standard comparing British 1939 aircraft with IJN/USN 1941 aircraft is not a fair comparison.

It would be nice to have a list of aircraft in service 1 sept 1939. No Wildcats, No Zeros.

USN would include biplanes such as.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_SBC_Helldiver

pugsville
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 05:40

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#112

Post by pugsville » 31 Oct 2019, 08:31

JAG13 wrote:
25 Sep 2019, 08:35

In almost nothing, part of the 1935 AGNA and subsequent treaties established the obligations to provide a building plan, and within the 35% of RN tonnage the KM was allowed 3x15.000t carriers were contemplated and notified to the UK, that was, of course, before the RN started to build more carriers which would make more tonnage available for the KM.

Let me repeat foe the people that were contesting your point, ALL THE RN DID IRL WAS BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THE KM WOULD BE BUILDING THREE CARRIERS! Up to that, there is no reason for the RN to change anything.

So, with some cheating the KM could have 3x20.000t (Yorktown size) CVs ready by 1939 with at least one more in the pipeline.
NO, it was not, The KM was not building 3*20,000. If it did the RN would take into account. Being allowed by treaty and actually building are two different things.

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008, 21:40

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#113

Post by Hanny » 31 Oct 2019, 09:10

T. A. Gardner wrote:
07 Oct 2019, 02:12

The RN's own carrier forces in 1939 were just short of pathetic. They had crap aircraft, and in insufficient numbers.
You made a lot of good points but fell down badly here.


Swordfish was the best Allied naval model aircraft in ww2 in terms of tonnage sunk, (1 million tons of German Italian by swordfish by end of war) it remained in service as its first replacement did not perform as well. Its role in Norway, Bismark, and the Med crippling both french and Italian naval power was superb. Its role in the Med in merchant marine sinking at 50,000 tonns a month from 27 swordfish,( 27 Swordfish at 50,000 tons a month for 7 months. Thats 1851 tons a month per aircraft means its close to being as effective as U boats at their peak at sinking tonnage), but losing a tenth of the swordfish as u boats lost. R&D developments allowed it to use rockets, as its wings changed to metal, to sink naval assets, to have ASV radar, it was able to be used effectively in Africa as a dive bomber, it sank the fist U boat of the war, the first u boat at night, its range was doubled by fuel pods, it had the tightest turning circle of any plane in service, it could take off without the carrier turning into the wind, it could do launch at anchor, it had RATOG installed which halved the take off deck length, meaning quickly converted merchant ships could use them in ASW, and thus its 1300 mil range allowed convoy protection, and a number of other innovations. Its replacement in 1940 was the Albacore and it went out in 43 (while the Swordfish did not), to be replaced by the Barracuda which stayed in service till wars end alongside the swordfish.

Entire USA air force put down 2.5 million tons by contrast and took four years to do it, Helldivers production numbers were 3 times swordfish, and with 19k sorties over 2 years was therefore completing 2.5 times the sortie rate of swordfish.

https://www.history.navy.mil/bin/im...s ... s/nasc.pdf
NAVAL AVIATION COMBAT STATISTICS—WORLD WAR II
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
Location: Canada

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#114

Post by Paul Lakowski » 05 Nov 2019, 21:23

pugsville wrote:
31 Oct 2019, 08:31
JAG13 wrote:
25 Sep 2019, 08:35

In almost nothing, part of the 1935 AGNA and subsequent treaties established the obligations to provide a building plan, and within the 35% of RN tonnage the KM was allowed 3x15.000t carriers were contemplated and notified to the UK, that was, of course, before the RN started to build more carriers which would make more tonnage available for the KM.

Let me repeat foe the people that were contesting your point, ALL THE RN DID IRL WAS BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THE KM WOULD BE BUILDING THREE CARRIERS! Up to that, there is no reason for the RN to change anything.

So, with some cheating the KM could have 3x20.000t (Yorktown size) CVs ready by 1939 with at least one more in the pipeline.
NO, it was not, The KM was not building 3*20,000. If it did the RN would take into account. Being allowed by treaty and actually building are two different things.

From Hitler's FOUR YEAR PLAN, on , treaties were meaningless, just obstacle's to be side stepped.

HistoryGeek2019
Member
Posts: 399
Joined: 06 Aug 2019, 04:55
Location: America

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#115

Post by HistoryGeek2019 » 06 Nov 2019, 01:48

Any scenario that involves the Kriegsmarine defeating the Royal Navy is pure fantasy. James Holland writes:
The Royal Navy was comfortably the world’s largest, with 15 battleships, 7 aircraft carriers, 15 heavy cruisers, 49 light cruisers, 192 destroyers, 73 escort vessels, 9 patrol vessels, 52 minesweepers, 2 gun monitors and 62 submarines. Only the USA, which was not in the war, had anything like this number of vessels. And there was a lot more shipping on the way; in shipyards from Belfast to Glasgow to Tyneside, more ships were already being built as Britain entered the war: 19 more cruisers, 52 destroyers, 6 battleships, 6 aircraft carriers and 11 more submarines, to list just some of this building programme.

Holland, James. The Rise of Germany, 1939-1941 (The War in the West) (p. 106). Grove Atlantic. Kindle Edition.
In contrast, the Kriegsmarine opened the war with 2 battleships, 3 pocket battleships, 2 heavy cruisers, 6 light cruisers, 22 destroyers, 20 torpedo boats and 62 U-boats (all types).

The Kriegsmarine was a waste of resources and never stood a chance. A few more aircraft carriers would have made no difference, other than to waste more German resources.

pugsville
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 05:40

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#116

Post by pugsville » 06 Nov 2019, 07:39

Paul Lakowski wrote:
05 Nov 2019, 21:23

From Hitler's FOUR YEAR PLAN, on , treaties were meaningless, just obstacle's to be side stepped.
But if the Germans actually started building 4 carriers the British would notice and consider their options.

They were not building 4 carriers historically. If they started a large carriers program the British would look at it and it's pretty certain they would have had a reaction.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#117

Post by glenn239 » 06 Nov 2019, 19:38

pugsville wrote:
06 Nov 2019, 07:39
Paul Lakowski wrote:
05 Nov 2019, 21:23

From Hitler's FOUR YEAR PLAN, on , treaties were meaningless, just obstacle's to be side stepped.
But if the Germans actually started building 4 carriers the British would notice and consider their options.

They were not building 4 carriers historically. If they started a large carriers program the British would look at it and it's pretty certain they would have had a reaction.
Discounting the British 21kt battleships as next to useless in an Atlantic war, the balance of power at the start of the war was, (British vs. German-Italian)

CV - 7 to 0
BB - 3 to 8
PB - 0 to 3
C - 64 to 27
DD - 192 to 81
DE - 73 to 87
SS - 62 to 178

Given the scale of the theatre and the vulnerability of the British maritime position from Sealion to Singapore, to call the Axis situation "hopeless" is like calling a Superbowl at halftime when the score is 20-10. (Add in the USA for the UK and its another story).

HistoryGeek2019
Member
Posts: 399
Joined: 06 Aug 2019, 04:55
Location: America

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#118

Post by HistoryGeek2019 » 06 Nov 2019, 19:50

glenn239 wrote:
06 Nov 2019, 19:38
pugsville wrote:
06 Nov 2019, 07:39
Paul Lakowski wrote:
05 Nov 2019, 21:23

From Hitler's FOUR YEAR PLAN, on , treaties were meaningless, just obstacle's to be side stepped.
But if the Germans actually started building 4 carriers the British would notice and consider their options.

They were not building 4 carriers historically. If they started a large carriers program the British would look at it and it's pretty certain they would have had a reaction.
Discounting the British 21kt battleships as next to useless in an Atlantic war, the balance of power at the start of the war was, (British vs. German-Italian)

CV - 7 to 0
BB - 3 to 8
PB - 0 to 3
C - 64 to 27
DD - 192 to 81
DE - 73 to 87
SS - 62 to 178

Given the scale of the theatre and the vulnerability of the British maritime position from Sealion to Singapore, to call the Axis situation "hopeless" is like calling a Superbowl at halftime when the score is 20-10. (Add in the USA for the UK and its another story).
And how well did all these Italian ships do in actual combat?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15585
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#119

Post by ljadw » 06 Nov 2019, 21:42

glenn239 wrote:
06 Nov 2019, 19:38
pugsville wrote:
06 Nov 2019, 07:39
Paul Lakowski wrote:
05 Nov 2019, 21:23

From Hitler's FOUR YEAR PLAN, on , treaties were meaningless, just obstacle's to be side stepped.
But if the Germans actually started building 4 carriers the British would notice and consider their options.

They were not building 4 carriers historically. If they started a large carriers program the British would look at it and it's pretty certain they would have had a reaction.
Discounting the British 21kt battleships as next to useless in an Atlantic war, the balance of power at the start of the war was, (British vs. German-Italian)

CV - 7 to 0
BB - 3 to 8
PB - 0 to 3
C - 64 to 27
DD - 192 to 81
DE - 73 to 87
SS - 62 to 178

Given the scale of the theatre and the vulnerability of the British maritime position from Sealion to Singapore, to call the Axis situation "hopeless" is like calling a Superbowl at halftime when the score is 20-10. (Add in the USA for the UK and its another story).
British maritime position was not vulnerable .
Germany's position was hopeless and became worse everyday .
Unless the Germans could very quickly eliminate Britain, the Yanks would come and game was over .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15585
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#120

Post by ljadw » 06 Nov 2019, 21:43

glenn239 wrote:
06 Nov 2019, 19:38
pugsville wrote:
06 Nov 2019, 07:39
Paul Lakowski wrote:
05 Nov 2019, 21:23

From Hitler's FOUR YEAR PLAN, on , treaties were meaningless, just obstacle's to be side stepped.
But if the Germans actually started building 4 carriers the British would notice and consider their options.

They were not building 4 carriers historically. If they started a large carriers program the British would look at it and it's pretty certain they would have had a reaction.
Discounting the British 21kt battleships as next to useless in an Atlantic war, the balance of power at the start of the war was, (British vs. German-Italian)

CV - 7 to 0
BB - 3 to 8
PB - 0 to 3
C - 64 to 27
DD - 192 to 81
DE - 73 to 87
SS - 62 to 178

Given the scale of the theatre and the vulnerability of the British maritime position from Sealion to Singapore, to call the Axis situation "hopeless" is like calling a Superbowl at halftime when the score is 20-10. (Add in the USA for the UK and its another story).
What Atlantic war ?

Locked

Return to “What if”