Battle of Britain

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by Andy H » 27 May 2010 13:00

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

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17489
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by phylo_roadking » 27 May 2010 16:21

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?
Answer - never.

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.
Harris thought that by raising Berlin from end to end he would end the war.
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.
WI the Germans also thought that by bombing solely London, the British would surrender ie all bombers focus on London only
THEY DID 8O ALL national air forces in that period had their adherents of Douhet.
Last edited by phylo_roadking on 27 May 2010 17:21, 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...

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002 12:15
Location: UK

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by Tim Smith » 27 May 2010 17:18

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.
This idea would make Britain stronger, not weaker. London is of little strategic importance, only propaganda importance.

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.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12146
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by ljadw » 27 May 2010 17:27

you mean :the west coast ports ?

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002 12:15
Location: UK

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by Tim Smith » 27 May 2010 17:41

Yes, sorry! Don't know left from right, so east from west is way over my head.....

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008 21:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by bf109 emil » 27 May 2010 17:55

Tim Smith wrote:
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.
This idea would make Britain stronger, not weaker. London is of little strategic importance, only propaganda importance.

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.
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,

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)

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12146
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by ljadw » 27 May 2010 18:36

Tim Smith wrote:Yes, sorry! Don't know left from right, so east from west is way over my head.....
let your left hand not know what your right hand is doing(or something like that) 8-)

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008 21:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by bf109 emil » 27 May 2010 19:03

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

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002 12:15
Location: UK

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by Tim Smith » 27 May 2010 23:44

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...
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.

Von Schadewald
Member
Posts: 2018
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:17
Location: Israel

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by Von Schadewald » 28 May 2010 08:25

What was the route German bombers used to reach Liverpool, and what was the return route?

And to Belfast?

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by Andy H » 28 May 2010 14:03

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

woden
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: 21 Aug 2010 23:17

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by woden » 06 Sep 2010 04:59

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.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by LWD » 06 Sep 2010 23:20

woden wrote:Yes, if Hitler had been a bit more wiser he could have eventually defeated Britain at great cost.
Possibly but probably not.
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
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.
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.
Assassinating Churchill would be no guarantee of peace, indeed it might produce an even more determined Britain and gained them more international support.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17489
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by phylo_roadking » 06 Sep 2010 23:45

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
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! :wink:
And to Belfast?
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....
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...

woden
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: 21 Aug 2010 23:17

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by woden » 07 Sep 2010 02:02

LWD 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.
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 peace

Return to “What if”