Turning points Part 2

[Saxondog]

So my idea for part two is an open question, what event do you feel most effectively altered the conflict and allowed the allied victory in WORLD WAR II ? This of course is open to opinion, but opinion supported by facts. Perhaps this may encourage discussion of the details of the war. And what events if the outcome had been reversed could have changed the conflict?

For instance if the Germans had at DUNKIRK not held back the Panzer forces what effect would the result have been? And then what if after Dunkirk the Germans had landed 1 Division with armor in support? Could this force have defeated the British forces?

The point is to discuss these events and their effect on the outcome of the war in the West. I believe the Germans could have defeated the British, or at least negotiated a peace and ended the war in 1940.

Saxondog

[oldfeller]

Hi Sax
" In short ", Your right I think we were lucky he was a " bit ",
same with the Russian front all them German soldier lost, if we
had our D/Day with them defending Germany Well?.
He had one of the most dagerous jobs in WW1 as a " runner " messenger,
he survived that and the attempts on his life in WW2.
In the end he took his own life.
Gerwyn

[Jono77]

I did a lot of study into WWII - living in the SE of the UK kinda helps as most of the British effort was concentrated here with regards to defence, Battle of Britiain etc.
I've also been to the place where Dynamo was commanded (@ Dover).

Thing is in the onset of the Blitzkrieg there were a few very effective allied counter attacks but sadly they were never capitalised on or organised / followed up - the main thing the Germans had issues with was extending the line too far, by Dunkirk thier lines were extremely drawn out and any effective counter attack on the flanks of the column would have left those units cut off and surrounded. Blitzkrieg is a risky stratergy if you're supply lines are shut as you are in essence deep in enemy territory.

That said, after Dunkirk there was only 1 effectivly armed unit in the UK, and that was Canadian !
Yes without a doubt the Germans could have pushed but it wasnt possible for 2 reasons :

1) Surprise - they had lost that by now, everyone knew their game and France was already mobilising their hge army to meet up the German lines. The Germans knew they had the advantage and at the time France was much more a threat than the UK. France only needed a small push to capitulate and that was where the effort was needed. Remember the Gerries thought bombing the UK would be enough to win.

2) His Britanic Majesties Royal Navy
In my opinion the might have been able to dash in but supply lines would have been cut almost instantly by the Navy which again in my opinion was the reason why the UK was never invaded - not the RAF. Bit controversial but you simply couldnt have attacked an island like the UK with the RN running about with a massive surface fleet and air cover.

Summary is Germany had to deal with France, France is a very much overlooked entity in WWII, they had a HUGE army (as Churchill famously said) but it was woefully looked after, morale was rock bottom and their communications were almost 15th century (there were tales of comms been sent by horse dispatch and being ignored until the morning after whilst the generals wined and dined !)

I personally dont think Germany could ever have invaded the UK and won - simply becuase of the RN and RAF combination.
Those two forces bought the Army time to re-arm and keep Americas largest aircraft carrier safe

[oldfeller]

" In short again " what saved this Country was the fact that the Luftwaffe stopped
bombing our airfields and bombed our city's instead, this give us time to rebuild
our airfields.
" This did save our Country ".
And as been stated.

[Jono77]

Actually there is compelling evidence that during the time when the Luftwaffe changed targets from airfields to cities, that the vast majority of the RAF was actually battle ready.

It was German false intel that give rise to the myth that the RAF was nearly destroyed, it infact never even came close :

"The effect of the German attacks on airfields is not straightforward. Stephen Bungay's research tells us that Dowding, in a letter to Hugh Trenchard[157] accompanying Park's report on the period 8 August - 10 September 1940, states that the Luftwaffe "achieved very little" in the last week of August and the first week of September.[158] The only Sector Station to be shut down operationally was Biggin Hill, and it was non-operational for just two hours. Dowding admitted 11 Group's efficiency was impaired but despite serious damage to some airfields, only two out of 13 heavily attacked airfields were down for more than a few hours. The German refocus on London was not critical.[158]" (hate wiki posts but the info is freely available elsewhere)

The Germans had awful intelligence on numbers - at the beginning of the BoB they underestimated the RAF strength and ability to resupply planes.
The RAF OVER estimated the Luftwaffe strength - and that is what largely prepared them for the fight (better to over than underestimate)

"Richard Overy endorses Dye and Bungay. Overy asserts only one airfield was temporarily put out of action and "only 103" pilots were lost. British fighter production produced 496 new aircraft in July and 467 in August, and another 467 in September (not counting repaired aircraft), covering the losses of August and September. Overy indicates the number of serviceable and total strength returns reveal an increase in fighters from 3 August to 7 September, 1,061 on strength and 708 serviceable to 1,161 on strength and 746 serviceable.[163] Moreover, Overy points out that the number of RAF fighter pilots grew by one-third between June and August 1940. Personnel records show a constant supply of around 1,400 pilots in the crucial weeks of the battle. In the second half of September it reached 1,500. The shortfall of pilots was never above 10 percent. The Germans never had more than between 1,100 and 1,200 pilots, a deficiency of up to one-third. "If Fighter Command were 'the few', the German fighter pilots were fewer".[164]"

[Saxondog]

The only point that I take issue with is the strength of the Luftwaffe, Germany had the largest air force in the world. Now if you are just quoting "Fighter Pilots"then your point is well taken, but the ability of the RAF to carry the fight to Germany is unclear.
Also your point about the RN and their response is unclear, they did of course have the ships. But to bring their ships into the channel would have been a risk. Still the discussion is exactly what I had hoped for in writing the post Open Discussion of the events. Well done guy's, please read my post on the RN attack on Taranto naval base, this operation was first planned in 1938. And today is the 70 year anniversary of the successful conclusion as by the 12th the RN had escaped beyond shore based aircraft attack.

http://www.rctankwarfare.co.uk/forums/v ... f=2&t=6476" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Jono77]

Consensus on the BoB has changed a lot since say, it was taught to us in secondary education.
The belief then was that a few plucky brits stood up to the menacing Germans and gave them a bloody nose for their efforts.

Reality from 1st hand sources is actually painting a different picture. The BoB was pivotol without a shaddow of a doubt, but the key facts is we know more about the way the RAF was able to resupply - train pilots (British and otherwise), organise and cope with the Luftwaffe's attacks. The notion that bases were put out of action was, according to RAF own sources at the time, untrue.

IMO the key areas of the defence were radar and section control - in the end it was merely a battle of attrition which the RAF were clearly more able to cope with.
More key isses were with every plane shot down, the germans lost a pilot, that wasnt the case with the RAF as they commonly were pucked up by the Navy or in friendly territory. I'm not saying it wasnt a close run thing but with better intel the Germans would have made a much better crack at the task - they massivly underestimated Britains williness to fight - they thought a few raids and the UK would surrender. Germany had been used to rolling up everyone in their path, they had not faced a well organised, equipped and supplied airforce yet and they simply were not upto the task.

True Navy ships were at risk from air attack but not whilst they have air cover, this is demonstrated at Dunkirk when German airforce couldnt stop the masses of ships taking 300,000 men off the beaches.

For the Germans, the logisitcs of supplying even a few divisions across the channel with even moderate aircover is un-thinkable, I dont think the germans even had a dedicated ASW aircraft did they ? With no control over ports and landing sites these channels of supply would have been very easy pickings for the numerous big guns of the home fleet.

Control of the air was essential - both sides knew this - if the Germans have had better idea of the capability of the RAF (not just fighting but orgnaisation and re-supply) as opposed to thinking they were just going to have free reign over the UK in a few air raids, then they might have chosen a differnt means of attack and used their numerical superiority to better use.

[oldfeller]

" History is written by people with thier own perception on what happend "