Good Times

[Devari]

Oh, by Kursk, the Germans did have superior, or at least equal tanks out in the field - the Tiger I and the Panther. Problem was, they didn't have quantity.

The Tiger II was all well and good, but only 560 were ever made - while they did make a difference, it wasn't enough. If Stalin had the German engineering combined with the massive Soviet production, he probably could have overrun all of continental Europe!

[neobaron]

"And I can't pretend to know about the superiority of day raids vs. night raids, so I have to concede you that point. However, please answer me, asking as an amateur:
1. Why doesn't night precision-bombing (a la beams, especially with radar) work?
2. Why can't you use fighters as air support in land battles? Strafing is surely useful? I can understand some bombers for tanks, but basically can't fighters work?"

1) Precision bombing in world war two was pretty much hitting something within 2 miles of the actual target... especially at night.

2) They did. That was the role of the P-51 after the Luftwaffe collapsed, and the P-47 from teh introduction of the P-51.

[Devari]

Heh, I know so little about aircraft that it just isn't funny. You guys lost me on the whole bombing thing a few pages ago.

[The Beatles]

Oh cool, thanks Neo. So then Volkov, the RAF could have provided aerial support for raids without too many problems. As to the other point, bombing German industry, yeah that was hard and expensive -- although they managed to do it at a low level all through '40 to '41. Then Lend-Lease came along, and in '42 America joined the war, and the bombing became earnest.

Also, I know for a fact that RAF raids on Berlin caused great discomfort, although London was bombed much more heavily.

Incidentally, wasn't the Baedeker Blitz just too despicable and cowardly for words?

[Gen. Volkov]

Note Neo's words, after the RAF collapsed. The fighters would have been busy fending off Germany's fighters. If they could cause the Luftwaffe to collapse, which is unlikely given that they could not have sustained a day and night bombing campaign, then the fighters would be free to strafe, but the RAF just didn't have the numbers to both fend off the Luftwaffe and provide ground attack capability.

And yes, once again, the night raids by the RAF did some damage, but not enough to really trip the Germans up. It took the hordes of planes disgorged by American factories to do that. It's entirely possible that without those, the Germans could have made enough planes to fend the Russians off. Then Britain would REALLY have been in trouble.

The main problem the British would have had is there were just not enough planes to go around, they may be producing quicker than the Germans, but the Germans had alot more of them,as they had been making them in full war scale production since 1938 or so. Limited production even before that. I am still firmly of the opinion that winning the war was impossible without American involvement.

And Devari... about Kursk... I know. *laughs*. I've been making that point the whole time.

As to planes... they were perhaps the most important component of the war. Without planes Blitzkrieg doesn't work nearly as well, there's no way to stop German war production, and China is lost to the Japanese.

[Devari]

It may be an urban myth, but I do remember that some of the bombing actually increased German production. All of the heavy equipment had been moved underground, and when non-military factories were bombed, it actually freed up workers. May be a myth/heresay/whatever. I'm too lazy to look it up right now.

[Gen. Volkov]

Certain production lines did get a boost once they moved underground, but not because of freed up workers, it was because they weren't getting half their stuff ruined every day. And certain planes also increased their production due to a design made for cottage level industry. They would make the airplane parts in woodshops and other small buisinesses, which no one is going to bomb, and then ship them to an assembly facility. The FW-190 was built this way, as were several Japanese planes. The allies realized this and it became one of the reasons for firebombing cities. The firebombing also killed lots of people, i.e. potential workers. I'm not condoning it, I think it was a horrible thing, but there are some real rational reasons it happened.

And yes, the retaliatory raids after the bombing of Luebeck was a cowardly thing, but so is alot of the stuff we did. Such as firebombings. It was a terrible war, both sides did horrible things. The Germans just did more of them and on a larger scale.

[The Beatles]

Well, what I was saying is that once the Luftwaffe was defeated, which it was, the RAF would be freed up and could have provided support for raids. This was never tested though, due to Lend-lease.

And the RAF was rarely short of airplanes -- it was mostly pilots they lacked. Throughout the war, airplanes was one thing they didn't lack, so it's logical to assume that that wouldn't have been a holdup factor.

[Gen. Volkov]

Defeated yes, but it didn't collapse until much later. Well after the Americans had entered the war. There a difference between driving off an enemy and destroying him, the RAF did the former in the BOB, the Americans, Russians, and yes British did the latter to the Luftwaffe in the final stages of the war.

They weren't short of them for defending Britain, attacking with them into France is a whole different ballgame. And even more than that, as you said, number of pilots would have been an issue. As they got shot down in German controlled territory, they would have lost them, unlike the BOB where if they got shown down they usually could get back to the Battle in good working order. The same thing happened to the Germans in the BOB. Basically in attacking the British would have lost every single advantage they enjoyed during the Battle of Britain. It might have led to a new German campaign to take Britain, this one might have succeeded with the RAF spent.

[The Beatles]

Well, not every single advantage: technical and numerical superiority they still would have had.

Anyways, the main points of contention as I see it are:

1. The UK won the BOB without US aid
This we agree on.

2. The Allies would eventually have won the war with American aid but without American military involvement.
This, I think, is also pretty clear and we agree on.

3. The Allies would eventually have won the war without American aid or military involvement.
This, you definitely disagree with, and I am unsure about it.

-------
BTW, Neo, the British sent a bunch of tanks to Wavell in May '41, so yes, the British were indeed able to send troops away to the Dominions. They also aided Greece and Crete.

[Devari]

But would the Allies have eventually won without Russia? Would the Allies (read: the commonwealth) have possibly won with no US AND no Russia?

[neobaron]

Russia won the war whterh you people want to believe it or not... all the US did was quicken the collapse of Germany and ensure we werent all eaten by communists.

[neobaron]

And teh high tide of the Wolfpacks was in '42 and '43...

Hitler was still on his knees for Franco in '41 trying to get passage to Gibralter.

[Gen. Volkov]

1. Qualifier: With aid that wasn't paid for. They did recieve US built equipment during the BOB.

2. If by American aid you mean all the ships tanks and planes are produced by america and shipped there just not driven by them, then yes, eventually they would have. Russia needed american aid as well, but between Russian and the UK, they could have EVENTUALLY won.

3. Without either aid or american military involvment the Allies lose, or at least do not win. Russia was so devoted to the the production of war machines, they didn't build many transport vehicles, almost every single one of those was American made.

Without Russia... um yeah... Britain is dog meat.

[The Beatles]

Volkov, for the last time, NO!

Aid is materials not paid for.

Materials paid for is trade.

The BOB had been decided before US aid came.

2. OK we agree.

3. I do not agree. UK versus Germany and Russia, yes dog meat. UK versus Germany, Russia neutral, not clear.