I've been contending that the Battle of Britain was the defining moment of WWII, with Germany having Britain on its knees only to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by changing target towards cities and stopping the attacks on British airfields and air support.
This is one of a couple of answers and it deserves a new thread, so here we go:
I have to disagree entirely.
The entire aircraft infrastructure of Britain would have been wiped out.
Yes, they would have been able to withdraw to Scotland, but by doing so leaving their entire population open to annihilation by unopposed saturation bombing.
That Britain ended in front tends to prove my point - it's because Germany allowed the RAF time to recover from its lowest point.
The Luftwaffe wouldn't have been quite spent, plus they would have had the winning advantage of being able to recover bu building planes when Briatin could not.
Avoiding the obvious point of what kept Germany's battleships from wiping them off the face of the earth? The RAF.
A broken RAF, complete air supremacy all down the west coast of Europe; how long do you think the tired old home fleet would have lasted against both the Luftwaffe and Doenitz's sadly outdated bits of metal. Bismarck v Hood took how long?
See above.
I'm open to evidence, but nothing there, sorry.
Hope it proves a good discussion point!
This is one of a couple of answers and it deserves a new thread, so here we go:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 (Post 10628856)
Four points:
(1) The Luftwaffe never came close to breaking Fighter Command. Even if the worst had happened Fighter Command could have pulled its aircraft in southern England back beyond the range of German fighters, and would still have been able to counter German air raids, though at a cost in effectiveness. (It should be noted that the RAF ended the Battle of Britain stronger than when it had entered it, both in terms of number of fighters and available pilots.) |
The entire aircraft infrastructure of Britain would have been wiped out.
Yes, they would have been able to withdraw to Scotland, but by doing so leaving their entire population open to annihilation by unopposed saturation bombing.
That Britain ended in front tends to prove my point - it's because Germany allowed the RAF time to recover from its lowest point.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 (Post 10628856)
(2) Any total defeat of the RAF would have left the Luftwaffe a spent force also. It would have been a Pyrrhic victory at best. (During the main part of the battle the Germans lost 1.6 aircraft for each British fighter eliminated; in terms of crews it was even worse, about 6:1.)
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 (Post 10628856)
(3) The Germans would have had only one crack at invading Britain. Its invasion fleet consisted mostly of river barges being towed by tugs. All that would have been needed to wreck such an invasion fleet would have been a few destroyers getting in amongst the transports. Destroyers, being swift and nimble ships, were much harder to sink from the air than larger capital ships or freighters.
|
A broken RAF, complete air supremacy all down the west coast of Europe; how long do you think the tired old home fleet would have lasted against both the Luftwaffe and Doenitz's sadly outdated bits of metal. Bismarck v Hood took how long?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 (Post 10628856)
(4) I think it safe to assume Britain would have been willing to sacrifice a good portion of the RN if it meant being able to sink a German invasion fleet at sea.
|
I'm open to evidence, but nothing there, sorry.
Hope it proves a good discussion point!
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1QcTwH7
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire