What would happen if Britain was defeated in 1940 ?

If Britain and Russia had fallen in 41, there would be no way the U.S. could have invaded Europe. They would be stumpered on 'day one' in their invasion !

The Gigantic Russian army and the air-raids sent from Britain, was what broke Germany. Had Britain fallen in 1940, then Stalingrad would have followed in 41, and then nothing could stop the Germans !

How would the U.S. ever manage to invade Europe ? Sure they could try through Afrika, but thats a hell of a way to go. And with all the troops and equipment that then would have been available to the Germans, coupled with superior tactics and training, they would have litterally stopped the U.S. dead in their tracks !!

Dont forget the the time at Kasserine pass, the first U.S. armored engagement with the Germans ! The U.S. armored units were litterally Slaughtered, and learned many hard lessons in armored warfare !

Also emagine all the natural resources available for Germany if Russia fell !! There would then be enough resources for Germany to last a 'Very' long and dragged out war !

KBO

 

Remember that their superior tactics and training were to no avail against the overwhelming might, in material and manpower, of the Soviet forces?

Actually they pretty much panicked and ran. However the same thing happened to green German troops (SS no less) at the Arras counterthrust before they were steadied and turned around.
The same thing happened with US forces. Read about the Ardennes Offensive ( Battle of Bulge). Initial confusion and panic turned into resolve and stubborn resistance. After all do you think that the British and Commonwealth troops won't fight merely because they surrendered without a fight at Singapore?

 

I must admit the German tactical advantage will have been little but at least it was battle-tested, something which green American units in Europe couldn't claim and that much was clearly shown at Kasserine. Now imagine that this invasion, if actually possible at all, would be the only option to the invading forces - succeed or die trying. This is fact, since there are no Allied second thrusts the Germans have to keep an eye on, and there is no second front they have to divert forces to. Then the "initial rout" that you claim is followed by a rally and stiff resistance, which is indeed what happened in the Ardennes (where as a matter of fact the rout lasted only one day and only affected some units), cannot regain its cohesion since they will be beaten back into the sea. In this scenario America cannot fail, and judging the readiness and power of a German army freed from the Eastern Front, they almost certainly will.

 

Do you think that it was only the Russians the germans were fighting at that point ! Had the U.S. not been drawn into the war, then Russia would have fallen, as would Britain !

Let me remind you that the Germans were outnumbered and that the Allies had total airsuperiority at that point ! Plus SS troops at that point could well have been 'kids' as part of Hitlers HitlerJugend, and they were more fanatic than they were trained.

The achievements done by the German troops in the west are great considdering their position and resources !

Even the Allied highcommand knew that whenever they faced the Germans with equal strength, the Germans were much more likely to come out on top. (As they have shown so many times before)

KBO

 

Yes, on the Russian front only the Germans and Russians (discounting not significant numbers of others such as Romanians, Italians, etc) were fighting. Remember that 90% of German military casualties occured on the Russian front.

Not a bit of it. May 1940 Arras counterattack the Germans had air superiority or at least they had superior numbers(what Spitfires were available were kept on the mainland) and in any case airpower did not play a significant part in the battle. In total numbers, of course the Germans were outnumbered since the French Army numbered about 5 million but they weren't outnumbered in this place and time and they weren't overwhelmed by numbers but confused and panicked by the ferocity of the Britsh attack. Unfortunately they were not able to maintain the momentum and the counterattack held up the German advance for only a brief time.

Did you miss the part about overwhelming materials and manpower overcoming superior tactics and training? Who said anything about equal numbers?

 

Does BoB remind you of anything ?

The Germans did loose the majority of their soldiers on the east front, but hadnt it been for the continuing bombing-raids carried out by the western allies then the Soviet Union would have fallen !

I was refering to the Battle of the Bulge Grieg !

 

If Russia and Britain had fallen in 1941, then there would be no advantage in numbers for the U.S. !! Even with the Allied extreem numbers advantage in 44, they had a hard time beating back the Germans !

KBO

 

Without US lend-lease, could Russia have survived?
Probably, but the Germans could quite possibly have reached the Urals. This was their goal, and once there they aimed to simply stay defensive, and keep the Soviets behind the Urals. Whether they could do that is another story. I would say that, even if they acheived that aim, a large chunk (say 60%) of their army would be out there policing the lebensraum.

However, the remainder would/could severely hamper any invasion force. Remember that without the USAAF bomber offensive the Luftwaffe would not be the broken force it was by mid-1944. The Americans would have to win air superiority as well as invade. Plus the Germans would be bringing their guided bombs into the fight by, say, late 1945 (allowing a later development, due to lack of threat).

Unless, of course, they get so darn overconfident that they declare a complete halt on military development, like they kinda did in 1940. :roll:

As to the seasoned troops vs 'green' troops...
Kesserine was the first battle of any US troops (outside of the Pacific). You can't really blame them for getting bushwhacked by Rommel - after all, us Brits consistantly did so, and we'd been fighting him for 2 years!

All in all, green troops can do a good job. How many of the D-Day invasion force were seasoned veterans?

 

It has nothing to do with veterans, the Germans troops were better trained from the beginning !
Although by late 44 the German army was only a shadow of what it once had been, and many of its troops were kids and old men ! There were few veterans in normandy in 44, but there were well trained troops wich did a great job considdering their situation. The crack soldiers were on the east front.

The Western Allies lost well over 1.2 million soldiers fighting against the Germans. And the Eastern Allies, lost over 12.5 million soldiers a fighting against the Germans. This is not counting civilian losses !
In return the Germans lost over 3.2 million soldiers in all ! That is just a testament to their effectiveness in war, even when grossly outnumber !

KBO

 

No. Should it? The BoB occurred after the Loss of France and the evacuation of the BEF to the mainland.

There was no Arras counterattack in the Battle of the Bulge..
Green 7th Panzer division troops were routed temporarily (as at Kassarine Pass for US ) during that attack.
There are several instances of green SS units being routed as well such as SS Nord at operation Silberfuchs.
Green, untested troops are unreliable until they have a few battles to their credit. This is true of all nationalities basically.

 

Hey werent we talking 1941 here ?

Who ever said there was !! You yourself mentioned the battle of the Bulge, and i responded by saying that the Allies had total airsuperiority at that point in the war.

KBO

 

I wasn't. I was pointing out that green German troops can be routed as well despite training etc.
Initially I lumped the SS together which was incorrect..the first SS troops that were routed due to inexpereince was the SS Nord Division in 1941.

I mentioned the Battle of the Bulge as another instance where troops were routed intitally only to regroup and prevail. Air superiority played no role in the intial stages of the Battle of the Bulge because the weather had all planes grounded.

What is the implication of bringing up Kasserine Pass inasmuch as the same kind of rout has happened to all the different armies? I don't see what it proves.

 

Well i certainly was talking 1941, and i certainly thought you were to, because thats what this whole discussion is about = (What if Russia and Britain fell in 41)

What it proves is that whenever on equal footing with the Germans in WW2, your going to get a severe licking ! It was the first time the U.S. met the Germans with Armor, and the 1st Armored Division got a severe beating ! Also the British had been fighting Rommel for a long period themselves, and also most of the time lost eventhough superior in numbers !

But hey lets take Normandy, and the armored clashes over there aswell, and then lets look at AFV losses !

KBO

 

The British were continually licked becase the commanders continually made these basic mistakes -
1) disperse your armour
2) if you see the enemy, immediately charge your tanks straight at them, no matter what
:roll:

However... Can you really say that after Kesserine the Americans ever made another such blunder? Given the chance to train & equip properly, it is doubtful that Kesserine would even have been the massacre it was. Why are we so hung up on one relatively minor battle?

However, I have just thought of a big problem here. The Americans will have gained all their experiance fighting the Japanese, whose tanks are few & can be disabled with a hefty kick (maybe a slight exaggeration). After a theatre in which enemy tanks are used mainly as static defense, and the Sherman is an unkillable monster, how well would the Americans face up to the Germans?
Before you mention that they would have battle reports from the French, Brits & Soviets, think about how well the US listened to battle reports about the Japanese pre-Pearl Harbour. Or to reports from British experience that showed that the American AT doctrine was seriously flawed? After all, fighting Japan would doubtless seem to reinforce their 1938/9 beliefs...

Armour clashes in Normandy? There was not much - mostly the Germans ambushed the Allied armour, thanks to the wonderfully defensive terrain.

 

Im not hung up on it, just used it as an example of what would likely happen if the U.S. tried to invade Europe in 41 (If Britain and Stalingrad had fallen by then !)

A very good point !

There wasnt much, but when there was any, then we all know to whom's advantage it turned !

KBO

 

Because Britain fell in '41 it does not follow that the US would invade in 1941. In fact I don't thinbk anyone would seriously advance that idea. The US forces were pathetically small and unprepared for war in 1941.
In three short years that was to change in a big way.

German AFV losses were eventually 100%
Seriously though over the course of the war the Germans manufactured about what 12,000 AFVs compared to more than 100,000 by the US.
Quantity has a quality all it's own..so they say.
German armor dared not concentrate after Normandy as long as Allied air forces were able to fly.

 

No but, this is an all 'what if' conversation !

:lol: :lol: Now I can't deny that, now can I !

Exactly ! The Allies won the war because apparantly Quantity won over Quality ! (That is not to say the Allies didnt have good equipment !)

KBO

 

It seems we are discussing the possibility of an American invasion of the European mainland upon the defeat of both the Soviet Union and Britain by Germany. This means there are a few basic facts we have to take into consideration.

1) Germany is in control of all of Europe, and the British are either under their control as well or in a state of forced neutrality. This means there is no support base available to the Americans on any piece of land in the whole European, North African and large parts of Asian continent. The invasion would have to take place in the form of a direct assault launched from a naval force.

2) Germany has had several years of combat experience; its armies contain many veterans of several campaigns, and since the German armed forces are as yet undefeated their morale is soaring. The German naval and air forces have not been worn down by the RAF or RN and are to be considered in their prime with the emergence of the Fw190 fighter and the launch of the Bismarck; therefore, both naval and air superiority are not at all securely in the hands of the Americans.

3) The American forces have had no combat experience fighting the Germans, if they have had combat experience at all; their tactics and training is untested, and they are far from home. Their morale will probably not be high. As I said, they have no air support other than that which can be launched from aircraft carriers, and they don't have air superiority.

Considering these factors, I doubt the Americans stand a chance. Even with their supreme power of production, the Germans have all the advantages really.

 

if britain was defeated , the germans could have transferred a significant number of troops to the eastern front . Plus, britains colonies would have fell to the germans .

 

Not entirely, the Royal Family would have move to Canada, along with the government, And all the other governments in exile, The Empire/commonwealth would then have had to decide to follow King Edward crowned by the Nazis, or King George in exile.

There are not straight answers to this particular question, as there are so many variables, maybe decades later Britian would have been liberated, maybe not, however, have Britian intact definately had a positive outcome on the war.