What if........Hitler never invaded the Soviet Union?

Well, I think that you are right in the sense that an air war would be the way. But I think that saying that the power of the Luftwaffe won't matter in a air war is a bit underestimation of the manufacturing capabilities that the Reich would be able to muster if they had the strategic resources (imported from the soviet union) that they needed.

Why the US didn't bomb the URSS to oblivion in the late 40's and early 50's (before the soviets had the capability of mutual assured destruction)?

That's why I think that a cold war would follow.

 

They could have eliminated Britain if they allocated all of their resources to that end. Making twice the number of U boats and dropping much more bombs over Britain would do the trick.

I think that it should be noted that the U-boats were able to sink around 0.5 million tons of ships per month, but the us was making over 1 million tons. Since not all american production could be used to supply britain, greatly increasing U boat strength could have proven fatal.

 

But what if the entire Allied Strategic Bombing of Germany, fighter forces and Navies switched to intensive, focused strategic bombing and straffing of Axis forces around projected coastal landing sites? I doubt much would be left standing. The Dam Busters dropping Grand Slams and Tallboys on coastal gun emplacements instead?
- One wonders why they didn't on the hours leading up to DDay as it was! Dropping window feint screens was a waste of their aircraft and training at this critical juncture. Look at the number of times they flew back to the UK with full bomb loads: Grand Slams and Tallboys being too expensive to waste once primary targets were destroyed.

 

Much more effective. But the Germans could not crank out pilots as good as or as fast as the Allies. Nor could they match their production.

Losses for the Allies would be far heavier, but the increased strength of the Luftwaffe would not matter to the ultimate outcome; it would only make it take longer and cost more. That’s my guess. I freely admit I could be wrong.

 

1)There is no possibility that the Germans could have enough operationally U Boats in 1941 to win the Battle of the Atlantic
2)The allies dropped much more bombs over Germany and it did NOT do the trick
3) The U Boats did not sinking 0.5 million tons per month
september 1939-april 1940 :765000 ton for 7 months
april1940-january 1941 :1840000 ton for 9 months
january 1941 -january 1942 :240000 ton for 12 months
source :naval history WWII Campaigns Atlantic
4)To double the numbers of UBoats does not mean that the number of sunken tonnage will double ;it is no maths
5)Unrestricted U Boatwar will have as risk the entry of the US in the war much earlier

 

And let's not neglect that from "keel laid" to "accepted in service" each U-boat took a year to build. And each crew of volunteers also took about a year to train. Not enough steel, not enough time, not enough manpower for a decisive U-boat blockade of Britain. And while a "starvation" of Britain is a misnomer, they could have crippled the manufacturing end of British war production only. The British Isles were food exporters at the beginning of the war years, their diet would have been bland and boring, but they wouldn't have "starved them out".

 

Is it true that Russia would have invaded west Poland/Germany if Germany didn't invade it first?

If so, what would have happened in your oppinion? (Russia invasion of the rest of Poland/Germany by surprise)

Regards,

 

Note that I am working on the hypothesis that the soviet union would stay neutral for the duration of the war.

1) Germany could have been making 400-500 U boats per year in 1941-1942 if they didn't invade the URSS.

2) True. But Germany was much stronger than Britain, taking much more to be beaten. And it was fighting for its existence, while attacking Britain was only meant to make the US and Britain think twice before trying to make a war against Germany.

3) In the war U boats sank 3.500 cargo ships, with a total tonnage of around 15 million tons, in a period from 1940 to 1944, about 50 months, or 300.000 tons a month.

4) I am only saying that if Germany had allocated all its resources against Britain, it was only a question of time before they would be destroyed. Lend-Lease could prolong their existence, but only direct military intervention and the utilization of the massive shipbuilding capabilities of the us would have a chance to save britain. In fact, the US paid about 30-40% of all military expenditures of the country during the period 1942 to 1945 (based in GDP analysis and lend-lease values), while without american shipbuilding, the historical Britain would have lost by 1943.

5) It takes about 1.5 to 2 years for the US to fully utilize its resources, to guarantee a win Germany would have to defeat britain before that.

 

Britain is an island with a much stronger navy than Germany. How is this dealt with? It makes no military sense to surrender when you are an island and have control of the seas. It would be impossible starve Britain or to conquer it. So how do you propose they surrender?

 

I think that some of you here have no idea on the impact of the eastern front in ww2, it sucked up around 75% to 65% of Germany's resources and 80% of its manpower. Its absence would change everything in the war, no country was more responsible for the defeat of Germany than the soviet union. The resources that Germany could allocate against Britain would be much larger.

In 1939 Britain had a much stronger navy (5 times larger) than Germany. However, with the resources freed up from the eastern front, germany could build a navy larger in 2-3 years (up to 1942). Simply, germany had 3 times the industrial base of britain (with its european empire).

Two options:

1- Long war of attrition, like they did historically, but with much more resources. Note that between 1939 and 1942 the volume of British imports sank to one-third of their peacetime levels. In 1942 allied shipping sustained 7.8 million tons of losses, 5.4 million in the Atlantic. In January 1943 the situation was critical, the British navy had only two months supply of oil left. The war wasn't won by large margins, and the absence of the front with sucked 70% of Germany resources would surely made a great difference in the outcome.

2- My favorite. Suggested by Mainstein in his memoirs: Attack britain in 1940 with an amphibious invasion. While it would have been quite difficult and risky, it was the best option open to hitler that time. First, at dunkirk the british army must be destroyed. Then a rather small invasion in britain would conquer the island. I would work because britain would be without the means to defend itself (army).

If Britain falls the US cannot make a large scale invasion in europe. Then hitler can face stalin on a one on one (methinks that in this case the lend-lease supplies would be much larger).

Anyway, it is always good to remenber that the most powerfull enemy germany faced in ww2 wasn't the us or britain, it was the URSS.

 

Here some statistics about the losses inflicted by the battle of the Atlantic on allied shipping:

http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsAtlanticDev.htm

Battle of the Atlantic, WW2, RCN, Canadian Navy, Chaudiere, U-boats

Total losses:

21.57 million tons (1939-1945).

Losses by period:

(09/1939-03/1940)
1,303,000 tons (186,000 tons per month)

(04/1940-12/1940)
3,441,000 tons (382,000 tons per month)

(01/1941-12/1941)
4,329,000 tons ( 361,000 tons per month)

(01/1942-05/1943)
9,792,000 tons ( 576,000 tons per month)

(06/1943-05/1944)
1,733,000 tons (144,000 tons per month)

(06/1944-05/1945)
942,000 tons ( 78,000 tons per month)

In the crucial period:

DEFENCE OF TRADE - January 1942 to May 1943​

Total Losses = 2,029 British, Allied and neutral ships of 9,792,000 tons ( 576,000 tons per month)​

If that rate of loss continued, I doubt that Britain would have survived. Note that at the start of the war Britain had 16 million tons of shipping. They eventually lost it all and the US had to sustain them.

Production of merchant tonnage in the war (1939-1945), rougly 40 million tons:

1. United States = 33,993,230
2. United Kingdom = 6,378,899

Puny Britain would starve if not for American help...

 

About your point 4 :it was only a question of time :How much time? Hitler had no time :time was working against him .
From january 1942 to June 1943 US and UK lost monthy 473000 GRT to the U Boats,but in june 1943 they had more shipping capacity ;after the entry of the US in the war,the U Boat war was defensive:to prvent a US build up .
For your oint 1 :you have any sources ?
Even Germany could build 400 UBoats a year ,that does not mean that they would be operational :the more U Boats you have,the more men you have to train and the more UBoats you have to use to train them .
100 operational UBoats does not mean that there would be at any moment 100 at sea searching their prey :they had to leave from the harbours for their destination ,they had to return to the harbours and they had to stay at the harbours for rest and refuel
more U Boats does not mean more sinking :the Germans lost the UBoat war in may 1943 when they had more UBoats :reason :the allied counter mesures .
Your 1st point:that the USSR would remain neutral:there was no certainty:at any moment,they could change their position and attack the Rumanian oil wells ;neutral was not enough:they had to be allies

 

From 'Hitler's War '(Heinz Magenheimer ):While there were 249 submarines in service on 1 january 1942,58 of these were employed for basic training in the Baltic,and 100 for advancing training.Because of secundary missions,only 55 of the remaining front line boats were available in the Atlantic,and of these a mere 22 were on patrol at any giving time .
The 400 U-Boats which were available in early March 1943 were deployed as follows .Of the 222 front-line boats,182 were stationed in the Atlantic and 40 elsewhere . Of those in the Atlantic,68 were at base ,44 en route and 70 on combat patrol,with 45 of these patrolling the convoy routes in the North Atlantic . 178 were not on combat assignments but included 52 boats for basic training ,119 for advanced traning ,plus 7 experimental boats .
From the boats in the Atlantic in 1942 only 40 % were on patrol.
From the boats in the Atlantic in 1943 the % on patrol was the same :70 on 182.
From the total in 1942 only 36 % was operational.
From the total in 1943 55 % was operational .
Another point (mostly forgotten ):an increase of U Boats means nothing,unless the UBoat bases can handle the incresed number :to use bases in Norway to attack the Allied shipping in the Atlantic was not very usefull;one had to use the few bases in West France (Lorient,StNazaire ,e.o.):sending more UBoats to these bases would require more maintenance personnell,more supplies,more bunkers protecting the U Boats .
The Germans were attacing with wolf-packs,more UBoats =bigger wolf-packs,but there is a limit a commander can handle . I do not see a successfull attack by 50 UBoats .
In 1940 the UBoats had sunk 2.3 million ton (available in february 1941 22 front-line boats )Losses :12 UBoats
In 1941 the UBoats had sunk 2.17 million ton (available in january 1942 91)Losses 25
In 1942 the UBoats had sunk 5.9 million ton (available 222 )Losses :69
In 1940 The UBoats sunk 200000 for 1 loss
In 1941 87000 for 1 loss
In 1842 9OOOO for 1 loss
The figures are from Naval History :Battle of the Atlantic:1 + 2
Cheers

 

if hitler did not invade russia he could of conquered the rest of europe instead

 

im sorry but i have to say this.

1.how would the allies even get bases to sweeden without facing the exsisting german surface fleet and u boats plus the germans would have arial cover from denmark, germany, norwway, poland and prussia(because the german surface fleet is in the balkans).

2. once they get whats to stop germany suddendly blitzkreiging ther a**es from norway. (remember if the countries neutrility is comprimised germany would just consider it an enemy country because of occupiers)

3. if the allies had thinking they would send troops to sweeden with bombers to protect from german invasion......logistical line coming from england, dont see that happenening if germanys attacking.

4. if all this happens ti would overalll be a waste in supplies and men for the allies and ending up to be another dunkirk but without safe route home.

i rest my case.

 

The US and Britain had made how many tons of shipping in 1942 and 1943? More than 8 million per year? Second to the data that i presented, the germans sank nearly 20 million tons between september/1939 and may/1943 while the US and britain made 40 million tons between 1939 and 1945.

They were making 300 boats per year in 1943, devoting 10% of their industrial capacity to U-Boat production. Without the eastern front I think that they could devote more resources and increase production. Don't you?

So, do you think that it would be impossible to increase the number of operational U-Boats devoting more resources to them?

If the URSS were in the axis the allies would be happy if they weren't annihilated. I am assuming that the URSS stays neutral because it would be interesting to analyze a more equilibrated war.

 

My first reply disappeared mysteriously (maybe it is in the Bermuda triangle )
I think that dovoting more resources will not mean that you will have more UB ,steel in not enough:there were few UB ship yards (you can't ask Messerschmidt to build UB ),thus you have to enlarge the ship yards or build new ones,to allocate them more technicians ...
If you have more UB,you need more men and instructors and training U
It takes time to train a UB crew and to train a UB commander .
If you have more UB and more men,where will you put them ?There were only few UB bases .If you put 20 more UB at Lorient ,you need more space,more bunkers to protect them,more maintenance personnell .....
The earliest date the Germans could have enough UB to treathen the allied shipping was in 1943,and in 1943 they lost the Battle of the Atlantic due to the allied countermeasures . In fact ,after the US entered the war in december 1941;the UB war was a defensive ,to delay the build up for Overlord .

 

Well. This is a question of economics: Given enough time, if you double the amount of resources allocated to a certain end, you can more than double final output (because of economies of scale).

For example, if Germany allocated 11 billion RM instead of the historical 5.5 billion between 1940 and 1944 for U-Boat construction, them in a long time frame (5 years, for example) they would have more than double the number of U-boats made per month.

Well, before 1943, in the historical period, the u-boats were killing britain. In 1942 britain imported less than in 1941, in 1941 britain imported less than in 1940, etc. If the trend continued, britain would starve, in fact, in 1942 the volume of imports was only about 25% of the volume in 1939.

The UB war had the objective of starving britain out. The delay of the build up for overlord was only of the many good consequences (to the nazis) of starving britain out.

Anyway, with the about 200 billion RM freed from the Eastern Front, I think they would have exerted more pressure on the western allies, don't you think?

 

"Guaporense", the only part of Britain that would "starve" would be its manufacturing sector. Britain was a food exporter remember, their diet would have been bland, but they would never "starve" like Germany would and did when they were blockaded in WW1.

 

Are you sure? I mean, a country of 50 million people in 250.000 km2 would not starve without food from abroad?

Well, Germany imported about 14% of their food supply in 1939, and had 25% of their working population employed on agriculture. Britain had only 6% of their working population employed on agriculture.

So how they had such ultra high agricultural productivity (5 times the productivity of germany) with less land?