Battle of Britain II

I'm not asking you or anyone to validate my scenario I'm asking that given the scenario how would you defend against such an attack with the weapons given.

Again the scenario has been discussed thoroughly in other venues. Close to 200,000 responses in one venue alone. If you can't work with the scenario given then that's OK. Stop trying and I thank you very much for your participation so far. If you have some ideas for the RAF giving the scenario given I would like to hear them.

Don't worry about the Soviets and how they are getting 4 to 1 just try and figure out how you're going to deal with it. If you can't do that then please by all means don't bother.

Again thank you for your responses so far.

 

OK how about this...I'll put a few ideas out there and you can vote or comment.

1. I protest strongly sir! Meeting the enemy over the Channel negates all of our strengths. It’s not logical and screams in the face of lessons we should have learned. The new VT fuse combined with radar can greatly increase our kill ratio. I know that statistically over the course of the war AA was not that effective but if you look at the statistics provided by the Yanks on their VT fuse versus the Kamikaze you will see that anti aircraft guns can now play a vital part in stopping enemy bombers.

I would suggest sir that we let the radar assisted 3.7 AA gun and VT fuse have the first crack at old Ivan as he wings his way towards his target. Then when he reaches his intended attack point we pounce with the RAF fighters and harass him all the way home.

2. I protest strongly sir! Letting Ivan get to his target basically unmolested by airborne fighters is nonsense. Our pilots and planes are more than an equal match for the Yaks and MiGs. Our gunners have been trained to a keen edge and should be able to distinguish friend from foe. Along with our advantage in radar and electronics we can wipe them from the sky. I say we meet them at waters edge and fight them all the way.

3. I strongly protest sir! We should learn from or lessons in the first Battle of Britain and keep reserves on hand in Group 12 and 13. Determine where they are going and gather our strength and catch them before they do any damage and then harass them all the way back to the coasts. Let the VT fuse and our Ack Ack take them on and then swoop in out of the sun tactically overwhelming them. Use Fighter Command to give us the edge at the point of attack, to overcome our lack in numbers.

4. I protest strongly sir! I would suggest that we concentrate all our forces in a few well guarded airfields and keep a large CAP over them at all times. Then we strike when we have the advantage of overwhelming odds thus conserving our strength for when it is most needed and does the most damage. The VT fuse and our anti aircraft targeting systems can defend themselves. We should make each of these airfields virtual fortresses surrounded by flack traps of 3.7 guns and the VT shell. Any Red plane that dares to enter one of these kill zones would not survive long.

 

I'd call up Gandalf.

 

Grey or White?

 

OP, now that I can see page two of this thread at last...

Once you started linking this Wi to your WWIII scenario at the top of this page, you started talking rubbish. Your ideas are predicated to supporting your fictional premise - NOT to what the situation would be/would have been in reality.

Your ideas on British industrial production are ALSo ludicrous - show me a single wartime factory owner that went bankrupt!!! The ONLY losses they incurred was they weren't paid for aircraft they didn't build I.E when contracts were terminated in 1945. Britain's industrial problems post 1945 were because very VERY little of what was made from war work was ever ploughed back into modernisation of either plant or product. In fact - British industrialists would have been falling over themselves to get back into government-contracted war work in1945-6....guaranteed purchase of their products!

Who was going to pay for it??? Same way as post-Spring 1941 - war loans raised in the U.S. etc. .

Your idea that there would be zero American input militarily would be absolutely ridiculous - especially with a fundamentalist Christian in the White House! If there was one thing Truman was against - it was the spread of Communism.

Where on earth do you get the idea that the RAF only would have had 1400 frontline fighter aircraft???? We didn't just throw them into a hole in the ground, you know! Our vast surplus was still around to SELL post-war to a large number of countries. The ONLY recorded instances of destruction of that nature was by the RAN, who dumped new aircraft off the fantails of RAN carriers returning to Oz in 1945.

Frankly, there are dozens. I've only quickly dealt with a couple in this short post alone.

 

Sorry you feel that way and don't want to answer the questions posed. Please move on to another thread if you don't want to stay on subject.

Thank you.

 

You see, there's the problem in a nutshell...

I DID - and you just don't like the answers. Because they don't fit with your conclusion.

Tough. Doesnt mean they're wrong tho'.

Perhaps you could give us all an example of when the Red Airforce took on and defeated a complete, and intact and fully-equiped GCI-'d air defence system??? They certainly didn't take one on on the Eastern Front!

That's not how it works here, I'm afraid. If your WI is wrong or simply doesn't work - you're going to be told, by me and others. I'm afraid that once you kick the thread off....that's it out of your control.

 

I can't. Can you give us an example of when a fully-equiped Gci-'d air defense system defeated an enemy who's air assets outnumbered them 4 to 1? If so how did they do it? What was the SOP for their defense?

Better yet what was Britain's SOP for dealing with a possible large scale attack from the air post WWII? What was their plan to deal with even the possibility of a Soviet attack? What was their plan if operation Unthinkable went sour?

Wikipedia on Operation Unthinkable

View attachment 14717

"Operation Unthinkable: 'Russia: Threat to Western Civilization,'" British War Cabinet, Joint Planning Staff [Draft and Final Reports: 22 May, 8 June, and 11 July 1945], Public Record Office, CAB 120/691/109040 / 024

So we know they talked about the possibility. Even the possibility of Britain being on it's own. Brook, Cunningham, Evill and Churchill did not consider the possibility as rubish.

Once again back to the question at hand. If you where Churchill what would you do? What would be your plan to go it alone against the Soviet V-VS?

Does anyone know the British plans? I'm sure they had them. I'm sure they were not going to wing it and hope for the best. What would have been the SOP if somehow the Soviets were able to attack Britain from the air? Meet them over the Channel? Over land?

 

The following is all my opinion but from previous converstations I don't think I'm off that far from many of the others here.
A "What If" can be a very useful tool for examining real history provided it is "reasonable". One of the requirements form that is one or at most a few poitns of departure which could possibly happen and are well described. This one clearly fails that criteria. The initial POD is rather nebulous and indeed I suspect there is no way to explain it without several PODs rather than one. Furthermore almost every post that points out problems with the POD or the question is met with either denial or another POD. How can you have a reasonable discussion of what would happen when the whole situation is not defined or is totally off the wall?

 

Sigh...I've spent over a year and close to 500 post with over 170,000 views answering all the questions you could possibly imagine. If you want to get all the answers then you can easily google Hairog and you will find the other venues that I have been working in. This is a hobby. I'm doing this for fun. I have answered all of the questions posed and many, many, many more.

The main objections always seems to be that the Soviets are racially incapable of accomplishing what the West has already accomplished. I reject this proposal on it's face.

Despite the facts that when the Soviet peoples put their considerable will, talents and efforts towards a goal they have exceeded all expectations of the West. Then combined that with their native intelligence. Add in a few German scientists who have already invented what I proposed. Plus an industrial genius on the order of a Ford, a Boeing or even a Mykoyan who has the absolute backing of a ruthless dictator... you can produce in a few select areas weapons systems that rival or surpass anything the US or Western Europe can produce.

Example: The first object, living creature and man in space. The first ICBM and others.

I just wanted to have a discussion about a proposed scenario and not waste my time once again answering questions already answered many times in other places. I need a place to get ideas and answers not one where I have to continually give ideas and answers. I was hoping this was the place. We shall see.

Follow the trail of crumbs if you must but I will not get into one more discussion about the Soviets ability to create weapons systems.

Now is anyone willing to accept my scenario on face value and work with me in a creative effort to save the British Empire from certain destruction by the V-VS?

 

So Brooke, Eville, Cunningham and the JCS were right? Britain is a write off and there is no way the Soviets could be stopped? It's all over for the RAF? No one can come up with a plan to save the skies of Britain from being swept clean by the V-VS? The Reds win?

I'm disappointed.

 

Im going to regret this, but if we're talking 1946 we're talking the USSR being bombed to bits...i mean Nuclear bombs...the west was OVER war and would not play Russia's game...most of the "Nuclear stigma" had yet to manifest itself...The bomb would be seen as an easy and effective answer...Stalin would be assasinated by western infiltraters and an uprising begun by agitators, both domestic and from abroad...Russia would crumble very quickly without a "common threat" bringing them together to collectively drive off an aggressor...theres what would occur from you're what if...NO scenerio ends with the USSR the victor...You are thinking too small and simple.

 

No, nobody wants to play your game as you change the rules and existing reality to allow the Soviets to even get to the ability to the attack of the British airspace. If you cannot explain how they get to the channel, how they fuel their aircraft without LL avgas, now they build better aircraft than the existing YaK and others, or how they get around the other allies in the western Europe area to attack the RAF over Britain the point is this:

Can't get there from here, can't overcome the existing defenses of the UK, their existing fighters were lower quality and and performance, and don't have the material to do any better.

 

I have not changed the rules. You have tried to make me change the rules. Here are the original rules.

I tried to clarify the rules after you tried to change them.

What exactly is your concept of alternate history? If you had read my timeline you would see that a few departures from OTL have made what I have proposed possible. If you reject my opinions fine then don't participate. If you want to have some fun then join in and join the world of World War Three May 1946. There is nothing I have proposed that is out of the realm of reality.

Read all the arguments and discussions if you want and pick out the one you think is factually incorrect and we will discuss it. I'm sure it has already been discussed and I will cut and paste my answers.

I am not interested in your opinion at this point in the timeline as a whole. It has already been beat to death and I still have thousands of followers who like what I've done. One more critic is no skin off my nose.

I can and have explained all you ask. Read the story and the thousands of posts if you wish. I am not going to rehash it again.

OK let's try this. You are charge of the defenses of Britain in May 1946. The Soviets attack. What do you do the first few weeks or months as the Soviets continue the attack.

Do you sit on your ass and so nothing? Do start to prepare to fight an enemy who has 4 times your number but has fighters of lower quality and performance and don't have the material to do any better? What are you estimates of the existing defenses? How many of the AA guns did they have in place in May 1946? How many more could they get in place in 3 months? How many fighters do you believe they had in May 1946? How many more could they field in 3 months? Would even prepare since you have such disdain for their abilities? What would be your proposed SOP to defeat such an inferior enemy? Would you just go on with life as usual...not make any changes in your peace time setup? Maybe you have such disdain that you don't even prepare? How would that work out?

Then again never mind. Your continuous stalling makes me believe you lack the knowledge and skill necessarily to give an informed answer. Thanks anyway but never mind.

 

I'm not asking for your opinions of the war etc. I'm asking for you opinions on a particular scenario. If you don't want to participate... fine. If you do the scenario has been presented and please address it as I have asked. If you can't or don't want to fine.

Thank you for your participation so far but I'm not changing my question or scenario and I'm not answering questions that have already been answered or retelling a story that you can read for yourself if your interested.

Once again here is the scenario

Accept the challenge and have some fun or don't. The rules will not change.

 

Missed my point...your what if is null and void...it WOULDNT happen..the alternate histories would not be played out like this...great for selling books and video games but go to all the alternative realities in our great multiverse and you will NOT find Russia the victor anywhere...(except for the universal law that says all possibilities must be played out, even the seemingly impossible ones...if i throw myself against a wall enough times (possibly trillions) i will eventually fall through it once...but i'd be dead long before that chance arrives...you are banking on that one in a trillion...possible but NOT possible..)
Bet this clears things up! : )

 

Nothing to clear up!

We have to agree to disagree. I got your point and my "what if" is not null and void in a couple of thousand of other's opinion... including mine. My POD are mild and very possible based on historical events and the predictions of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, historians who dabble in alternate history and logic.

I again reject the premise that given the right leadership the Soviet people could not equal or even surpass what the West has already accomplished. In a specific and narrow area there is no logical reason that using the plans, blue prints and captured prototypes along with the very scientists who invented them, they could not reproduce or even improve a weapons system. Weapons system that were months away from being made operational. That the Germans had already produced in the hundreds and in some cases thousands. IMHO your contention that this is null and void... is null and void.

Who says the Soviets are going to win? They will if others like you and our fictitious RAF commanders dismiss them as being uneducated monkeys who just happened to win WWII, defeat the greatest army the world has ever seen, sent the first man is space, put the first object in space, first to land on the moon, invented the LED in 1927 etc. by ... luck or how would you explain their triumphs?

Some interesting facts. There was a Ford designed plant being run by Soviets, manned by Soviets, managed by Soviets employees producing tens of thousands of trucks. The Soviet army transported 40 divisions in complete secrecy along with 6 months of combat supplies over 5,000 miles in 2 months. They designed and accomplished an attacked that averaged over 80 miles a day using blitzkrieg like tactics that put the original to shame. They transported/ferried over 3500 planes 4500 miles along with months of fuel in a month and a half and then attacked with devastating effect.

I'm not proposing that they have the atomic bomb, death rays, esp or any other impossible weapons system. They had a prop plane that rivaled any made that out maneuvered, flew higher and was as fast as any we had that could have been massed produced, they copied the ME 262, the MiG 15 stunned the West.

Have you read how the story has evolved to this point? If not you are ignorant as to the premise described and cannot give and informed opinion. I would suggest that if you haven't then I will discount your null and void contention.

 

Not really and it hardly counts if it's posted somewhere else.

At least on this board that is a strawman.

Not particularly good examples though. For one thing it's not correct. For another if you mean "in orbit" instead of "in space" that was a political not a technical decision.

If you come up with a good well described what if certainly. To date your have failed rather spectacularly in doing so.

 

Nobody has mentioned that the importance of the Battle of Britain II would be the same as the one of the Battle of Britain I:minor,not big,small ,...?
As Sealion was not possible in 1940 (even if the Germans won),it would not be possible in 1946(even if the Soviets won) .

 

Looking at the last few postings in particular and refering back to:
http://www.ww2f.com/alternate-history/38002-alternative-history-forum-guidelines.html
In particular:

Does this thread meet the stated criteria?