Could the British have won (or even survived) WWII with only Russian assistance?
If America had stayed out of the European War and had focused purely on the Pacific War, could the British have held on on their own?
>>28272872
no shit?
They outproduced the germans in every department.
>>28272872
The Germans couldn't win the air war against Britain, they couldn't hope to defeat the Royal Navy, and any invasion across the Channel given the previous two points would have been an absolute slaughter. So no, they were never going to defeat Britain.
>>28272872
They would have survived, but they'd never be able to open the second front the Russians NEEDED.
Only the Americans had the actual manpower and material to do that
>>28272901
They might have been if they had been able to deploy the vast manpower of the Indian Army's two and a half million volunteers.
Of course, to do that would have required a fundamental change of Britain's imperial values.
>Won
No
>Survived
They already did. The UK was the only power to face the Axis alone.
>>28272901
France would have been a non starter but Italy was possible. Remember, no US in Europe means Churchill will likely not piss troops away in Greece, so Africa could he wrapped up with just British forces
>>28272901
>They would have survived, but they'd never be able to open the second front the Russians NEEDED.
The Russians had already turned the tide a year before D-Day. Without a second front, the Reich falls one or two years later and most of Europe becomes Soviet-aligned.
>>28272940
>The Russians had already turned the tide a year before D-Day
Yeah, in 1943
The Germans were on Moscow's frontstep at the end of 1941 and would have been there sooner had the Americans not been lendleasing much needed aid to the Soviets.
survived definitely
won... i would say yes - but with some very minor presence in france and/or 'the soft underbelly' a couple of months/years later than the original timeline
the soviets do moscow and stalingrad as usual, funnily enough still receive aid - british shipments being more numerous early on than american lend lease - meaning the war is pretty much lost in the east for germany
and it turns into one giant - and sssslllloowwww - slugfest with the soviets slowly coming, the british bombing and building up for the invasion
remember even without the united states the allied powers still held an industrial and manpower advantage
>>28272872
Are you crazy ? Ofcourse not, as soon as operation Sea Lion would have been launched it would have been the exact same day we lost
>>28272872
Definitely not.
Neither britain or russia was worth shit without being funneled the most free resources of any time in earth's history.
for example, russia's entire infrastructure and resources came from west, all they had going for them were bodies with no transportation.
"war practically shut down rail equipment production: only about 92 locomotives were produced. 2,000 locomotives and 11,000 railcars were supplied under Lend-Lease. Likewise, the Soviet air force received 18,700 aircraft. Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks.
US deliveries through Lend-Lease amounted to $11 billion in materials: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks, about 1,386 of which were M3 Lees and 4,102 M4 Shermans); 11,400 aircraft (4,719 of which were Bell P-39 Airacobras) and 1.75 million tons of food.
Roughly 17.5 million tons of military equipment, vehicles, industrial supplies, and food were shipped from the Western Hemisphere to the USSR, 94% coming from the US."
The rest of the world could not keep russia from collapsing into starving, shoe-less peasants. Had U.S. not been there to feed them, shoe them, clothe them, truck them, railway them and provide all other crucial mandatory goods, the russians would have never been had a snowballs chance in hell of moving to the german army and stopping them from rolling through the capital, getting the oil fields, destroying the hearts of russian locomotive transportation, etc. A slav farmer months hike away by foot is unable to fight a modern war without the aid that foreign powers brought.
Britain needed even more. $413 billion of the 659 billion (current $) lend-lease went to them. I believe that also doesn't include the cost of the hundreds of sea vessels sunk feeding britain. It'd become an island of starving peasants mirror-ing late war japan without aid.
>>28272948
>The Germans were on Moscow's frontstep at the end of 1941 and would have been there sooner had the Americans not been lendleasing much needed aid to the Soviets.
Uhhh, what? Give me a second, am I reading your post right?
Are you saying that the Germans would have reached Moscow sooner - regardless of the fact that they had been on a mad rush driving towards Moscow at the last tethers of their own logistical apparatus - if there was no American Lend & Lease, despite the first American shipments only reaching Soviet Union in very late 1941, and none of them reaching the frontlines until after the Soviet counterattack at Moscow?
>>28272872
The glorious Churchill would've obliterated everything unhindered if the amerifats hadn't stepped in and stolen all the spotlight.
>>28272979
>Neither britain or russia was worth shit without being funneled the most free resources of any time in earth's history.
is that why britain had beaten the luftwaffe in the BoB, preventing any theoretical chance of a successful sealion, without american help?
>"war practically shut down rail equipment production: only about 92 locomotives were produced. 2,000 locomotives and 11,000 railcars were supplied under Lend-Lease. Likewise, the Soviet air force received 18,700 aircraft. Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks.
this ignores the thousands locomotives and tens of thousands of railcars the soviets had before the war
>The rest of the world could not keep russia from collapsing into starving, shoe-less peasants. Had U.S. not been there to feed them, shoe them, clothe them, truck them, railway them and provide all other crucial mandatory goods, the russians would have never been had a snowballs chance in hell of moving to the german army and stopping them from rolling through the capital
is that why they had stopped the german army from rolling through the capital without american lend lease? and turned the tide at stalingrad a few months later with minimal american lend lease input? remember, the program did not ramp up until the later years
>>28272951
>Are you crazy ? Ofcourse not, as soon as operation Sea Lion would have been launched it would have been the exact same day we lost
>Sea Lion
>Possible with British naval and aerial superiority
>>28272979
>>28272948
Lend-lease shouldn't be counted out just because the US isn't technically involved in the European theater, since it was going on long before the US actually DID get involved.
>>28272951
>Operation Sea Lion
>Fishing boats full of infantry trying to get through all the battleships and cruisers gushing out of Scapa Flow
>no air defense whatsoever
>landing at vertical cliffs that the Germans have to scale by hand, unable to shoot back while cheeky limeys drop boulders on them
Sealion was never going to be anything but a colossal, suicidal disaster for Germany.
>>28272998
(make no mistake i consider lend lease to be absolutely vital in the relatively swift defeat of germany, but the key battles of moscow and stalingrad were won by the soviets before the truly significant amounts [or any, really, in case of moscow] of lend & lease kicked in, and there was no way for germany to threaten britain after [or during really] the battle of britain)
>>28273004
>implying ships and planes can destroy tanks that are at least tens of feet below the water
>>28273021
They'd have to be driving them across the bottom of the Channel because they didn't have any shipping capable of transporting and landing tanks in the first place.
>>28273021
Unterwasserpanzerkampfwagen!
>>28272998
>muh battle of britain
Hurricanes and spitfires could do nothing to stop britain from being unable to feed itself, even less leave their own island to menace anyone else without aid.
Soon after battle of britain, u-boat packs were sending millions of tonnes of shipping headed to britain to the bottom of the sea for miniscule losses.
It was an unsustainable as sea shipping has ever been at any time in history.
Without that $413,000,000,000 in lend-lease goods sent free over to britain, the british economy would have completely disappeared, australia or india certainly didn't have the spare goods, spare civilian shipping and spare military escorts to get through fleets of U-boats and give britian more than a day or two of the supplies it needed.
Britain would have survived, but in such a miserable state that a british invasion of a fortified europe in enemy hands would never have happened. And the more Britain hunkers away starving and having to save every scrap it has, the further France would fall into Vichy and german control and the less possible an invasion would be each month.
>>28273037
*Tauchpanzer
>>28272948
Germans were close physically to a lot of things. That never implied that they were close to defeating the enemy defending those places.
To say "hold their own" is to imagine that Germany was attacking britain, rather than the other way around
>>28272998
>turned the tide at stalingrad with minimal lend-lease
Wrong on every account.
Operation Uranus was nearly in 1943, after several straight years of millions of tonnes of goods going to Russia.
>>28273087
>Hurricanes and spitfires could do nothing to stop britain from being unable to feed itself, even less leave their own island to menace anyone else without aid.
Britain never came close to starving. They never even had to ration staples. Only foodstuffs rationed were 'luxury' items like butter, tea, chocolate, meat, etc. Bread, potatoes, and veggies were never rationed until AFTER the war when Brits started sending food aid to the rest of Europe.
>u-boat packs were sending millions of tonnes of shipping headed to britain to the bottom of the sea for miniscule losses.
Which amounted to something like 10% of the shipping. It was a significant hit, but not catastrophic. Meanwhile, German overseas shipping was reduced to ~0%.
>It was an unsustainable as sea shipping has ever been at any time in history.
No, WW1 campaign was far more destructive.
>>28273087
The Brits wrote the book on ASW and rekt the U-Boat fleet
>>28273087
Moreover, the main reason for Uboat 'happy time' was less due to the effectiveness of Uboats or Uboat tactics but due to factors internal to British merchant shipping and convoy protection. First, in the early years of the war, there were many older ships that couldn't keep up with the convoy and thus traveled without protection. They made up the majority of the "millions of tonnes of shipping" that were sunk. Second, most Uboat success early war was in the "air gap" in the middle of the Atlantic where aircraft patrol could not reach. Expansion of naval air arms and the introduction of escort carriers removed this air gap.
>>28272948
>Lend-lease
>1941
It didn't really kick off until 1942-43 and trickled off by 44.
Germans lost Moscow on their own with the rest of their poorly planned invasion.
>>28273136
Their invasion was, imho, very well-planned within the limits of their capabilities and intelligence. It's not like they could have gotten better logistics or more tanks just by being better planners.
>>28273138
They underestimated the number of enemy tanks, planes and divisions on every major level.
They halved the strength of their own panzer divisions for propaganda to make themselves look like an even larger force and then suffered a million casualties in under 7 months of fighting.
Barbarossa was a hopeless endeavour and it was a miracle that the Russian counter-offensive at the end of 41 and early '42 blundered.
>>28272872
i'm fairly sure that with us financial and economic backing they would have won.
this way it way much quicker tho.
if the us stayed out of war altogether, not so sure.
>>28273087
>muh battle of britain
Only on /k/ is having a power maintain territory so close to the enemy against the odds to allow them to bomb, protect forces and invade so trivialised
>>28272918
survivor till when?
if hitler managed to truly consolidate his power in europe and take care off russia england would be easy as pie eventually.
The Russian and British were already holding their own without the US's manpower, assuming lend lease still apply.
The issue is whether Russia could have went all the way into berlin and what happen after/if Germany fall to the Soviet. Would Hitler have move his government onto France?
>>28273146
Yeah people seriously underestimate how effective the British were at attriting the Luftwaffe. British pilots were able to be rescued in friendly territory and German pilots were either shot down over enemy skies or had to crash in the channel.
There was no end game for the germans in Britain, they could never achieve air superiority.
>>28272979
US won both World Wars alone rest of the world was simply irrelevant the post.
>"war practically shut down rail equipment production: only about 92 locomotives were produced. 2,000 locomotives and 11,000 railcars were supplied under Lend-Lease.
Soviets had plenty of pre-war railroad rolling stock. Almost all of LL rolling stock came in 1945 and deliveries continued after war as lot that pre-war rolling stock was really worn up.
>Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks.
Trucks were far more important than railroad rolling stock, but as usually Soviet reliance on US and British provided trucks is heavily exaggerated as like with railroad rolling stock they had plenty of pre-war trucks.
>Roughly 17.5 million tons of military equipment, vehicles, industrial supplies, and food were shipped from the Western Hemisphere to the USSR, 94% coming from the US."
In other words, 6% of that came from Canada and British or Australian supplied stuff is ignored.
The probably most vital part of all foreign support for Soviet Union was food supplied while Ukraine was occupied. With food shortage becoming far worse than it was historically would have had massive ramifications in Soviet war material production.
>>28272893
You're right, the British totally wouldn't have run out of supplies without the US giving them shit.
>>28273147
>if hitler managed to truly consolidate his power in europe and take care off russia england would be easy as pie eventually.
What a ridiculous "what if"
What if Britain had wizards?
>>28273174
Not a factor in the Battle of Britain
>>28273112
>nearly in 1943, after several straight years
You do realize how ridiculous you sound? The war in the east started in mid 1941. You had to say "nearly in 1943" just so you could paint a period of a year and a half (jun 41 - nov 42) as "several straight years". Just think about that for a second.
>>28273174
Care to explain how the British would have run out of supplies? Or just mention one war material they had a shortage of. I'm interested in finding out the extent of your WW2 knowledge.
>>28273174
Donitz pls go. Subs did worse in ww2 than ww1 in the atlantic.
>>28273190
People mistake supplies to allow the UK to swell its military to a magnitude larger than it could equip to allow it to fight across the planet with supplies to fight the Battle of Britain and remain unconquered. These people don't even know when the BoB was in relation to the Lend-Lease act.
>>28273186
And in fact, get the timing off wrongly anyway, as American aid was not coming throughout that entire period, but only from last weeks of 41 onwards. So roughly a year is "several straight years" now. And that's not even going into the amount of aid in that timeframe, which was very low when compared to the late war deliveries.
>>28273179
>What if Britain had wizards?
He doesn't know? He doesn't know!
>>28272940
>>28272948
>What is lend-lease
>What is the African Campaign
The Allies opened a second front long before 1943 ; it is doubtful the Afrikacorps would have been defeated without the american assitance.
And while lend-lease to the soviets indeed really started to have an influence only in 1942, it still significantly helped to turn the tide in 1943.
The harsh battles of 1942 in africa meant that the germans had to divert resources that would have been of significant use on the eastern front. Lend-lease meant that better-equipped soviets were able to put up more of a fight (and eventually win).
>>28273141
>They halved the strength of their own panzer divisions for propaganda to make themselves look like an even larger force and then suffered a million casualties in under 7 months of fighting.
And it turned out to be the right move, as halved panzer divisions did just fine in Barbarossa. In addition they suffered a lower casualty rate than in BoF. ~100 - 150 tanks were probably good enough given their tactical superiority, as long as they had mechanized infantry that could keep up.
>>28273236
>The harsh battles of 1942 in africa meant that the germans had to divert resources that would have been of significant use on the eastern front
There were like 5 Germans divisions in Africa.
>>28273236
>without American assistance
Without that American attaché sending everything they did to Washington in a code the Germans knew the British would have had an easier time of it.
>>28272872
Without American shipments...no, Churchill would have had to bite the bullet and negotiate peace with the Germans. U-boats were way too effective at strangling the home islands and they would have had issues dealing with them without American supplies and equipment. They could have kept going and survived, but there wouldn't have been much support for the war after very little progress was made in North Africa without Lee/Grant tanks and Shermans.
>>28273236
>divert resources that would have been of significant use on the eastern front.
The german troops in africa were just a tiny fraction of the massive armies in russia.
>>28272872
Probably, though the Brits wouldn't have mounted any real offensives in CONEU.
>>28273006
>>Fishing boats full of infantry trying to get through all the battleships and cruisers gushing out of Scapa Flow
The Germans felt fairly confident that even their mediocre maritime strike could seriously hamper RN forces after the RNs poor showing against the Japanese.
>>28273440
U-boats became the hunted by 1943 and the campaign was less successful than the one in ww1.
Much of the shipments where bought rather than given. I doubt the US would have stopped selling just as they weren't in the war.
>>28272979
>America won the first world war by themselves
Our army was so shit we had to use French uniforms and British and French rifles
>America won WW2 by themselves
Oh am laffin
We were getting our shit pushed in by the japs
>>28272872
You are basicly aksing /k/ the question if america is important.
>>28273502
Yeah lmao
A board mostly occupied by clappers
>>28273507
maybe somebody should ask /wm/ if the allies would have won without the soviets.
Like a science project to compare rednecks and vatniks
>>28273440
Everything you're saying is wrong.
Listen, I'm just saying, when given the choice between their own tanks and America Shermans, the brits chose the Sherman.
Just saying
>>28273534
But that's not true at all.
>>28273525
No it's not. The Brits made very little headway in Africa before they got American supplies and U-boats were a serious threat to their shipping until 43.
>>28273559
He says as there are at least 2 Shermans in that picture.
>>28273464
They wouldn't have been able to maintain logistics for more than a few days and would have dropped lightly equipped troops. Brit troops on home territory wouldn't budge an inch and it would quickly turn Inot a rout for the Germans.
A successful invasion would have required complete air dominance to even have a chance of success.
It would not be possible for the Germans to overpower Britain millitarily without having a very long period of preparation and dominance of Europes resources. Their situation would be the same as napoleons.
Could the allies have won without US? Yes though it would have taken longer and tge peace may look different. The UK had a manpower problem partly as it didn't want to use same soldiers on multiple theatres if it could be avoided. Eg most troops who fought in North Africa and Italy had nothing to do with d day. That probably wouldn't be the case if the US isn't involved.
The UK is better at naval warfare and using manipulation, negotiation money and small well trained forces to weaken and destabilise their foes. This is how it gained the Empire whilst also having a very small standing army. It's why today special forces, intelligence, the financial services and it's diplomatic service give it a bugger voice internationally than its population would normally entail. Perfidious Albino is deserved.
There are two things which will not allow Europe to be united whether by napoleon, bismark, Hitler or the EU. The English channel and the russian steppe. As long as the rules of the game remain the same it will continue to be so.
>>28273570
So? It disproves your statement that they chose the Sherman over their own designs when it shows them using both.
>>28273559
>Cromwell enters service in 1944
>literally worse than a Sherman produced in 1942 in all ways except top speed
>>28273576
>They wouldn't have been able to maintain logistics for more than a few days and would have dropped lightly equipped troops.
Oh, you're mistaken. I'm not saying that they could have even gotten past the Home Fleet. I'm just saying that the Krauts believed that the RN was weak after the Japanese of all people sank such a ship as the Prince of Wales with relatively few losses combined with the relatively poor showing of the BEF in France. This was a time where the Axis felt completely superior and that Hitler was correct in his assertions that the Anglos had become weak but should be shown leniency due to having Germanic ties.
>>28273595
No, it just proves thet used some of their own tanks on occasion.
>>28273602
Gah, addendum:
What they felt was that if such a force as the Japanese could do such damage with air power alone, then they should have no problems with it, and thus negate the disadvantages of their almost non-existent surface fleet.
>>28273603
Heavy goalposts?
>>28273602
>I'm just saying that the Krauts believed that the RN was weak after the Japanese of all people sank such a ship as the Prince of Wales
That was well over a year after the British won the Battle of Britain and half a year after they sank the Kriegsmarines largest surface combatant.
I think you're just making up what you're saying the Germans believed.
>>28273602
>I'm just saying that the Krauts believed that the RN was weak after the Japanese of all people sank such a ship as the Prince of Wales
>Germans were confident in summer 1940
>Because of an event that happened in December 1941
>>28273595
>>28273647
>Listen, I'm just saying, when given the choice between their own tanks and America Shermans, the brits chose the Sherman.
>when given the choice between their own tanks and America Shermans, the brits chose the Sherman.
>when given the choice between their own tanks and America Shermans
>given the choice
I don't know man, I guess them using both proves that they had a choice in the matter and decided to use both!
>>28273595
>It disproves your statement that they chose the Sherman over their own designs when it shows them using both.
It really doesn't disprove it at all. The British heavily relied upon the Sherman, and production and usage of the Cromwell was more an exercise in keeping AFV design up to speed with contemporaries, though in truth British tank design actually lagged behind several years.
Factually, the Sherman replaced the Crusader and Grant in British service, and the Sherman would be the primary tank of the British Army until the end of the war. All British AFVs produced were numerically insignificant compared to it. 4000 Cromwells produced by the end of the war vs. 17000+ Shermans received through lend-lease?
It's essentially ignorant to suggest that the British ever "chose" their own tanks over the Sherman, beyond building them in token numbers as lip service to their own tank designers. The closest the British got to a modern, reliable tank, truly worthy of replacing the Sherman rather than just complementing it was the Comet, of only ~1000 were produced, and still it was introduced almost one year behind the T-34-85 and almost two years behind the Panther.
>>28273602
>I'm just saying that the Krauts believed that the RN was weak
Literally not at any point in the war.
>Britcucks have complete naval superiority
>Do literally NOTHING with it
>Can't even be bothered to shut down the sub bases in their own back yard despite having dozens of warships and complete aerial superiority when land based and carrier based craft are accounted for
>Can't even bother to stop ther Nazis from taking Norway
>Can't even shut off the thousands of tons of Iron the Nazis needed from flowing out of a small port like Narvik
>Instead fuck around in Africa doing piss all until burgers come around to help out
>Keep Poland Free
>Failed
>Protect the Empire
>Failed
>Maintain superpower status
>Failed
WWII was the death knell of Britain as a true power.
>>28273534
They preferred their own designs, but Sherman was available large numbers.
>>28273599
Cromwell had way better off road mobility than Sherman. Sherman sucked at that. Later upgrade from VSS to HVSS improved it marginally, but it was still shit off road.
>>28273674
>not knowing the aryan masterrace can see into the future
>>28272872
>Could the British have won (or even survived) WWII with only Russian assistance?
Absolutely, undoubtedly, evidently, assuredly no. US help to Britain was much more bigger than US help for Soviets. Without US help Germans wipe out Brits from Africa, close Gibraltar, clear Mediterranean and win Battle for Atlantic.
>>28273818
>preferred their own designs
>wanting to be in a riveted piece of shit
>>28273817
how many people had to die just because of allied incompetence?
>>28273817
>>Can't even be bothered to shut down the sub bases in their own back yard despite having dozens of warships and complete aerial superiority when land based and carrier based craft are accounted for
Are you stupid? Do you understand what a slaughter it would be to try to attack armored facilities within spitting distance of coastal forts, E-boats, minefields and aircraft?
That's like asking why America waited till 1945 to sail up to and start shelling Japanese arsenals.
>>28273817
You think difficult things are trivial which is why you're so confused.
>>28272940
>The Russians had already turned the tide a year before D-Day.
Because of Operation Torch, which happened in 1942. Germany only got involved in Africa to bail out Italy. As far as Hitler was concerned, any effort other than the Eastern Front was a sideshow. He really wanted to crush Stalin. North and East Africa, the Med, and Italy were enough of a diversion that he couldn't quite make the nut.
>Brits actually think this design is better than your 76mm armed Shermans
What the fuck?
>>28272893
The Germans did win the air war, but they pussied out at last because Hitler was a fucking idiot.
The Brits had no planes and no good pilots when the Germans switched targets to London.
Without American help they would have collapsed, but Hitler still didn't have a fleet to invade... so dunno. They might have aimed for a peace treaty.
>>28273855
>Outrange coastal guns that aren't even 12" guns
>Can literally sit back and peck them to death while the Illustrious alone could swat Germany's pathetic maritime strike aircraft away
>Slaughter
It'd be a slaughter alright, but not for the Islandcucks.
>>28273857
>difficult things
>up against a surface fleet that doesn't exist and a sub force that's designed for attacking merchantmen, neither of which are protecting Narvik in any serious numbers
>Can't stop iron shipping from Norway despite having complete naval supremacy
>this is 'difficult' to brits because it might mean doing something instead of sitting at home and waiting for their betters in the Commonwealth or the Burgerland to do everything for them
>>28273980
I dont know anything about BoB, the post
>>28274008
I'm using "The World at War" as a source, a brit war documentary that is pretty well regarded. The Germans had pretty much won the air if they pressed through.
>>28273138
Better planning maximizes available resources.
>>28274003
>>Can literally sit back and peck them to death while the Illustrious alone could swat Germany's pathetic maritime strike aircraft away
Wow, this probably shows how little you know the best in a single sentence
>>28273980
>Without American help they would have collapsed
Without American help they didn't collapse.
How often does this have to be brought up before it stops being some obscure lore
They could have held on, but with N Africa and the Far East fronts to consider too, they wouldn't have been able to challenge the Germans in Europe. Negotiated peace probably.
>>28273818
>Brits preferred they're own designs
Not really, especially in the case of the Cromwell. The most common complaint being that it was very difficult to get out of due to the much smaller hatches on the turret. Crews didn't have the same confidence (which is vital in combat) in it as the Sherman.
>>28273980
Damn that's not even pop culture history, it's just completely wrong
>>28274026
No, the idea that the British only won the air war because Hitler started the Blitz is a story created to mythologize the conflict. Britain had more pilots, more aircraft and a better strategic position. Germany would never had been able to subdue the RAF.
>>28273980
>The Germans did win the air war
Wrong
>but they pussied out at last because Hitler was a fucking idiot
Wrong
>The Brits had no planes and no good pilots when the Germans switched targets to London.
Wrong
>>28274037
>Make less than 200 aircraft truly capable of maritime strike throughout the ENTIRE war
>all of them were absolutely massive ungainly
>This is far too much for Britcucks as the Illustrious obviously didn't have any aircraft, neither did Ark Royal, etc, etc and there were no such things as anti air cannons
I forgot that in your world all the RN could muster for air defense were enfields.
Just tell me straight, /k/, was the Churchill an alright design?
>>28272979
>Neither britain or russia was worth shit without being funneled the most free resources of any time in earth's history.
Free? The UK stopped paying Lend-Lease costs on the 29 December 2006. Hardly free.
>>28273087
See >>>>28274077
The UK paid it all back, Nothing was free, do your research.
>>28274072
Course it was
>>28274046
>How often does this have to be brought up before it stops being some obscure lore
When Britain stops having been on the edge of starvation without US aid in 1940/41.
>>28274072
From the MkII onwards, yes.
>>28274072
It was shit tbh_fam
It was a heavy tank that couldn't even face a Panther, let alone a Tiger or Tiger II
>>28274077
>>28274089
He'd clearly have been better off pointing to the Destroyers for Bases agreement.
>>28274104
>When Britain stops having been on the edge of starvation without US aid in 1940/41.
And that's also wrong. Jesus is it illegal to learn about something or do you just post bullshit and wait to be corrected?
>>28274119
No, please, continue to post arguments that can't evolve beyond "No, u just wrong"
Please
>>28274144
How is it an argument? Show me an iota of proof that the UK was on the edge of starvation.
>>28274157
The UK wasn't on the edge of starvation because of America
You can't have evidence of something that was avoided.
>>28274072
Maybe if everyone was still using shit doctrine
>>28274184
Then you cannot prove that the UK was on the verge of starvation either!
>>28274184
Don't pull that "you can't prove it wasn't" bullshit fallacy.
If you can't prove it, it's not a valid point.
>>28273183
dat damage control
>>28274311
>BoB 1940
>Lend Lease 1941
>This fact is now damage control
>>28272872
Well the Russians defeated both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, so the British presence or lack thereof would not matter. Their contribution was minimal.
>>28273980
Rarely does a post manage to be entirely wrong without conjuring just an iota of the suspicion that it is so on purpose.
>>28273087
>sent free over to britain
>'Lend'
>'Lease'
>Free
The UK finally finished paying for lend lease in 2006. Not to mention the Jet and Nuclear technology and other secrets given over to the US as part of the Tizzard mission, or the base leases around the world.
>>28274111
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyers_for_Bases_Agreement
>Britain had no choice but to accept the deal, but it was so much more advantageous to America than Britain that Churchill's aide John Colville compared it to the USSR's relationship with Finland. The destroyers were in reserve from the massive US World War I shipbuilding program, and many of the vessels required extensive overhaul due to the fact that many were not preserved properly when inactivated; one British admiral called them the "worst destroyers I had ever seen", and only 30 were in service by May 1941
>>28274072
It was actually very well suited to being adapted for the "Hobart's Funnies". The later models had heavy armor, large hull with lots of space, fairly reliable, good cross-country performance.
It wasnt that great at being a regular tank though, mostly due to its small gun.
>>28273123
The majority of U-boat losses were to US aircraft.
>>28274841
>Small gun
This meme needs to die.
The 6-Pounder with APDS and the 75mm QF were perfectly capable of handling almost everything they encountered short of a "big cat", which were EXTREMLY rare, and thats why the Achillies and Fireflies and Archers were there anyway.
People need to get out of this mentality that every engagement was against a dozen Jagdtigers.
>>28272872
Won? No.
Survived? Probably not but maybe.
They would have been starved in to submission without massive US aid. Hitler never wanted a war with England and without US aid Churchill would probably had seen the inevitable and signed a peace treaty.
The alternative is that UK doesn't surrender but basically loses anyway. Without US aid they would have no fuel or munition for offensive campaigns and they would be forces to only defend while large population slowly starves to death. Maybe they could have increased their own food production and made aircraft fuel out of coal but it wouldn't be enough to defeat the germans.
TL;DR
Millions of starving bongs on an Island protected by a fleet that the Nazis can't beat.
And then Germany would have won because without lend lease they lost their shit faster then they could produce it.
>>28272872
Without lend and lease support the soviets wouldn't have been able to field the numbers they had at Stalingrad. Mind you, the tank factories were often building T-34s while under fire so even a small difference would knock those factories out of play. Without the advantage in tanks it's likely that Stalingrad would have fallen to the Nazis. The Red Army would starve as Hitler firebombed the farms.
As for Britain? The Germans never developed the numbers or firepower to really challenge the Royal navy. For example, the Queen Elizabeth class and the Bismark class are more or less a match on paper. Both had 8X16" guns and 330mm of armor. The Bismark was faster but that doesn't matter that much in a head on fight.
The Brits, however, had 5 Queen Elizabeth class battleships while the Germans had only two Bismarks.
Then there's the matter of air power and while the Germans could match the British fairly well, they never developed the heavy bombers or torpedo bombers that you need to sink battleships. Maybe if they copied Japanese designs but the Japanese weren't too friendly with the Nazis.
tl;dr
The Germans would have taken out the Soviets but they just couldn't get their armies across the channel.
>>28274997
Except the BoB showed that Germany was suffering heavier attrition than the Brits. Even without Lend Lease, Britain could get what it needed through regular trade. The U-boats were never as big a threat to their shipping as history shows like to claim.
>>28273123
>The Brits wrote the book on ASW and rekt the U-Boat flee
Without US intervention the subs would just hang outside their operation range and sink what ever the fuck they wanted.
>>28275051
>U-boats
>outranging the RN
The convoy system basically neutered U-boat effectiveness to just a few lucky raids that required entire wolfpacks to pull off or picking off stragglers that couldn't keep up.
>>28275034
>The U-boats were never as big a threat to their shipping as history shows like to claim.
Because they where protected by US ships and planes on the other side of the atlatnic.
And you can just buy stuff like you normally do. You need convoys or else you will lose to much.
>>28275003
Bismarck had 15' guns.
>>28273179
Implying Britain doesn't have wizards
American food did a lot more for Britain and Russia than American tanks, planes, and trucks.
>>28274914
My bad, i thought they would still have the 2-pounder. The 6-pounder would do just fine.
>>28272940
Y, they actually started loosing when Hitler commanded his troops to stay in Stalingrad
>bongistanis trying to inflate how much they did in WWII
not even burgers are this deluded
>>28272979
>the most free resources of any time in Earth's history.
Is that honestly what you believe?
>>28275336
It's not even that. The Germans had no capability to invade and the Russians pretty much defeated the Germans by them self.
Seems a lot of American teens getting upset that they didn't win the war all by thenselves
>>28273021
>the Channel is at most tens of feet deep all the way across
>tanks would be fine without infantry
>I'm a massive fucking retard
>>28273817
What they did was cause the Germans to have a shortage of everything in two world wars.
>>28272872
Yes, your own generals even admitted as much after the war. Operation Sea Lion was beyond retarded.
>>28272948
>>28273236
Lend-lease and african campaign contributed like ~15% to the win over Recih.
>itt: american views on WWII and it's episodes
lol, you know that USA isn't the centre of Universe, guys?
>>28275133
5 minutes in /brit/ proves that
>>28275190
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_United_Kingdom
>In December 1939 Elsie Widdowson and Robert McCance of the University of Cambridge tested whether the United Kingdom could survive with only domestic food production if U-boats ended all imports. Using 1938 food-production data, they fed themselves and other volunteers one egg, one pound of meat, and four ounces of fish a week; one quarter pint of milk a day; four ounces of margarine; and unlimited amounts of potatoes, vegetables, and wholemeal bread. Two weeks of intensive outdoor exercise simulated the strenuous wartime physical work Britons would likely have to perform. The scientists found that the subjects' health and performance remained very good after three months, with the only negative results being the increased time needed for meals to consume the necessary calories from bread and potatoes, and what they described as a “remarkable” increase in flatulence from the high amount of starch in the diet.
Britain had food rationing but was nowhere near starving, and while food from the US was extremely beneficial, it was bought, not given.
>>28274055
As long as Germany could keep bombing British airdromes and Britain could not bomb German airdromes in France in retaliation, there's no way Germany could have lost if they kept it up.
So lither losing the battle of Britain is absolutely true.
>>28276159
>As long as Germany could keep bombing British airdromes and Britain could not bomb German airdromes in France
.....what.
>>28275957
>you know that USA isn't the centre of Universe
So did we save your ass from Communism or kick your fascists ass?
>>28276159
>Germany
>Out-bombing the British
>Germany out-bombing Arthur motherfucking Harris
Nigga you fucking what
>>28272872
You need to define winning. Britain could definitely have kept Germany from invading. Since the US would be only concerned with Japan, that would have freed up RN resources to help scuttle Operation Sealion.
North Africa would have remained a sideshow between Britain and Italy, maybe with Vichy forces beefing up the Italians. Germany would have focused on grinding Russia into dust, and eventually fail in around 1946 or 47. Russia would have been pushed back beyond the Urals, but never beaten. Germany would eventually settle for a negotiated Cold War of sorts with Britain, while trying to fight a Vietnam-style war in Russia. Meanwhile, the UK would be funneling aid to Russia.
Not sure how China and the US would act in this scenario. Pretty sure Chinese commies wouldn't wind up winning the mainland.
>>28276304
>North Africa would have remained a sideshow between Britain and Italy, maybe with Vichy forces beefing up the Italians. Germany would have focused on grinding Russia into dust, and eventually fail in around 1946 or 47. Russia would have been pushed back beyond the Urals, but never beaten. Germany would eventually settle for a negotiated Cold War of sorts with Britain, while trying to fight a Vietnam-style war in Russia. Meanwhile, the UK would be funneling aid to Russia.
gunna need a citation.
>>28276304
I know it wasn't intended, but I suddenly had the mental image of a nazi force replacing the US troops in Vietnam, with FÜHER'S SON playing on the radio while door gunners fire from choppers with their MG-60s.
>>28276748
>CETME operating
I came.
>>28275958
Yep.
>>28272872
the german never had a chance in the first place with a mentally retarded king in charge of the planning
>>28272872
The Russians would have owned everything East of France.
>>28274110
>It was a heavy tank that couldn't even face a Panther, let alone a Tiger or Tiger II
You know that Tiger 1 from the film FURY!
That same tank, Tiger 131 preserved at The Tank Museum in Bovington, UK.
That was knocked out by a Churchill tank of A Squadron, 4 Troop of the 48th Royal Tank Regiment on the 20/04/1943.
Also on the 27/2/1943 the first Western tank to knock out Tiger tanks were Churchill tanks.
Sort of going back to the movie FURY. Did you know there was a tank called FURY in WW2 and it was a Churchill AVRE
>>28274072
Yeah, it was pretty good. Poor driver visibility thanks to the horns, but it proved to be staggeringly adaptable. The entire concept of Combat Engineering Vehicles comes from Churchill modifications.
>>28277469
>Churchill AVRE
Is that your pic? MUST be HEAT/HESH rounds right?
>>28277662
>290 mm Spigot mortar, throwing the 40 lb (18 kg) "Flying dustbin" with its 28-pound high-explosive warhead designed for the quick levelling of fortifications
>>28272950
You seem to have a comprehensive understanding of this, can you share some sources to further my information? Whatever they are, I don't mind reading a whole book either to get my head around a small what if scenario.
>>28277695
HAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHA GET FUCKED WHATEVER I SHOOT HAHAHAHAHA
>>28272950
>remember even without the united states the allied powers still held an industrial and manpower advantage
Barely.
Germany had the doctrine advantage and soviet would have been killed faster then they where able to rebuild if it wasn't for lend lease. This is just a fact.
Not to mention the morale boost that comes from having the US on your side.
>>28276660
Blue board. Can't post pic of my ass. You're just going to have to take my word for it.
>>28273973
Cromwell was basically a de-evolved T-34
Flat armour, ineffective gun, under-powered engine
Why is it in these threads everyone drops to their knees and opens their mouths for that Russian cock?
This idea that the Russians could steamroll their way through the Reich without the support of land lease is so utterly false. Without US support the Russian war machine would have frozen and starved to death, their tanks out of fuel their men out of food if they were even near the conflict anyway.
I'm so tired of this Russian cock sucking.
>hurrr Amerifat mad cause he is not center of attention
Not even, my family suffered under Soviet rule and finally escaped when that shit heap fell apart. We immigrated to Canada. I fucking wish the US and GB said fuck off to the Soviet Union and never helped them.
>>28272883
>Lend lease
>Production
>>28279460
99% of people either overestimate or underestimate the value of Lend Lease, depending on their ulterior motives and national background.
The 1% actually give a fuck about forming an objective picture of history. Or they would if they didn't drown in a deluge of shit years ago.
>>28278326
>doctrine advantage
The German military relied on horses. They relied heavily on horses. Very, very heavily. In 1942, the entire British military had ~6,500 horses and ~10,000 mules/camels. The Germans had, on average, over one million horses in service at any given time for the duration of the war. They lost 200,000 in two months upon launching Barbarossa. In November 1944, after half a decade of modernization and motorization, the German military had a total of 264 divisions, of which only 42 were mechanized. The rest relied almost entirely on horses; your average divisional supply chain was, in theory, built around 256 trucks and 2,652 horses.
I want Wehraboos to leave. The German military was laughably inferior to every other major combatant in so many important aspects. Hint, it's not MUH HUGE TANKS and MUH NOT ACTUALLY THAT REVOLUTIONARY SMALL ARMS that win wars. Did the krauts even have a competent four engine heavy bomber by the end of the war?
>>28273254
Which could've helped in the massive clusterfuck on the eastern front instead of pissing away in N.Africa helping the Spegettitards.
>>28274635
>base leases around the world.
>letting the US build bases in various places to protect those areas from the Nazis by saying 'lol look! we're not actually in the war! guess you can't take this bit of sovereign british territory now that the burgers are here!'
Dumbest fucking thing ever. The only people that thought that Destroyers for Bases was bad are those that wanted brand new ships when they had fucking none and thought that the empire would last forever.
>>28279902
Barbarossa was not an undertaking that could've been decided by 5 more or less divisions. And the absence of those 5 German divisions would've meant the absence of ten Italian divisions in the Eastern front.
>>28279460
>their tanks out of fuel their men out of food if they were even near the conflict anyway.
Care to explain how much of their tank fuel the Soviets got through LL, and how much of their food? Or do you even have the faintest idea?
I thought as much.
Brit-shits bragging about WW2
An utterly pointless war that they are responsibile for starting
And now their country is a bankrupt socialist shithole, run by traitors & communists
Progress.
>>28280202
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/lend.html
Start reading.
>Other canned meats, excl. chicken 2,405,696,825 lbs.
That's a fuckload of spam
>>28280551
>enough spam to feed a million men a pound of spam 3 times a day for two years
holy shit
>>28280648
Yo man theres a reason islanders love it so
>>28280551
That's an interesting breakdown - I think it's the weird juxtaposition of utterly huge things next to (comparatively) small ones - especially ones that seem pointless
1,019,602,323 boxes of sugar and 492,521,079 lbs of beans makes sense, but 26 boxes of pineapples and 89lbs of "biscuits and crackers", really don't seem worth the effort
>>28280851
I noticed that too. What I THINK happened was that at first they started throwing out whatever they could, and then they quickly realized 'don't send shit that can spoil on its way to where it's needed, Russia is fucking huge you idiots'
>>28276066
>and unlimited amounts of potatoes, vegetables and wholemeal bread
Nice job showing that 'experiment' was nothing but british propaganda and bullshit.
They would've starved in poverty.
>>28277469
FYI it wasn't an out and out kill vs that tiger, part of the projectile got wedged somewhere one the turret and locked up the gun. The Churchill was a great design for infantry support and the later variants were pretty reliable but it suffered from having guns that were next to useless in a tank vs tank scenario. Tank vs tank isn't as common as you'd think however so having a poor gun for anti armor isn't a big deal provided you can compensate that weakness with vehicles that do have good anti-armor guns.
Also that post just screams 'I'm twelve and read a Wikipedia article'. Try and work on that famjam.
>>28276066
At the same time the navy was slowly adapting to u-boats, organizing into convoys and inventing sonar and depth charges.
>>28281752
> inventing sonar and depth charges.
You are either lying or simply don't know what you are tlaking about.
Both of those were invented pre-war.
Wehraboos are as bad as expected, but it's like everyone arguing favorably of the British is putting in a valiant effort to out-do them.
Is there a word that describes the British version of a "vatnik"?
>>28274914
I recall interviews of Crusader crews lamenting the ineffectiveness of the 6 pounder, going so far as to say they despised the tank as a result. Apparently it bounced right off the frontal armor of PzIIIs and early PzIVs in all but extreme close range.
Same crewmembers lavished praise on the Grant/Lees they were given, because the 75mm gun was a godsend compared to the piddly 6 pounders.
>>28281752
Sonar wasn't the primary means of detecting uboats in those days. It was radar.
>>28280551
>geocities
Is this 1996 or something?
>>28274072
No, it looks gay.
>>28281108
But bread wasnt rationed during the war, Britain was sufficient in Potatoes and many vegetables, hence why they were not rationed and there were even campains to get people to eat more of them (britain still has an old wives tale that carrots help you see in the dark thanks to this). Also that was using 1938 production figures, before large amounts of unused and public land were unlicked gor arrable farming.
It's highly unlikely to be propaganda because the government suppressed the findings.
>>28282335
That makes no sense, because the 6pdr had better armour penetration values than the 75mm. Hence why the US army adopted as their primary anti-tank gun in the form of the 57mm M1.
Later in the war, the British shifted to the US 75 in their tanks because it had better and faster firing HE, infantry support being more important than killing tanks.
>>28272987
the germans had to slow down because of italy failing at greece
>>28274110
>couldn't even face a panther let alone a tiger
>let alone a tiger
m8, the panther's gun had superior penetration values and an autoloader. on top of that, it's sloped armor effectively made it harder to penetrate from the front than a tiger.
>>28282335
You're probably thinking of the Mk I and II versions of the Crusader with the 2pdr. It wasnt given the 6pdr until it was evident that Cromwell was going to be delayed.
>>28282937
>Panzer V
>Autoloader
The fuck you on about, mate?
>>28282937
Point out where the autoloader is located, I can't seem to see it.
>>28283117
He means it had a loader. Called Otto.
Easy mistake.
>>28272872
Yes. It would have led to one or both of:
- a more Russian-dominated Europe as the British wouldn't have had the numbers to push as far if at all
- a radioactive Europe if the conflict had gone on long enough for Tube Alloys to bear fruit
>>28273980
Put down the crack pipe.
>>28280185
What could have helped on the Eastern front were the logistical assets that were squandered.
>>28282937
Assuming that every engagement is going to be from the front. The Panther had rather thin side armor and most of the main gun ammo was right behind them.
>>28283420
>Assuming that every engagement is going to be from the front.
Well duh, that's how you design a tank.
>>28283972
>38mm on the upper glacis
But that's wrong, it's close to 75mm.
Where did you get his silly image?
>>28284042
>it's close to 75mm.
Does that look like 75mm to you?
Perhaps you have some images that point towards it being thicker.
>>28281855
Both of which where invented by the uk. Particularly sonar and it's use where heavily expanded upon by the brits during the war. Much of anti submarine doctrine came from brit experience during the battle of Atlantic. It isn't being a 'Vatnik' to know that. Britain did has some success during the war independent of other nations
>>28284103
Works better if you have something there for scale. Yes, this looks considerably more than an inch thick
>>28284211
>Both of which where invented by the uk.
Don't try and move the goalposts, the post used present tense.
>organizing into convoys and inventing sonar and depth charges.
Especially depth charges, they were in use during the first world war, not exactly something new or novel for the 1940's.
>>28284219
Have you seen how thick 7cm is?
That isn't it.
Germany lost the war the moment it set foot in Russian territory, really. They could potentially have won if they invaded Russia and Japan had not attacked the US but instead attacked Russia, but diplomacy and Hitler's insanity wrote a different story for history.
You just can't expect Germany/Austria and Italy (and kinda Finland and Romania) to win vs Poland, France, Greece, Britain (still a worldwide fucking empire), AND the USSR.
Britain would have eventually broken German blockades and Operation Neptune'd the fuck out of Scandinavia, then slowly worked their way from Egypt through the Med as well, keeping Italy totally out of the eastern front for all intents and purposes. Meanwhile, Russia would have fought the Germans to a standstill, then slowly pushed them back as Britain bombed the shit out of German cities. French, Polish, and Czech resistance would have further hindered German forces. Best-case scenario for Hitler at that point would have been fighting to a truce on the Eastern Front (unlikely) via use of an atomic weapon or mass jet bombing campaigns, etc. And what an uneasy truce that would be.
IMHO, Germany should have picked up Spain (because fuck you Franco), then Italy (because fuck you Mussolini), built a large defensive network in the East against Russia, bolstered the shit out of its air force and air defences, and sat pretty in Fortress Europe until the Allies gave up. I think they could have actually accomplished that objective.
>>28284327
Did you seriously just post a picture of someone behind the plate to try act as your reference and then proclaim victory?
>>28284854
>behind
Under.
>>28285030
Posted the wrong image.
>>28272872
Probably not. Without the US, Russia would probably fall, and then Britain is basically cucked. Especially if Britain doesnt have the US loans/industry/trade to support it, it falls.
>>28285030
>>28285133
Not the guy you're arguing with but
>Russian source
