What would have had to have gone differently in 1940 for the Battle of Britain to have gone in Germany's favor?
>>30159793
Brits had to do worse and Germans had to do better.
>>30159793
An incipient communist revolution, probably.
>>30159793
There's no realistic scenario where the Germans can win the Battle of Britain.
If we're considering unrealistic scenarios, I guess having the Me-262 invented years earlier would have helped.
>>30159793
Challenge the Bongs to a soccer match.
>>30159793
For germany to have gained an effective air and sea blockade.
>>30159793
Not losing their navy in Norway, wiping out evacuating allies on Dunkirk, then the mainland would be pretty fucked but I still don't know how I'd get the krauts over to bong land
>>30159793
Britain one day magically drifts into France allowing a land invasion.
>>30159793
Hitler had to actually grow a pair and realize the Royal Navy couldn't actually stop a beach landing (though I will admit they'd hinder, they could never stop it)
>>30159793
keep bombing the airfields instead of switching to bombing cities
>>30160859
>100 destroyers couldn't actually stop barges moving 2 miles per hour.
Are you the guy who made the swimming Germans thread?
>>30159793
>What would have had to have gone differently in 1940 for the Battle of Britain to have gone in Germany's favor?
pretty the previous decade.
the germans essentially need the RAF to have neglected to develop any form of air defense network, no radar, no ROC no gound control network.
they need the RAF to have failed to issue the specifications that lead to the hurricane and spitfire, to have failed to develop any large scale pilot training program and to have failed to develop the industrial capability to mass produce advanced fighter designs rapidly.
in short they need britains air defense to be less coordinated, with poorer planes, fewer pilots and lower pilot training rates, and lower airframe numbers with lower replacement rates.
>>30160859
depends what you mean by couldnt stop?
couldnt prevent some % of a invasion force getting through, perhaps, but they could inflict ruinious casualties upon any attempt and effectively fuck any resupply attempts.
>>30159793
1) Sweep the beaches at Dunkirk. Capture most of BEF for future peace negotiations and morale blow.
2) Invent V-1 early. Use it for city bombing, let the bombers keep focusing on the RAF and factories. Launch large numbers, but staggered across all hours of the day and night, so that (unlike the nightly bombing raids) Londoners never establish a new routine, but are always distracted by buzzing.
3) Invent XXI early, along with snorkels and homing torpedoes.
Finally, and this is pure speculation on my part, put the UK into a siege mentality through all of the above, build a "secret" invasion force in eastern Germany (really, a combination of FUSAG and the eventual Soviet invasion force), and then take Malta.
Why Malta? Because it's the only UK outpost in the central Med, and at this point, virtually undefended. Taking Malta removes British interference from supply likes to north Africa, while allowing interdiction of all UK Med SLOCs.
Then browbeat Mussolini into accepting help a couple years early and go take Alexandria. The Med becomes useless to the UK, and Crete indefensible. Worse, once sabotage to the Canal is fixed, the UK's oil supplies (and even India!) come under potential threat.
The strategic goal is to convince Parliament that continuing the war will cost them their entire empire, and probably get them invaded "maybe next spring". Ideally, negotiations would lead to a cease fire just in time to implement the deception plan that implicates Stalin in a hostile action and launches Barbarossa in a one-front war (with access to US markets for raw materials!).
>>30161140
I should also add:
0) Send E-boats with elite troops in the first wave at Oslo, to clear any potential defenses (which would have allowed the capture of the king and parliament, along with the gold reserve--and might have bagged a piece of one of the world's largest merchant marine forces at the time, with the king under duress).
0.5) Stick the U-boat screen right outside of Narvik, not hundreds of miles away. You know where the Brits have to go to affect the outcome, you idiots, why are you defending empty patches of ocean? A couple torpedoes into Warsprite knocks it out for a year or more, and ends that whole campaign with few losses for Germany.
>>30161140
>invent this early
>take this
Why not just write >win the war?
>>30160859
>the Royal Navy couldn't actually stop a beach landing
The first wave would land. But once the home fleet sailed it would be impossible for the first wave to be resupplied by sea.
>>30160928
>the swimming Germans thread
Now this I've got to hear about.
>>30161386
Having to salute so often and vigorously made one arm stronger than the other and they all train so they would not swim in circles.
>>30159813
Basically just this
Maybe if the Luftwaffe managed to knock out more of the RAF on the ground via bombing it would have gone better
>>30161386
Best thread on /k/ right now
>>>30160419
>>30161514
>people fucking replied to that thread
Pick off Britain's friends and just wait. Maybe tighten the grip of submarine warfare and combine it with land based bombers/attack aircraft.
thank you for the ear worm
>>30161564
Britain was the weakest of the friends.
Which ally was easier to beat than the UK?
>>30159793
What's our end goal?
Just a technical German victory, or an outright German invasion?
Because an outright invasion was never happening.
>Cross the channel on barges because you've got no landing craft.
>>30163260
Russia, by far.
The fact that the Germans botched their war with the Soviet Union just proves how insane Hitler was. Even a retard, with the power of the German Army in 1941, should have been able to easily defeat the Soviet Union. But, thanks to the insane stupidity of Hitler ("OH, FUCK MOSCOW GUYS, I WANT YOU TO INVADE THIS OTHER CITY") it was botched.
>>30164289
Stalingrad was a major rail hub and if I recall correctly, a major portage between two rivers. Takin Stalingrad would of hurt the soviets more than Moscow. Stalin had evacuated most government functions from he city anyway.
>>30161363
Read the OP again.
I never said it was feasible from the Germans' historical position.
>>30164427
I'm not sure about that--Moscow was *the* major rail hub. Without it, the factories in the Urals have little way to ship materials between each other.
>>30164456
The lost of Moscow would have been a blow to the war effort, yes.
But the movement of factories to the east of the Urals had already begun.
>>30164289
>laughing_soviets.jpg
It was never a question of if Germany would lose to Russia, only how long it would take
>>30164289
oh boy another
>If Germany had done X they would have won
The war was already lost well before Stalingrad, and the push on Moscow in 1941 had already failed miserably. Attempting the same in 1942 would have only led to a clusterfuck worse than Stalingrad as the Germans try to make an assault right into the teeth of a massive force of Soviets expecting them to come.
>>30159908
Kekked.
If the Battle of Britain went to penalties we'd have been fucked.
>>30165216
>Oh boy, this guy again
>>30159862
Does not have the range needed. The Me 210/ Me 410 would of been very useful if it had enter service during the Battle of Britain. However it had issues during development. If the Bf 109 had been at the level of development of the E7 mode rather then the E4 ( far more range due to a drop tank) that would of help also.
The Germans knew since the battle of Dunkirk that their bomber escorts may have issues with the RAF but they underestimated the degree.
>>30167224
>Heavy Fighters
>Useful
They needed to invent these earlier
>>30168108
>Heavy Fighters
>Useful
For the type of air to air combat going on in the Battle of Britain, yes they were very useful. Both UK and Germany used them heavily. Did mono engine fighters end up being more useful by early/mid 1943? For everything other then night fighters sure.
However we are talking about a campaign that was early in the war.
>>30159862
>There's no realistic scenario where the Germans can win the Battle of Britain.
Yes there is.
However, that doesn't mean that Operation Sealion would've been a success. Or even possible.
>>30168975
It would require Churchill to have not been give the PM slot
>>30168959
Heavy fighters had already lost their edge by the Battle of Britain. The Bf 110 required its own fighter escort partway through the campaign.
Barring some major leap in performance like the Mosquito - something the Germans never attained - a heavy fighter would always be a liability
>>30168108
>In 1940 I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now! It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy. The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again. What do you make of that? There is nothing the British do not have. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops. After the war is over I'm going to buy a British radio set - then at least I'll own something that has always worked.
- Hermann Goering, speaking to a conference of German aircraft manufacturers.
>>30165216
After Stalingrad yes. After Moscow, likely but not assured. The best Germany could have hoped for after failure to take Moscow was closer to a white peace than the Brest-Litovsk 2 electric boogaloo they were originally aiming for.
>>30170056
>Barring some major leap in performance like the Mosquito - something the Germans never attained - a heavy fighter would always be a liability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_410
It was about 3 years to late for the role and time it was needed for. However it had been in development since 1938 (it was a renamed ME 210). If they had not screwed it up it would of entered full scale production around February or March of 1940.
It is important to that Germany was wanting to replace the BF 110 well before the Battle of Britain took place.
>>30159793
they should have nutted the fuck up and both rolled up on Dunkirk before the brits bounced back to jolly ol tea land and invaded england directly
>>30159793
Brits would have had a real reason to have sat back and done nothing until the burgers came along if they had lost.
>>30159793
Not invade the USSR
>>30173595
But that was their best option.
The fact Hitler botched it shows what an idiot he was.
>>30159793
>>30175479
>implying the USSR wouldn't have ended up being the aggressor
>>30172326
Burgers wouldn't have been able to do anything to Germany if Britain wasn't available to them to use
The Western powers should have just left Hitler alone to deal with Poland and subsequently beat up the USSR.
>>30175512
>implying a second Tannenberg wouldn't have created a far more ideal situation, and likely an end to the war, which could no longer be termed the "Great Patriotic War"
>>30161559
>>30161514
Jesus fucking christ
>>30160090
>not losing their navy in Norway
would have helped, yes, but the RN was still far superior in numbers, so crossing the Channel would have still been a suicide mission.
>wiping out evacuating allies at Dunkirk
This would have enormously helped, but to do that the Germans would have needed more fuel, which they simply didn't have - and that argument leads us down the rabbit-hole of how the Germans could ever have fixed their economy to adequately support their war aims.
>how to get the krauts over to bongland
this. Squashing the RAF was possible in summer 1940, but actually mounting a cross-Channel invasion was another matter entirely. The Germans didn't have the transport capacity, never mind enough specialised kit, for a major amphibious operation, and Britain post June 1940 was a fortress. Every beach in southern England was defended in one way or another, and even in the places where the defences weren't particularly strong (of which there were plenty, don't get me wrong), there was an enormous amount of defensive work behind the coast.
>>30172299
not if you have no fuel in your panzers
>>30159793
Assuming Germany had won the battle, they would still have faced contested air superiority in event of an invasion- the UK would simply have moved airbases and production facilities further to the northwest out of range of strikes. This leaves the south-east SOL against raids and would eventually deny Britain an effective early warning net.
Initial stages of the invasion would have probably gone well for the Germans. The Home guard and various militias would have been little more than a speedbump in realistic terms and the stoplines around London would serve more as rallying points than actual defence lines. I would expect to see large amounts of paratrooper landings to support the main invasion and pretty much every surface ship that the kriegsmarine had raising steam on the channel to support.
The first major hurdle for the Germans would be that they had no real way to stop the Royal Navy pouring out of its ports and raping the landing effort the moment that they get wind of something up. The best that they ever came up with was mining the fuck out of the ports with subs and using mines/torpedo boats as a screen for the landing barges, but that was only a holding action, would not delay them indefinitely, and face immediate contest from the UK's own torpedo boats and subs stationed in Parkeston. Nor would it prevent an urgent recall of ships on convoy duty. Germany would have a very finite window of time to land troops and secure victory before their ability to reinforce was put under some serious constraints.
Second hurdle is attempting to capture a major port to bring in follow-on forces and heavy armour. Germany didn't invest into the craziness that was swimming tanks or beachable landing craft, so they'd need an actual dock to bring in troopships and comandeered civilian freighters. Unfortunately there aren't exactly many of them around Dover excepting the port itself, and trying to take Southampton or Portsmouth directly would be suicide.
>>30172299
That would have been impossible since Germany hadn't remotely set up their channel ports post-dunkirk (and sailing tiny flat-bottomed invasion barges across the north sea with the Home Fleet chasing you doesn't sound like too much fun either)
>>30170620
After Moscow the Soviets were already going on the counteroffensive. Germany had one chance to knock out the Soviet Union before the inevitable steamroll and they failed.
>>30175778
The need to capture large ports forced German planners to adopt a ridiculously broad front approach to the invasion with the intention of pincering the UK's major ports and attempting to deny them. Rather than a single concentrated effort on a fairly narrow front as seen in D-day, their landings would have been scattergunned as far apart as Ramsgate and both sides of the Isle of Wight. That would have left the individual thrusts unable to support each other or act in concert. By the time the regular British army mobilised it is unlikely they would have been able to achieve their objectives.
Most analysis of Operation Sealion as planned projected the Germans getting bogged down around major cities and forced to surrender with their routs of advance and retreat cut off, stopping somewhat short of London.
TL;DR interesting alternate history idea, but in practical terms absolutely doomed to failure.
>>30159793
The US being isolationist.
>>30175919
>Battle of Britain
>US
Read more.
>>30160927
so they pull back north where the jerries can't reach them
ta-da, bombing airfields """problem""" solved (that is assuming it was a big deal to begin with, which it was not)
>>30176006
And lose ability to protect the southern coast effectively from Luftwaffles raids?
Given the very wargames in the 70's by British AND German officers resulted in that very thing happening and repelling the invasion even when "every possible advantage" was given to the Germans, yes, it'd have still done it.
>>30175669
>implying the USSR wouldn't have internally propagandised that they were the victims just like Germany did with muh radio towers.
>>30175981
>Britain
>Not surviving because of US foodstuff
Without American help, Britain begins to starve and push for peace, Churchill be damned.
>>30177856
Britain never had to ration vegetables or fish and didn't ration bread until after the war.
While they relied a lot on imports they wouldn't have starved.
>>30177914
Kek.
>What is cash-carry
>what is destroyers for bases
>what is lend-lease
Without the US, britain falls.
>>30178091
Britain wouldn't have fallen for the following reasons:
1. They weren't going to starve.
2. Germany weren't going to successfully cross the channel.
Even if we throw in a ton of "But what if..." situations, Britain wasn't falling before 1975, at which point it wholeheartedly endorsed the EEC and voluntarily gave itself to Germany in our timeline anyway. :^)
>>30178133
>he thinks Mengele wouldn't have generically engineered channel swimming super-soldiers by 1975
>>30159793
I remember reading somewhere that Britain was a couple weeks away from collapsing, and had the Luftwaffe been able to press on for another few weeks, Britain would have caved or the RAF would have folded. Germany ended up blinking first. Could be wrong.
>>30178133
Alright bongcuck.
>>30178220
>if you don't believe America singlehandedly won every conflict since the battle of Actium, you're a jealous foreigner.
>>30178353
If you believe the British could have survived WWII without American help, you're a bongcuck
>>30178218
>Collapsing
Specifically, the RAF was a couple of weeks from being forced out of the south east, but it was at no point close to collapsing. Their rates of attrition were somewhat less than what the Luftwaffe was sustaining.
All's they'd have to do is either get Scotland or Ireland to turn on the British
>>30180014
it would be trivial to survive.
winning as quickly as they did would be another matter, but survival was absolutely trivial thanks to german incompetence in planning a channel crossing.
