W.W.2 No Germans to North Africa...

[glenn239]

9 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No, to be fair he didnt mention Siebel Ferry once.

If the British build Siebel ferries then Sicily will be in the bag.

[Markus Becker]

4 hours ago, bojan said:

What could they get that they really needed? Allies were getting things they were desperate for, fighters and light bombers. Germans had their own, pretty good ones and had more-less enough of them.

The Allies embargoed German coal exports to Italy. So they were probably after whatever Italy gave Germany in return for the coal. 

Germany was quite a bit short of artillery ammo at the start of the war. Italy could have sold chemicals/components. 

[Markus Becker]

43 minutes ago, JWB said:

Hans Rudel, the most-decorated pilot of the Luftwaffe, states in his memoirs, "We often encounter American types of aircraft, especially Airacobras, Kingcobras .............

I call his statement partial BS. They had tons of P-39 that happen to look very, very much like a P-63. Especially when they are trying to kill you. 

[seahawk]

1 hour ago, JWB said:

Why not?

Different opposition in numbers, quality and equipment. Take the allied numbers of Torch and compare them to Husky, but now add some extra to the Axis troop numbers, as they would have not fought in North Africa.

[Stuart Galbraith]

5 hours ago, bojan said:

IIRC after Battle of Bulge, when it was clear that Germany could no longer offer effective resistance. But with eastern front being more static there would be more troops for Germany to place in the west, so that is not given in this timeline.

What could they get that they really needed? Allies were getting things they were desperate for, fighters and light bombers. Germans had their own, pretty good ones and had more-less enough of them.

 

Ive read a few accounts, not least Gallands, whom claim Germany went into the war with not enough fighters, which consdiering the attrition they took of fighter pilots is probably true. OTOH, its a harder problem to solve than just buying fighters off the peg from Italy. After all, the training scheme was probably running full tilt as it was.

If they could have got the italians to build light bombers under Licence, or even destroyers, that might have been something.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, JWB said:

Hans Rudel, the most-decorated pilot of the Luftwaffe, states in his memoirs, "We often encounter American types of aircraft, especially Airacobras, Kingcobras .............

I dont mean to be critical of Rudel, for I have not read it. But I have read others whom have criticised much else of what he wrote as gilding the lily somewhat.

I think its probably true, but I think they would almost certainly have all been sent to VVS. Although yes, Hurricane IIC's supposedly did make it into PVO service.

I think it would be a very optimistic Stalin whom wouldnt have believed a B29 could have gotten through. After all, the Americans over Japan didnt seem to have much trouble.

[bojan]

Some 10+ years ago I have read an interview* with Soviet pilot that flew P-39 and P-63 during war, 63s only in the last few months and vs Japan, so at least some were in use.

 

*I think here https://iremember.ru/memoirs/ but there are 90 fighter pilots interviews there and I don't have time to search it now...

[R011]

10 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes of course they would. We were still strategic bombing up till the end of the war. The use of an Atomic bomb (or at least the way it was seen at that time) was just incrementing up what they were already doing.

What were they strategically bombing in April 1945?  By then, most of the targets were being overrun by the armies.  Nukes on Berlin would have been tactical not strategic, but would the West feel obligated to help the Russians that way?

[Stuart Galbraith]

There was an article in Flypast I would struggle to find now, but I remember distinctly that the last bombing raid by the RAF on Berlin was in May 1945, possibly even on the same day it ended. I grant you it was a Mosquito and a single one at that, but I THINK it was a Bomber command one. Bombed on Oboe IIRC.

 

Edited January 30, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[R011]

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

There was an article in Flypast I would struggle to find now, but I remember distinctly that the last bombing raid by the RAF on Berlin was in May 1945, possibly even on the same day it ended. I grant you it was a Mosquito and a single one at that, but I THINK it was a Bomber command one. Bombed on Oboe IIRC.

 

At that point, not only would no one recognize that a single Mosquito had bombed Berlin , they'd be as likely to kill some Soviets as Germans.

[JWB]

8 hours ago, seahawk said:

Different opposition in numbers, quality and equipment. Take the allied numbers of Torch and compare them to Husky, but now add some extra to the Axis troop numbers, as they would have not fought in North Africa.

You need to add B8A to the allied force invading Sicily.

[seahawk]

They have no assets for landing.

[Perun]

British alone cant invade Sicily nor conqoure Italy. Max what they could is to take whole Lybia

[Stuart Galbraith]

8 hours ago, R011 said:

At that point, not only would no one recognize that a single Mosquito had bombed Berlin , they'd be as likely to kill some Soviets as Germans.

Maybe, but its still strategic bombing. After all, the later Mosquitos could carry the same bombload as a B17. Ive got a nagging feeling it was actually a Canadian crew that did it actually.

Im not saying it made sense at that late point in the war, and Im not certain they were using heavy bombers right till the end. But it does illustrate they were still bombing until a very late date. Mainly to support the Soviets I suspect. I assume they cleared it with them first.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Perun said:

British alone cant invade Sicily nor conqoure Italy. Max what they could is to take whole Lybia

Lets see...

Worlds largest Navy. Check.

Parachute Forces. Check.

Outclassing Axis airpower. Check.

I think we could  have done Sicily by ourselves. Italy might have been a stretch. Might have had to employ more Indian Army units for that.

Edited January 31, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[Perun]

I can imagine north Africa whitout Germans but cant imagine that Germans would not help defend Sicily or Italy. I understand that you are not objective on this matter but UK couldnt do it by them self. As I said before maximum for British, if acting alone, could be only Lybia.

 

In real world British was mere sidekick to US. They couldnt do anythin larger whitout US help and asistance.

[Markus Becker]

19 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Ive read a few accounts, not least Gallands, whom claim Germany went into the war with not enough fighters, which consdiering the attrition they took of fighter pilots is probably true.

When the war began the Me 109-E had just entered production. Germany was still using a significant number of -C and -D with the 700-ish hp Jumo engines and a machine gun only armament.

[Markus Becker]

5 hours ago, Perun said:

In real world British was mere sidekick to US. They couldnt do anythin larger whitout US help and asistance.

Starting in 1944 the US forces outnumbered the British-Imperial ones in Europe and the gap got ever wider but in 1943 the bulk of the forces stationed in the UK were still British.

[Perun]

Yes, but those numbers wasnt employed in any significant way and behinde those same  numbers predominantly was US logistics and industry. 

[glenn239]

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I think we could  have done Sicily by ourselves. Italy might have been a stretch. Might have had to employ more Indian Army units for that.

And Churchill thought the British could handle the Aegean campaign in 1943 by themselves.  How did that one work out?

Once the Soviets get rolling sooner or later the British could no doubt take Sicily by themselves.  The question is, by that time, whether the Soviets will have taken it first.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Markus Becker said:

Starting in 1944 the US forces outnumbered the British-Imperial ones in Europe and the gap got ever wider but in 1943 the bulk of the forces stationed in the UK were still British.

No, dont help him out. He doesnt like to read British history, but somehow it doesnt stop him commenting on it.

It would doubtless to surprise you Perun, that the largest navy at Operation Overlord was the Royal Navy. The Americans played a huge role supplying the LST's its true, but the fire support (and a considerable number of the assault shipping) was to a surprising degree British. Even the British were crewing many of the landing craft on the American assault beaches. As far as logistics, we built Mulberry and Pluto.

I cud go arn and arn...

 

Edited January 31, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Markus Becker said:

When the war began the Me 109-E had just entered production. Germany was still using a significant number of -C and -D with the 700-ish hp Jumo engines and a machine gun only armament.

Yep. And Hitler put a withold on producing the F model till after the Battle of Britain, because he thought the war would be over before it was needed. Oops.

If the Germans had twice as many fighters as they did (and binned the horrible 110) I suspect the Battle of Britain would have been considerable closer than it was. Particularly if they figured out how to caps over British airfields.

[Stuart Galbraith]

22 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

And Churchill thought the British could handle the Aegean campaign in 1943 by themselves.  How did that one work out?

Once the Soviets get rolling sooner or later the British could no doubt take Sicily by themselves.  The question is, by that time, whether the Soviets will have taken it first.

 

No problem Glenn, we would just mass produce those Siebel Ferries them cunning Germans made. We would be in Berlin in a week.

One of the primary reasons for the Allied success on Sicily was due to Operation Mincemeat. Which again interestingly was an all British affair....

 

[JWB]

10 hours ago, seahawk said:

They have no assets for landing.

LSTs? That might be true in late 1942 but by spring 1943 that isn't. If the allies invade Sicily march 1 1943 they can then invade the mainland by may 1 1943. There would be at least 6 good months for the march north. The biggest problem the allies faced during that campaign was the  Gari River which due to the torrential rains was swollen and raging in december 1943. In this alternate history the allies would reach that river in july/august 1943 when it was at its lowest and slowest. Allies would still reach the Po in 1943. They might not be able to cross it in november of that year. But they certainly would have before OVERLORD.

[Perun]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No, dont help him out. He doesnt like to read British history, but somehow it doesnt stop him commenting on it.

It would doubtless to surprise you Perun, that the largest navy at Operation Overlord was the Royal Navy. The Americans played a huge role supplying the LST's its true, but the fire support (and a considerable number of the assault shipping) was to a surprising degree British. Even the British were crewing many of the landing craft on the American assault beaches. As far as logistics, we built Mulberry and Pluto.

I cud go arn and arn...

 

ok so what did British do whitout American help