WWII Invasion – without the US ?

roadracer, A crusader COULD knock out a Tiger. The Tigers had a “Soft spot” at the rear, the trouble is, is that the Crusader had to be behind the Tiger to effect this shot, but it was possible, Thankfully the Firefly addressed the situation.

Jim.

Lincoln .7

Jim,

So could a Boys anti-tank rifle if it got its shot in, in the right place. In fact it might be a better option than the Crusader , at least there was a better chance of one man getting behind a Tiger and stopping it without the deaths of the 20 or more men who would have died to get a Crusader behind it with its pop gun !

Shame they didnt develop the Comet a bit quicker !

roadracer, A crusader COULD knock out a Tiger. The Tigers had a “Soft spot” at the rear, the trouble is, is that the Crusader had to be behind the Tiger to effect this shot, but it was possible, Thankfully the Firefly addressed the situation.

Jim.

Lincoln .7

Sorry, I can’t agree re the U.S. tanks, of which the Shermans were built in huge numbers, One swipe from a Tiger with it’s modified FLAK 88 AA Gun, was enough to wipe out any Sherman….

True, the Sherman was far from perfect, But was the best the Western allies had in 42, just not really up to the job by 44. I bet that the genuis who decided that it was acceptable to lose 4 Shermans to 1 Tiger never rode into battle in one against a Tiger….BUT, far better to be in a Sherman that had some chance against a Panzer III or IV than a Crusader, didnt need a 88 for those , a catapult was almost enough ! 😀

But then things didnt really get better with British Tanks untill the advent of the Comet, bit on the late side though !!

By forcing them to surrender, thus saving more deaths, and their bacon.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

The French and Germans have never got on well with us Brits,even after saving their bacon more than once.

Remind me when we saved the German’s bacon :confused:

Moggy

Nobody said that the U.S gave us the stuff for nothing…as previously posted by another forumite – even just the fuel supply (esp high octane) was a life saver…same again many years later for the Falklands…without the supply of U.S fuel at Wideawake…could we have done it ????

Don’t forget that the USA didn’t give the UK the ‘tools to do the job’ for any altruistic reason – the sold them at a very high price.
Part of that high price was the break-up of the British Empire, so that the US could gain access to those markets.
…..The rest of Europe owed the UK a huge debt of gratitude for the price it paid to set them all free, but instead, that ingrate De Gaulle said “NON!” to Britain’s initial efforts to join the Common Market…

Best bit of common sense I’ve read here in a while.
Spot on!

It’s quite ironic, that the very Empire others sought to break up is the very reason Britain was able to put up such a fight and ultimately defeat the Nazis

The rest of Europe owed the UK a huge debt of gratitude for the price it paid to set them all free, but instead, that ingrate De Gaulle said “NON!” to Britain’s initial efforts to join the Common Market…

Absolutely spot in I.M.O. also Al. The French and Germans have never got on well with us Brits,even after saving their bacon more than once.

Jim.

Lincoln .7

Just to clarify, my responses were not motivated by any ideas that all British Aircraft were inferior, far from it . However I do think that when it came to Tanks, light armour , some infantry weapons and Naval aircraft the British fell far behind. Without American supplies and designs, they would have been in serious trouble.

Sorry, I can’t agree re the U.S. tanks, of which the Shermans were built in huge numbers, One swipe from a Tiger with it’s modified FLAK 88 AA Gun, was enough to wipe out any Sherman. No match whatsoever, NOW, when it comes to being an equal Sherman, re badged as the Firefly, they could fire a 17 pounder A.P. round, that could do serious damage to a Tiger, however, the turret had to be modified on the firefly due to the recoil.
As with us, not everything that the U.S. provided did the job, but as they say, “Every little helps”.;)
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Don’t forget that the USA didn’t give the UK the ‘tools to do the job’ for any altruistic reason – the sold them at a very high price.

Part of that high price was the break-up of the British Empire, so that the US could gain access to those markets.

Great Britain was the only European nation to stop the Nazis, and was actually on the offensive by the time the US entered WW2. The cost was severe though, leaving the nation practically bankrupt, while arms and material production brought the US out of the financial crash and into prosperity.

The rest of Europe owed the UK a huge debt of gratitude for the price it paid to set them all free, but instead, that ingrate De Gaulle said “NON!” to Britain’s initial efforts to join the Common Market…

Indeed, why would they have needed a C47 if there was no invasion of Europe possible?

Yorks are the obvious answer.

Moggy

Europe would certainly have been difficult if not impossible given the serious manpower issues faced by the British and Commonwealth forces later in the war, But my thoughts were also of the sterling work performed by the C-47 in both the Mediterranean and Far East theatres.

Yorks ? Wouldnt that have taken much needed production capacity away from Lancasters ? What about modified Sterlings , could production have continued without causing problems to other aircraft production?

Just to clarify, my responses were not motivated by any ideas that all British Aircraft were inferior, far from it . However I do think that when it came to Tanks, light armour , some infantry weapons and Naval aircraft the British fell far behind. Without American supplies and designs, they would have been in serious trouble.

WW2 was a war of attrition,IMHO there is no way we could have won without the U.S being involved,as I posted previously – the U.S was also supplying the soviets with war materiel…it is possible that the soviets might have fought off the nazis due to distance/land area/weight of numbers etc but as others have posted – it is likely that europe would have been soviet dominated eventually – so ‘we’ would not have ‘won’.

We are a common people, separated by a common language but joined at the Atlantic.

More importantly, I’m married to a loyal subject of HM.
A proud veteran of the British Army and all around good sport. 😀

…aren’t 4 of your states still colonial? 😉

Yes, without USA, we would have been in a real mess. Maybe not (OK, 80% certain that the USA was needed) lost the war but maybe it would have gone on for another decade.
And, post WW2 we would not have been able to rebuild Europe without the Marshall aid.

That is why I shall always support the situation where the Americans get into a bit of pushy-shuvvy in the middle east or anywhere else….the Brits should assist out of historical duty and comradeship…IMO.

We are a common people, separated by a common language but joined at the Atlantic. (Virtual prize for guessing who said that first)

Glad to help.

Happy Holidays from the former colonies. 😀

J.B. John, in the nicest possible way, your a bummer;)
Jim.

Lincoln .7

Probably not. There would not have been American forces fighting.
England declared war on Germany because of treaty obligations with Poland.
Not our fight. (Unless you can come up with a reason I’ve never heard of.)
Many (but by no means all) Americans figured it was just another one of Europe’s endless wars… started by a bunch of in-bred royal cousins fighting over something that was none of America’s business.
America was dragged into WWI (basically a typical 19th century European war that managed to take place in the 20th century) a fight that didn’t concern most Americans and that soured a lot of people on the idea of intervening in distant foreign wars.

But remember, by Dec 7, 1941, the UK was already receiving direct aid and access to American arms. Neither of which we were offering to Germany.
Americans were joining the RCAF to fight. No one was intetrested in reminding them that technically, that was against the law.
We were already on your side.

Europeans love to complain about America involving itself in foreign wars…Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc…but they were awfully anxious for the US to enter WWII before it had reason to do so. :diablo:

Whilst I am thankful for the help GREAT Britain received from America, would we have had the same responce had Pearl Harbour NOT happened?.;)
Jim.

Lincoln .7

Wiping the slate clean in terms of what we know happened in ww2 and the American effort I think it would be entirely possible that we could have won the war.

Lets not assume we will fight the same war without the Americans.

I don’t disagree, but I’d still be concerned about fuel, food and raw materials.
The UK is a fairly small island, sooner or later that would come into play.
It’s not a question of technology or bravery, rather simple logistics.

Germany lost the war when three things hapened:
-Failed to defeat the RAF in 1940
-Not defeating Russia
-The US entering the war in late 1941

If one of those things did not happen, history would be very different.
Imagine if Germany had won the Battle of Britain.
WWII’s bombing offensive would have been B-36s vs German jets in the late 40s.

If Germany had defeated Russia, it very well could have turned its attention back to a UK invasion. With unlimited raw materials and forces not diverted to a second front, it would have been a formidable force.

There could have been a Second Battle of Britain, circa 1944. Imagine a re-equipped Luftwaffe mixing it up with later models Spitfires and USAAF Mustangs, Lightnings and Thunderbolts thrown in for fun.
Targets could have included the American bomber bases.
Sounds like a great video game…

Wiping the slate clean in terms of what we know happened in ww2 and the American effort I think it would be entirely possible that we could have won the war.

So there we are alone facing adversity, so we need to change our ideas and tactics. Perhaps notable leaders are sacked, less prominant persons appointed to critical areas. This could have a major impact to our tactics and technology.

The war may be a more long drawn out process. From 5 to maybe 10 or more years to resolve. A lot can happen (technologically) in that time. We do not necessarily have to invade in 44.

Perhaps we may have seen an escallation of development of Jet and computer technology. This could lead to some form of low level precision capability for striking ships or uboats. Maybe with guided munitions, hunter killer torpedoes or limited nuclear arms.

We may resort to chemical and biological attacks on Germany.

Lets not assume we will fight the same war without the Americans.