How did the British win the Battle of Britain? It was looking extremely tentative at first. The Luftwaffe was sending wave after wave of bombers that were focused on air fields and radar stations which really wore the British down. The air fields were caught unprepared taking heavy losses with one big issue being the advanced warning systems to allow for the pilots to get into the air to defend against the bombers. It was really tight for a while where the British had a hard time getting planes into the air fast enough and getting them assembled fast enough in order to be able to replace the losses that were taken in the beginning of the battle. Due to the Nazis having near air superiority over Britain it was decided that aircraft production would be splintered into pieces of industry that were scattered across Britian which would serve to lower losses when the factories were targeted. One of the costs of assembling in pieces scattered is that the logistics of moving the pieces so they...
Could the Allies have won World War 2 without Britain?
No.
Without Britain there was no drain on the Luftwaffe which seriously impeded the progress of the 6th Army. They were depending on air drops for Logistic supplies and the Battle of Britain had severely crippled the Nazis by doing so much damage over a prolonged period of time. |t took the Russians a long time to get things under control and they were able to do so at Stalingrad for 2 reasons.
They found a way to funnel their people into the meat grinder which gave the Nazis a problem
They threw so many people into the charges towards the Nazis that the Nazis literally ran out of bullets and supplies and without the Luftwaffe being able to supply them they had to surrender.
Essentially the lives of Russian men being recklessly thrown away in wave after wave of suicide charges which were insanely brave of those soldiers as they knew with each charge the odds were not on their side, but wave after wave ran the Germans out of ammunition and supplies thus eventually overpowering them through sheer will and their own blood.
Had the Germans had the amount of supplies they needed they wouldn’t have needed to slow their advance and then halt it due to lack of fuel. Had they been able to take over the area that contains the vast majority of Russian people and pushed the Russians back into the cold recesses of the Arctic tundra where population was lower and the industrial capacity was barely in existence then there is an argument that says should the Germans have gone around Stalingrad and any of the cities that were causing stiff opposition and instead encircled the cities disallowing supplies while continuing the blitzkrieg that by the time Russia was able to get organized enough to start pushing back Germany would have had their strategic targets and Russia would have not been the juggernaut it showed itself to later be.
Like it or not - Russia’s stand at Stalingrad and where they were able to keep a huge part of their industrial base which paid off for being able to quickly start producing tanks, then they would not have been able to push back against the Germans the way that they had and with the Allies seeing that Russia was on it’s back foot they likely would not have thrown the resources to assist Russia that the Lend Lease program offered.
If Hitler would have continued his Blitzkrieg unimpeded by the supply issues he was plagued with due to the Battle over Britain sucking up resources and costing far too many planes and pilots - then the Lend Lease program likely would not have included Russia and between the territory losses and the absence of supplies support that the Allies provided - there is a good Chance that Russia would not have been able to push the Germans back.
So, yes - the Battle of Britain was huge overall in terms of removing a necessary part of Hitlers logistics chain which ultimately stalled their advance.
Comments
Post a Comment