How vital for great Britain was America WW2?

[K1LLSW1TCH]

Wasn't that more down to Britain cracking the enigma?

Not really. At the outbreak of the war the Royal Navy was the most powerful navy in the world. Germany relied heavily on the U-boat “Wolfpacks” which as the war went on ended up being increasingly ineffective.

Cracking enigma was huge but Churchill was reluctant to use information gained from it too often, for fear of tipping the Germans off that we had cracked their codes.

Churchill would even insist that any German plans disrupted by us were given a cover story as to how we would have gotten that information other than cracking their enigma machines. Also although brilliant work was done at Bletchley there was much work done in Poland beforehand which people sometimes overlook.

 

[Housey]

German navy was actually superior to our own, a lot of our navy was WW1 era hulls modified for modern times whilst the Kriegsmarine had vastly superior modern Battleships and Battlecruisers but they were never utilized to full effect

It took 2 battleships (Rodney and King George V, 4 if you count the previous encounter with Hood and Prince of Wales) 2 heavy cruisers, a light cruiser, 6 destroyers and the Ark Royal to sink just the Bismarck and it was only because we got a lucky torpedo hit that took out her rudder leaving her sailing in a circle that let us kill her

A far to simplistic assessment I’m afraid. The German navy was not superior and lacked scale or aircraft carriers.

 

[I_M_Weasel]

The Germans did have some great ships, but nowhere near enough. The results from Bismarcks one voyage are 1 (old) RN Battle cruiser lost v 1 new German Battleship lost, Britain could take results like that - at that rate Germany runs out of Battleships long before Britain does.

Even though Bismarck's main armament was fully functional as it entered its final battle it failed to inflict any damage on its opponents, that hardly suggests that Germany's ships were superior to the RN's.

 

[adolf hamster]

The Germans did have some great ships, but nowhere near enough. The results from Bismarcks one voyage are 1 (old) RN Battle cruiser lost v 1 new German Battleship lost, Britain could take results like that - at that rate Germany runs out of Battleships long before Britain does.

Even though Bismarck's main armament was fully functional as it entered its final battle it failed to inflict any damage on its opponents, that hardly suggests that Germany's ships were superior to the RN's.

technologically they may have been, but given britains long tradition and experience in managing an overseas empire i suspect a lot of the royal navy's effectiveness can be attributed to the skill of it's men and officers.

 

[Housey]

The Germans did have some great ships, but nowhere near enough. The results from Bismarcks one voyage are 1 (old) RN Battle cruiser lost v 1 new German Battleship lost, Britain could take results like that - at that rate Germany runs out of Battleships long before Britain does.

Even though Bismarck's main armament was fully functional as it entered its final battle it failed to inflict any damage on its opponents, that hardly suggests that Germany's ships were superior to the RN's.

Indeed and it was that lack of scale and a nervous Hitler, who never really got Naval forces in the same way he did armies and air forces, that saw Tirpitz anchored in Norway for much of the war. Her value as a threat was worth more than her value getting into the sea lanes or coming into battle with the British fleet. There is much misunderstood about capital ship engagements, but it was never an exact science and many factors would impact success in such battles. Germany only had 2 front line Battleships that struck fear, Bismark and Tirpitz but though both fast and well armoured, with good gunnery on top, they were still only flinging 15 inch shells, the same as most British capital ships outside Rodney, Nelson (16's) and KGV ships (14's) and in such circumstances we could draw their fire by putting many more ships to work in a battle, as we did with the sinking of Bismark. The Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were good ships but both under gunned due to mounting 11" instead of 15" guns. They were no match for most British Battleships and the Scharnhorst was lost in such a battle. Then you have the heavy cruisers or pocket battleships which were fast ships but zero match for a Battleship which would have sunk them with a couple of well placed shells and then some old pre-dreads we let them keep after WW1.

Germany had 2 good Battleships, 2 average Battleships with weak guns and some nice modern cruisers but outside of the U boat fleet was not close to matching the British fleet, even with many modernised WW1 designs. We could put more fire in, put more ships in and use air power from supporting carriers, something Germany never could do and by the end of the war had pretty much neutralised their U boat forces too. Germany was no match for the royal navy, which is why they were so desperate to get access to the French fleet.

 

[subbytna]

Without USA would us British people, definitely have been conquered ?

Or could we have defeated Hitler without them?

If the yanks didn't help we'd be speaking german here now. Churchill even said so. We were on our knees and then help arrived. If Hitler hadn't given up and looked towards Russia and just kept going at us for a few more months, we would have lost the war.

 

[KillBoY_UK]

It was only luck and some massive blunders on the german side which allowed us to no get invaded even without the Americans.

If we where it would have been game over for sure but would dragged out along time. So yer they where vital, giving us and the allies loans as well as Military equipment etc until they did come in and join.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

 

[CaptainRAVE]

Indeed and it was that lack of scale and a nervous Hitler, who never really got Naval forces in the same way he did armies and air forces, that saw Tirpitz anchored in Norway for much of the war. Her value as a threat was worth more than her value getting into the sea lanes or coming into battle with the British fleet. There is much misunderstood about capital ship engagements, but it was never an exact science and many factors would impact success in such battles. Germany only had 2 front line Battleships that struck fear, Bismark and Tirpitz but though both fast and well armoured, with good gunnery on top, they were still only flinging 15 inch shells, the same as most British capital ships outside Rodney, Nelson (16's) and KGV ships (14's) and in such circumstances we could draw their fire by putting many more ships to work in a battle, as we did with the sinking of Bismark. The Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were good ships but both under gunned due to mounting 11" instead of 15" guns. They were no match for most British Battleships and the Scharnhorst was lost in such a battle. Then you have the heavy cruisers or pocket battleships which were fast ships but zero match for a Battleship which would have sunk them with a couple of well placed shells and then some old pre-dreads we let them keep after WW1.

Nazi Megastructures did a good episode on these battleships. Ultimately they were no match for aerial forces - Japan made the same mistake which is why it lost most fleet battles. Battleships were slow and quickly became trumped by out-of-range aircraft carriers.

 

[Housey]

Nazi Megastructures did a good episode on these battleships. Ultimately they were no match for aerial forces - Japan made the same mistake which is why it lost most fleet battles. Battleships were slow and quickly became trumped by out-of-range aircraft carriers.

Pretty much the case. The capital ship moved from the being the battleship to become the aircraft carrier after WW1, even though most navies (read the old school admirals who liked their battleships) didn't realise/accept until later or into WW2. Today it could be argued it's the submarine and no longer the aircraft carrier which has become the most effective method of force projection without loss.

 

[adam cool dude]

Nazi Megastructures did a good episode on these battleships. Ultimately they were no match for aerial forces - Japan made the same mistake which is why it lost most fleet battles. Battleships were slow and quickly became trumped by out-of-range aircraft carriers.

Which is pretty much the case now with us as we have two new aircraft carriers but with the advent of drones are not needed anymore.

 

[Rroff]

Aircraft carriers have vast utility especially if you are trying to impose a presence half way around the world. The main thing is we protect them properly - we have the systems and ships/subs to do it as long as we don't skimp and have a rolling program for updating stuff like the Aster systems.

 

[Housey]

Which is pretty much the case now with us as we have two new aircraft carriers but with the advent of drones are not needed anymore.

Drones offer little when compared to a carrier battle group. The world is changing but it will be decades before drones offer what carriers offer.

 

[Housey]

Aircraft carriers have vast utility especially if you are trying to impose a presence half way around the world. The main thing is we protect them properly - we have the systems and ships/subs to do it as long as we don't skimp and have a rolling program for updating stuff like the Aster systems.

Quite, even with an entire drone fleet you need a launch platform and the ability to rearm and refuel.

 

[ubersonic]

Without US assistance we would have been okay from a not getting invaded POV, however we would have had the issue that after the USSR took Berlin they may have just carried on and taken France too and the cold war would thus have been much much worse.

 

[Rroff]

Without US assistance we would have been okay from a not getting invaded POV, however we would have had the issue that after the USSR took Berlin they may have just carried on and taken France too and the cold war would thus have been much much worse.

I doubt the USSR would have taken Berlin - a large part of why they stayed in the war was the resupply efforts of the US and UK - we sent them 1000s of fighter aircraft, etc. its likely the Germans would have been far more successful on that front - probably a good slice of what is now western Russia would have been in German hands.

 

[ubersonic]

I doubt the USSR would have taken Berlin - a large part of why they stayed in the war was the resupply efforts of the US and UK - we sent them 1000s of fighter aircraft, etc. its likely the Germans would have been far more successful on that front - probably a good slice of what is now western Russia would have been in German hands.

Hitler's plan to invade the USSR failed the second it started, it was never achievable but his generals were afraid to say so. All our help did was reduce how far into the USSR the Germans got before being smashed back.

There's a really cool audio clip of a scared Hitler talking with one of his generals about the fact they have destroyed 30,000 Russian tanks and yet they keep coming

 

[StriderX]

I'm not sure that's true, they didn't have that many tanks?

 

[Rroff]

I'm not sure that's true, they didn't have that many tanks?

Russians had over 10K tanks at the start of the German invasion and rushed more into production plus in the last 2-3 months before they broke the German advance the US and UK supplied them with 100s possibly even 1000s of tanks.

EDIT: Almost 6K tanks were supplied by the US/UK (though that was over the entire war) and they produced another 7K odd themselves during that campaign.

By late 1941 though the Germans had Russia on the back foot and defeated their numerical supremacy - it was only by pulling equipment from other fronts to defend Moscow and supplies starting to come in from the US/UK that Russia managed to break the German advance - without those supplies and being able to free up more resources for the push on Russia (if they hadn't had to worry as much about the UK) its unlikely Russia would have been in a position to advance on Berlin during that era.

 

[Gerard]

Russians had over 10K tanks at the start of the German invasion and rushed more into production plus in the last 2-3 months before they broke the German advance the US and UK supplied them with 100s possibly even 1000s of tanks.

EDIT: Almost 6K tanks were supplied by the US/UK (though that was over the entire war) and they produced another 7K odd themselves during that campaign.

By late 1941 though the Germans had Russia on the back foot and defeated their numerical supremacy - it was only by pulling equipment from other fronts to defend Moscow and supplies starting to come in from the US/UK that Russia managed to break the German advance - without those supplies and being able to free up more resources for the push on Russia (if they hadn't had to worry as much about the UK) its unlikely Russia would have been in a position to advance on Berlin during that era.

You're forgetting that the Russian winter really pumped the Germans, they were totally unprepared for it and it bogged them down drastically. If Hitler hadn't delayed the attack by a few months which made the advance stretch into the winter they could have well taken Moscow.

 

[Domi]

Not just the Russian winter. By this point the Germans have advanced over a thousand miles in to enemy territory that is not completely subdued.
In doing so they have destroyed the roads and the railways and the retreating Russians have also destroyed what they can.

Despite what you think you know the German army of 1941 relied very heavily on horse drawn equipment. Imagine trying to supply more than a million men with weapons , food , ammunition etc a 1000 miles away in an exceptionally cold winter by horse.

This was the point the Blitzkrieg tactic failed, at the point where the frontline is so far away that they can no longer be resupplied you have no choice but to stop advancing.

Logistics really is a massive factor in warfare.

The battle of Britain was won because we trained more pilots and built aircraft faster than the Germans and when our planes got shot down we often got the pilots back , the Germans did not. Again simple logistics.

Germany had no realistic chance of invading Britain as they simply did not have enough boats (the royal navy would have decimated them even if we had lost the battle of Britain and the RAF was gone) again logistics.