Battle of Britain II

Some thoughts...

The Soviets had a negligible bluewater navy as of 1945 - and as small a seagoing amphibious capability;

Given the 1940 experience - do you think the Allies would leave barges available for them on the Continent of Europe??? A tin of petrol, a handgrenade in the bilges, or a couple of sticks of gelignite and scratch a barge - or simply sail them to England!

Given ALL the amphibious capacity the Allies had at their disposal as of 1945....how successful would an organised withdrawal from the European mainland be THIS time? It took the Germany how many weeks to get from their westernmost positions as of May 9th 1940, to the Channel at Abbevile - how long will it take the Soviets to actually drive to the Channel from the Oder-Neisse Line? Plenty of time to properly organise and carry out a controlled evacuation, with only evacuating holding and frontline troops to be done off French or Belgian beaches...again with ALL that amphibious capacity designed for just that;

In 1940 the British stood on their own with just a first trickle of American aid arriving, and a very limited Commonwealth support; NOW they can call on several Canadian infantry and armoured divisions, American divisions evacuated from Europe, American divisions arriving straight to the UK....

And of course ALL the 1940 invasion preparations, as well as those completed in 1941 and refined over the next few years by the Home Guard and Home Defence battalions;

NO 1940 shortage of arms or men, or tanks, or artillery in the UK for home defence;

A huge preponderance of both wheeled A/T guns and handheld A/T weapons compared to 1940;

...etc., etc....

 

You really want me to post over 200 pages of story just to get some thoughts on this one little scenario? If you're truly interested and not just stalling because you haven't a clue on what to do then PM me and I will direct you to the website where hundreds of people have gone back and forth discussing this story. Go to the blog in my signiture if you want to just read the story. If your not interested then I understand. Please stop wasting time. Play or don't.

Then show me this is not the case. Read the story and then show me how every argument against its possibility does not boil down to this one statement.

Sorry my mistake. You are correct with "in orbit".

That's your opinion and I don't really care about your opinion at this point. The vast majority of my readers are having fun and I am having fun. I have succeeded spectacularly in my opinion and in their opinion.

 

This was moved by someone. All I tried to do was to get some ideas and others highjacked the thread and got it dumped in here. Not my fault or problem. If you don't like it then ignore it and move on.

 

Finally some progress.

The Soviets are not planning on invading. They just want to sweep the skies clean of RAF aircraft and prevent the US from ever using Britain as an invasion jump off point. Their main goal is to neutralize Britain, force them to declare neutrality and then let the communists already there to politically take over. Sort of a Finalization if you would.

Basically Stalin will tell them we will not invade or attack further is you behave yourselves.

So if we could please focus on the scenario proposed and not go off on tangents.

 

There is however a problem with that - this is NOT your blogsite.

Care.

Really?

You've been told before - that's not how it works around here. You don't own or have proprietary rights over the thread.

 

It is not a tangent....

....it's exactly the position the UK was in in 1940; I.E. an ability to defend itself from invasion WILL factor directly back into the UK's choice whether or not to continue the war....JUST as it did in 1940.

Except, this time...being in a much stronger position than in 1940...the answer will be much stronger than it was in July 1940, probably delivered in terms of sex and travel...

By the way - the minute the bullets start flying along the Oder-Neisse Line - how many card-carrying Communists would remain at liberty in the UK in a few hours or days??? There's all that nice vacant accomodation on the Isle of Man just recently vacated by Italian tourists...

 

Tell me with a PM when you're ready to proceed otherwise I will not respond to your stalling anymore. Apparently you have nothing to contribute but trying to highjack a thread for your own purposes...what ever they maybe.

 

I don't care if you "respond to my stalling" or not - you've been told before that if you post something that is 1/ historically wrong, or 2/ blatantly wrong...you'll be told. You've already got a thread for your fiction, this is a What-If, and that runs to the Forum rules.

You can take it on board, you can ignore it....but if you ignore it, all it will do is make your What-If even more ludicrous. If you wish to continue proposing even more ludicrous PODs, like WWIII erupting between former allies and those allies leaving known and recognised sympathisers of the new enemy free to walk the streets...then even more people are going to correct you.

Nor are you going to be telling anyone here what to do or not do, I'm afraid you're in the wrong place for that

Have you really not realised why so few members are interested in posting on this thread???

 

One fair warning gents: if you don't like each other, you can activate the "ignore" list and avoid each other. If you carry on boiling up, soon or late someone is going to cross the line and infringe the forum rules. This would drive me to close this thread.P_twinlugers:

 

He's already on ignore Skipper. Thanks

 

Perhaps an example of a German weapon system where the Soviets had both the scientists who developed it AND the plans....AND then back-engineered a system of equivalent performance - might be appropriate? Or else your opinion remains that - opinion.

And might we be told the name and location of this plant?

Let's see...

The Spitfire Mks 21/22/24 outperformed the three Yak prop fighters at all altitudes;

The Yak 15 had an excreble range of only 317 miles; it was faster than the late model Spitfires - but only at high altitude....and anyway, didn't go into series production until 1947, after your timeframe;

Ditto for the Mig 9 incidently;

(your WI is gifting the Soviets bringing both these into service many months earlier than historically proved possible. Tut.)

....and you seem to have for gotten the MiG-killing Hawker Fury - and the DeHavilland Hornet long-range fighter? Tut. The Meteor will be the 580mph F Mk4; the Vampire will be the MkIII.

If we're rushing jets into service, the British will have the Supermarine Attacker to add to the stable by mid-1946....but it's possible that Supermarine will be producing it's Spiteful/Seafang pairing for RAF/FAA service in the meantime, with the Spiteful replacing the Spitfire in squadron service.

 

Yes on a different site, how about since you are starting on a new site you give a background.
You say the Soviets have X amount of forces available to attack the RAF in 1946.

How did the conflict come about, what were the triggers, who forced the show down.

If you have any form of notice how long do you think it would take the West move back to war stance, those Squadrons and units would not be disbanded as they were historically if there was increased tension. There would have remained the increased development tempo and production if there was any form of lead up. Disbanding would have been slowed (as it historically was for the British Army) Most HO servicemen were only demobbed in 1946.
The US would no doubt have accelerated the re-equipment of the Western countries including Germany. Could NATO have been formed a few years earlier then due to increased tension. The US stated they would pull out of Europe within two years of the end of the war, with no attack on the West they still stayed so why are they not to be considered in Europe in your scenario.
What were the Soviet losses while taking out the whole of the rest of Europe on the way.
The Soviets had to leave larger and larger forces in their rear areas as they advanced in 1944/45 so diminishing their forces at the front, this would be more marked as they moved further West.
What would the attrition rate in combat have been to Soviet equipment as it ranged further West with the hugely increased distances from the factories as well contributing to wear and tear.

 

Not really.

You are posting here. You should post enough information for us to discuss it reasonably.

Not your call. As far as I'm concerned it's you that's wasting time and bandwidth.

Then why are you responding? I'm not sure what you are referring to tha't "my opinion" I suspect you are wrong but since you don't like to provide the necessary information it's hard to tell.

That's nice. This forum however wasn't created to help with your work(s) of friction from what I've read. Again from what I understand from the FAQ and previous discusions on this board "what if's" are allowed because they can lead to understanding of historical events. However to fulfill that function they need to be realistic. That means clearly defining the POD(s) and what flows from it (or them). You have not even clearly defined the initial POD much less many of the additional ones that don't necessarily flow from the first. You keep throwing up arbitrary objections when this lack of realism is questioned. And starwmen such as the "racially motivated" inability of the Soviets to do what you want them to.

If this thread belongs anywhere on this forum the What if area is it. I'm beginning to believe however that it doesn't even belong here of course unless you succeed in convincing a moderator that doesn't matter much. The thread however has not been hijacked. Pointing out logical and reasonable problems with it is not hijacking it's responding properly to an ill constructed what if.

 

For the second time I did not start this thread here. It was moved. Go to the blog or don"t

 

I don't see how that's particularly relevant to any of the topics at hand. You started this thread on this forum and this is the subforum in which it belongs if anywhere. In any case if you want informed opinions you should supply enough data here that people can make them. If you don't want informed opinions or at least reasonable ones I suggest you may be on the wrong forum.

 

You have all the information you need and I've shown you where to find more if you really think you need it. It is unreasonalble for me to post 200 pages of story. i don't think the moderators would like that.

 

No,we have no information at all :if you want us to discuss on this forum,the Battle of Britain II,you have to feed us information on this forum .
And,btw,it is not on YOU to say what the parameters are .

 

An other point:I have consulted your blog (till 14 october) ,and,it is rubbish ,only good for Readers Digest :what I have read give me NO information at all,if the remainder has the same quality,reading your blog is a waste of time .

 

This is going in circles. Closed.