(06-04-2014 03:11 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 02:54 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Even without an Eastern front, after the Battle of Britain, there is nothing to knock the UK out of the war.

The question would hinge on wether or not a drawn out war would deprive the Brits of the desire to fight, not the capacity. If so, then yes. If not, then a British victory would still be a certainty.

Germany's ability to wage a long war was incredibly limited whereas the Brits had the rich resources and help of its empire to sustain it.

Such a conflict would mirror the Anglo-French conflicts of the 19th and 18th centuries.

I apologize for not clarifying my point. From the time the Brits are thrown off the continent at Dunkirk in 1940 until D-Day in 1944, the UK had no direct conflict with Germany in Europe. I'm only suggesting that the Reich keep it that way. Don't waste the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. Simply fortify the Atlantic Wall with AA batteries and force Britain to decide whether or not to invade.

Oh okay.

Well, then in that case the war would be waged in North Africa where British forces performed very well. The advantages they had their were the same, supplies and manpower. Without the US those advantages would have been narrower but still would have existed.

The outcome is the same I think. Germany would be bled into submission, perhaps over 10 years or so though.

Now, the wildcard would be the Italian Regia Marina. If we change some command and control conflicts in their Supreme Command you have a very different outcome if the Italians had ever made a serious play for sea dominance. On paper the Regia Marina was more than capable of it.

If the Germans had agreed with the Italians on an invasion of Malta then Italy would likely have become a participant of much greater importance.

An Italian military up to speed and well equipped with the weapons they finally had in 1943 would have been a force and one that could easily have tipped the balance.