Thread replies: 15
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: XT5brzGAc.jpg (784KB, 4000x2200px) Image search:
[Google]
784KB, 4000x2200px
>From 7 September 1940, one year into the war, London was systematically bombed by the Luftwaffe for 56 out of the following 57 day and nights.[7] On 15 September 1940, a large daylight attack against London was repulsed with significant German losses. Thereafter, the Luftwaffe gradually decreased daylight operations in favour of nocturnal attacks, to avoid RAF defences. The Blitz became a fundamental night bombing campaign after October 1940, when it had become clear the Luftwaffe had failed to meet preconditions for a 1940 launch of Operation Sea Lion, the provisionally planned German invasion of Britain.
Had the germans also used mustard gas (Similar to agent orange attacks) and dropped german soldiers into the UK from the air at tactical locations, could the resulting ground war have changed the outcome of WW2?
>>
UK had more a much more advanced chemical arsenal and it was ready to use it. Anthrax and other nasty shit
>>
No, even if The British surrendered the colonies would probably fight on. The war might last into the 50's though with a Soviet victory over most of Europe
>>
>>2493542
Sauce? But that doesn't change the fact that there was some serious biological research happening in Japan + the germans had already deployed mustard gas successfully in WW1
>>
>>2493533
>and dropped german soldiers into the UK from the air at tactical locations, could the resulting ground war have changed the outcome of WW2?
This was the plan!
It was tested in crete and was a miserable failure, lack of organization and supply.
>>
>>2493549
Not him, but
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruinard_Island
>>
just rename the board to /ww2/, seriously
>>
>>2493559
Everything before and after WW2 was shit
>>
>>2493533
>Had the germans also used mustard gas (Similar to agent orange attacks)
In open spaces, gas weapons like mustard gas are usually less effective than conventional explosives, so probably not.
>and dropped german soldiers into the UK from the air at tactical locations,
And this definitely not. You can't just drop paratroopers out of a bomber, you need specialized airframes to conduct paradrops, either full blown air transports or gliders. And it's enormously difficult to seize objectives with just paras. The invasion of Crete got them quite a bloody nose, and they were reinforced from the sea, and facing about 2-3 divisions, half of whom were Greek soldiers, with inferior equipment to what the UK itself was fielding.
Meanwhile, in September, the UK had over 28 divisions in Britain. https://cgsc2.leavenworth.army.mil/CARL/nafziger/940BIEA.pdf
If the Germans attempt to land paratroopers, they'll be slaughtered.
>>
>>2493533
probably not. germans didn't have the capabilities to drop enough troops to mount a serious threat to the british on the island and they still did not have an ability to reinforce or supply them.
bombings, gas attacks, paratroopers...all irrelevant. it was always the naval component that would make or break sea lion, and germany didn't have a hope there.
>>
>if Germans dropped like 100 guys with carbines and 200 rounds of ammo in scattered locations with no comms, would they have won the war?
>>
>>2493563
>Everything before and after WW2 was shit
i got into history reading about ww2. years later i can safely say it was one of the most dull parts of history out there.
>>
File: Reprise_château_Buda_1686.jpg (968KB, 2800x1416px) Image search:
[Google]
968KB, 2800x1416px
>>2493563
non.
>>
Well yes, but what if Turkey joined in on the bombing campaign and the USA never joined the war or enacted Lend-Lease? Also the Sixth Army took Stalingrad.
>>
>>2493533
>agent orange
>toxic herbicide
>kills over period of ten years
What did he mean by this?
Thread posts: 15
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2