If the Soviets did not get involved in WW2

[El_Tigre]

Lets talk about some numbers.


In the following, I'm using data from this website. Here's the relevant paragraph about Lend-Lease:

Of the 2,400 aircraft exported between the passing of the Act and the end of the year, 2,300 had been ordered by March 1941 and paid for in cash. The same is true of 165 out of 951 tanks supplied in the same period, and of 8,000 out of 13,000 lorries.72 It was not until the second quarter of 1942 that the bulk of munitions accruing to this country and to the other 'British' theatres of war had been appropriated under the Lend-Lease Act.

Add another 2,400 planes to the RAF in 1941 alone. "Not important"?!?

Have a look at the table "Aircraft Production" here:

Note that Germany produced

8,295 planes in 1939
10,826 in 1940 and
11,424 in 1941.

That's not an significant increase!

Lets have a look at GB's aircraft production here:

7,940 in 1939
15,049 in 1940
20,094 in 1941!!

Even more important is that GB started to mass produce medium and heavy bombers in 1940, some of the latter even 4-engine bombers! In other words, GB could have produced several thousand more fighters if needed by reducing the bomber programm.

You argue that Germany could have produced more planes without Operation Barbarossa (which I highly doubt anyway), but Britain switched production, too: already in late 1940 it felt safe enough to build bombers instead of fighters. Add to that that Germany lost 2 planes for every British plane shot down during the Battle of England (AA, longer distance to bases, disorientation,...), and it should be obvious that Germany had only a small window of opportunity for a successful invasion of Britain: in Summer 1940. Thererafter, the situation would become worse and worse - even without Barbarossa.

 

[Colonel_here]

Soviet Union might have formidable army size but low technology and lack of officers and generals with a good experience. Most of the high command generals led cavalry chrages during the Russian Civil War. So Soviet Union would least likely attack during the time maybe later in late 1940s.
Yes there was active trade going between Soviet Union and Germany. Russians even send some of their military technology over. Germans of course used it to make their military ready for it and able to destroy it.
As I said Germany most likely would have made peace with Britian after it dominated its skies and showed that it could invade easily.
Germany would not have invaded because the rest of the commonwealth would still be at war, and it is nicely spread around the world, so defeating it would be hardly possible.

 

[El_Tigre]

As I said Germany most likely would have made peace with Britian after it dominated its skies and showed that it could invade easily.
Germany would not have invaded because the rest of the commonwealth would still be at war, and it is nicely spread around the world, so defeating it would be hardly possible.

Germany would have never dominated the skies above GB after 1940. Read my post above. And Churchill wouldn't have made peace with Hitler.

Edit: And Hitler woudn't have made peace with Churchill, either.

 

[Colonel_here]

El Tigre your statistics convince me. However, I beleive that if Churchill was put between the choice of having his country invaded or not he would have made peace.

 

[The Omega]

There's actually some evidence that the USSR was planning to invade Germany, but were invaded first. If Germany had focused on the west, there is a chance that they would have been invaded from the East. which would have ended up with Germany losing large amounts of troops and supplies. While I can't say what would happen after that, it probably would have ended even worse for Germany than it did.
Of course, this is all hypothetical. There's little concrete information on a Soviet plan for invasion, but there is enough for this to be considered as a possible scenario.

 

[Colonel_here]

Yes the plan for invasion did exist but it was scheduled for late 1940s. Soviet Union government wanted to get their technology and officer core updated. Before the war started the speculations were made on how war between Germany and SU would play out among the Soviet generals, and so the troops at the border were standing more ready to defend than attack at that point.

 

[frekk]

There's actually some evidence that the USSR was planning to invade Germany, but were invaded first. If Germany had focused on the west, there is a chance that they would have been invaded from the East. which would have ended up with Germany losing large amounts of troops and supplies. While I can't say what would happen after that, it probably would have ended even worse for Germany than it did.
Of course, this is all hypothetical. There's little concrete information on a Soviet plan for invasion, but there is enough for this to be considered as a possible scenario.

There's nothing hypothetical about it all. There was a great deal of rhetoric in speeches, print, radio, that the Soviet Union fully intended to "liberate" all the European nations from capitalism, fascism, or whatever system they happened to be under. There were also vague war plans, but importantly, this was understood to be something that would occur in the far future, more than a decade away, not an immediate reality, and certainly subject to possible change. The Soviet plans were very much long-term ones, and left unchallenged, would have been unstoppable due to the numbers, sheer production and manpower - at least, unstoppable for Europe alone.

On the main topic of the thread, the answer to what would have happened had Germany not invaded Russia is quite simple. The war between Britain and Germany would have eventually concluded with a peace, and a new war would evolve, with Britain likely signing on to the Anti-Comintern Pact. What the US would do is questionable - either it would sign on to the Pact, or it would fall on the communist side, depending on what the leadership decided was more strategically viable (the public at that time could have been swayed either way). In any case, if a war did develop it is unlikely that the US could afford to remain isolationist indefinately however much it may have wanted to do so. It would behoove the US to ensure neither side achieved total victory over the other, so it would likely bide its time and come in on the side of the underdog.

 

[CaptainF]

well I reckon Japan would have no influence on USSR either way. I doubt this "Japan didn't attack Soviet was a important factor for ...."

Siberia especially the eastern part was a bunch of vast waste lands, doesn't have the resource Japan needs, there is no people to extract the resources anyway. And unless Japan can reach the Urals, it won't matter much for the Soviets. USSR has very little reason in defending it. And why would Japan go that far for no benefits other than helping the Germans and it won't ease the pressure from USA at all. And even somehow they got that far the damage they can do at that point is very questionable. Japan's army was largely tied in China and if the Siberia is their main direction their world class navy becomes a huge waste of money and resources.

As someone else said, not true, Siberia is very rich in resources, such as oil. Matter of fact, Hideki Tojo was very keen on implementing the "Strike North" military strategy of expansion, which called for the take over of Siberia. This task was to be carried out by the Imperial Japanese Army, of which Hideki Tojo was a general. The other strategy, which was the one ultimately utilized was "Strike South" (expansion into the southern Pacific) which was carried out primarily by the Imperial Japanese Navy.

The only reason the Japanese did not go ahead with Strike North is because in 1938, they got a taste of Soviet Military prowess, courtesy of Georgi Zhukov. This event is known as The Battle of Hahlin Gol. The Wiki article is found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Halhin_Gol

That battle had a severe effect on WWII, because when Hitler declared war on the United States shortly after Pearl Harbor, he expected the Japanese to help the Germans out with the Russians by invading Siberia, but Hitler did not know that this battle had taken place, and had shaken the confidence of the Japanese military.

 

[CaptainF]

freaking double post.

 

[fing0lfin]

Lets talk about some numbers.


In the following, I'm using data from this website. Here's the relevant paragraph about Lend-Lease:



Add another 2,400 planes to the RAF in 1941 alone. "Not important"?!?

Have a look at the table "Aircraft Production" here:

Note that Germany produced

8,295 planes in 1939
10,826 in 1940 and
11,424 in 1941.

That's not an significant increase!

Lets have a look at GB's aircraft production here:

7,940 in 1939
15,049 in 1940
20,094 in 1941!!

Even more important is that GB started to mass produce medium and heavy bombers in 1940, some of the latter even 4-engine bombers! In other words, GB could have produced several thousand more fighters if needed by reducing the bomber programm.

You argue that Germany could have produced more planes without Operation Barbarossa (which I highly doubt anyway), but Britain switched production, too: already in late 1940 it felt safe enough to build bombers instead of fighters. Add to that that Germany lost 2 planes for every British plane shot down during the Battle of England (AA, longer distance to bases, disorientation,...), and it should be obvious that Germany had only a small window of opportunity for a successful invasion of Britain: in Summer 1940. Thererafter, the situation would become worse and worse - even without Barbarossa.

In September 1939 Bomber Command consisted of 55 squadrons (920 aircraft). However, only about 350 of these were suitable for long-range operations. Fighter Command had 39 squadrons (600 aircraft) but the RAF only had 96 reconnaissance aircraft.

The climax of the Battle of Britain came on the 30th-31st August, 1940. The British lost 50 aircraft compared to the Germany's 41.

As you see the numbers we got are quite different....

As you see there is an significant increase.
Germany continued to increase production of aircraft during the Second World War. There were 10,800 built in 1940; 11,800 in 1941, 15,600 in 1942, 25,500 in 1943 and 39,800 in 1944.


Oh and without Operation Barbarossa, Germany would be able to produce much more planes, instead of tanks, heavy veichicles and artilery.

 

[lz14]

OK I probably shouldn't over-simplify it as waste lands. I know for one it has lots of gold and in the old times, coal and even some iron. But I elaborated that it doesn't or didn't have the resource Japan needs, and there are no people to extract the resources. And all this were also compared with SE Asia.

The battle of Hahlin Gol is more of a myth. The actual Soviet and Mogolians troops outnumber Japan 2-1 with tank and plane supports. where the casualties was the reserse, Soviet suffered 2-1. Actually half of Soviet troops lost combat ability It was hardly a Soviet "victory". And if Japan actually committed full force, this kind of "victory" is even doubtable. I don't believe this can "shake the confidence of Japanese millitary"

I'm taking this from Japanese perspective. Yeah I guess If Japan actually committed a few million troops in Siberia , it might hamper Soviets evacuation to the Urals..... but I don't see any reason for Japan to do it And I think letting a million army frozen in Siberia while a world top three navy is doing pretty much nothing (or, protecting the asian island part) is not a wise move.

Anyways do you guys actually think going north is a good strategy for Japan ?

 

[El_Tigre]

In September 1939 Bomber Command consisted of 55 squadrons (920 aircraft). However, only about 350 of these were suitable for long-range operations. Fighter Command had 39 squadrons (600 aircraft) but the RAF only had 96 reconnaissance aircraft.

The climax of the Battle of Britain came on the 30th-31st August, 1940. The British lost 50 aircraft compared to the Germany's 41.

As you see the numbers we got are quite different....

No, you are just comparing apples to oranges, and - with all due respect - your oranges aren't important at all.

1. You are talking about planes ready for service, I'm talking about aircraft production.
2. Care to give us your numbers for the Luftwaffe, too? So far, you have proved nothing.
3. Source?
4. Here are the British and German losses during the Battle of Britain. You just picked the day with the highest British losses and state that those numbers apply to all other days, too. Stop being obtuse!

British losses: 902, German losses: 1598

As you see there is an significant increase.
Germany continued to increase production of aircraft during the Second World War. There were 10,800 built in 1940; 11,800 in 1941, 15,600 in 1942, 25,500 in 1943 and 39,800 in 1944.

Did you even care to look at the British numbers, too?

GB produced
1967 medium and heavy bombers in 1940
3257 in 1941
5439 in 1942
7325 in 1943
7903 in 1944.

Those planes are 2- and 4-engine planes, meaning that the fighter production could have been significantly higher if the RAF needed more fighters. But guess what: already in late 1940, the RAF felt safe enough to switch from fighter to bomber production! Care to explain?

Furthermore, in 1942 the US planes start to arrive in Europe:

1942: 632 Heavy Bombers, 161 Medium & Light Bombers, 577 Fighter
1943: 2,682 / 551 / 2,083
1944: 6,304 / 1,838 / 7,123

I used data from this PDF-file, found at the Army Air Forces Statistical Digest, WW2.

Notice the incredible high amount of (heavy) bombers compared to fighter planes. I'm sure that the US could have built and sent several thousand more fighters instead of heavy bombers if GB would have faced a second Battle of Britain after 1942. Arguing that the Luftwaffe could "rule the sky over Britain" sometime after 1942 is ignorance bordering on idiocy in face of these numbers.

Oh and without Operation Barbarossa, Germany would be able to produce much more planes, instead of tanks, heavy veichicles and artilery.

Planes are something completely different than tanks, heavy vehicles and artillery. An airplane engine bears no resemblance whatsoever to a tank motor. You cannot just turn a tank factory into an aircraft plant. You need a completely new set of machine tools to switch production, meaning that you can just as well build a new factory altogether.

I don't doubt that Germany could have built more planes; allocating more resouces to airplane plants and prioritizing planes instead of tanks/vehicles would have definitely boosted airplane production, but only to a moderate degree. In no way Germany would have been able to outproduce GB (and later the US) and obtain that signicifant edge in numbers needed to overcome the RAF.

 

[fing0lfin]

No, you are just comparing apples to oranges, and - with all due respect - your oranges aren't important at all.

1. You are talking about planes ready for service, I'm talking about aircraft production.
2. Care to give us your numbers for the Luftwaffe, too? So far, you have proved nothing.
3. Source?
4. Here are the British and German losses during the Battle of Britain. You just picked the day with the highest British losses and state that those numbers apply to all other days, too. Stop being obtuse!

British losses: 902, German losses: 1598


Did you even care to look at the British numbers, too?

GB produced
1967 medium and heavy bombers in 1940
3257 in 1941
5439 in 1942
7325 in 1943
7903 in 1944.

Those planes are 2- and 4-engine planes, meaning that the fighter production could have been significantly higher if the RAF needed more fighters. But guess what: already in late 1940, the RAF felt safe enough to switch from fighter to bomber production! Care to explain?

Furthermore, in 1942 the US planes start to arrive in Europe:

1942: 632 Heavy Bombers, 161 Medium & Light Bombers, 577 Fighter
1943: 2,682 / 551 / 2,083
1944: 6,304 / 1,838 / 7,123

I used data from this PDF-file, found at the Army Air Forces Statistical Digest, WW2.

Notice the incredible high amount of (heavy) bombers compared to fighter planes. I'm sure that the US could have built and sent several thousand more fighters instead of heavy bombers if GB would have faced a second Battle of Britain after 1942. Arguing that the Luftwaffe could "rule the sky over Britain" sometime after 1942 is ignorance bordering on idiocy in face of these numbers.


Planes are something completely different than tanks, heavy vehicles and artillery. An airplane engine bears no resemblance whatsoever to a tank motor. You cannot just turn a tank factory into an aircraft plant. You need a completely new set of machine tools to switch production, meaning that you can just as well build a new factory altogether.

I don't doubt that Germany could have built more planes; allocating more resouces to airplane plants and prioritizing planes instead of tanks/vehicles would have definitely boosted airplane production, but only to a moderate degree. In no way Germany would have been able to outproduce GB (and later the US) and obtain that signicifant edge in numbers needed to overcome the RAF.

1.The planes ready for service fight, not the plane production.
2.2800(these are the planes thrown at the batle of Britain). There are about 4500-5000 ready for the east front.
3.http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWairwar.htm
4.It's not just a day. The wuftvaffe was winning, until Hitler changed his strategy.
The numbers of German and British losses are different again:
During the conflict the Royal Air Force lost 792 planes and the Luftwaffe 1,389



The RaF felt save, because the German forces were concentrate on the east.

The US planes has no place in this disscussion. We are talking what would happen if Germant and Russia didn't started a war between themselves. The events we are talking about would have hapened before US joins the war.

Actually Wuftavffe wouldn't have needed to rule the skys. Just to secure a spot for the German invasion. The tha panzers and the wermacht would have destroyed the plane production.

Planes, as tanks, artilery etc. are build from steel and need fuel. Less recources spend on tanks, more recources spent on planes.It's simple.

And you can't turn bomber factory to fighter one.

 

[El_Tigre]

2.2800(these are the planes thrown at the batle of Britain). There are about 4500-5000 ready for the east front.

Now were does that ludicrous number come from? The Luftwaffe Order of Battle, 24 June 1941 shows that the Luftwaffe had 2702 planes ready in the East, of which were 2007 serviceable (I added the numbers for "Russia" and "Norway and Finland"). No match for the RAF.

4.It's not just a day. The wuftvaffe was winning, until Hitler changed his strategy.

And then they lost. What's your point? The premise of this argument is not "Would Germany have won the war if Hitler had not made any errors?", but "What would have happened without a war against the Soviet Union". All other conditions not related to this operation remain the same, so PLEASE stop adding further premises.

BTW, if you want to know why your asseration that the Wehrmacht would have conquered GB if they kept on bombing the airfields is wrong, you can inform yourself here:
Why Sealion is not an option for Hitler to win the war, especially the following paragraphs:

Spoiler :

So what happens if the Luftwaffe go after the airfields more effectively? 11 Group pulls back to the Midlands. The Luftwaffe pounds Kent and Sussex for a while, achieving diminishing returns (although the hop fields, and hence the output of beer, will be reduced noticeably).

When Sealion starts, 11 Group has had chance to rest and recover and build up its strength, while the Luftwaffe have had to carry out a lot of sorties. On Sealion, 11 Group, in addition to 10 and 12 Group can re-enter the fray. They won't have so long over the area of operations, but against that, they have a huge number of potential targets - barges and landing beaches and transport aircraft. The Luftwaffe fighters have equally limited time over target, and they have a huge number of things they have to protect. If any target is damaged severely, Sealion is made unworkable. Thus the RAF need to succeed only once, while the Luftwaffe need to succeed everywhere and every time.

Meanwhile, RAF's bomber command has just been presented with a massive, unmissable target in the form of the barge fleet. If the Germans are flying fighter cover over the barges, then these fighters are not flying as escort for the German bombers. If they are not escorting the bombers, then the bombers are unprotected against RAF fighters. In this case, the Luftwaffe will be ineffective at keeping the RN Home Fleet at bay. In essence, if the RAF doesn't get the barges, then the RN does.

It is worth reiterating the key figures, that of fighters. At the time in question, the fighters available were 600 for the Luftwaffe, and 670 for the RAF.

Britain was outproducing Germany in planes, so the proportions are steadily moving in Britain's favour.

But this is a completely different discussion, and I won't continue it here.

The numbers of German and British losses are different again:
During the conflict the Royal Air Force lost 792 planes and the Luftwaffe 1,389

Great, you just confirmed my loss ratio! My number translate into 1.77 German planes shot down for every British plane, your numbers result in 1:1.75. Another source (Churchill's "The Second World War", p.299) states that 915 British and 1,733 German planes were shot down, a loss ratio of 1:1.89.

The RaF felt save, because the German forces were concentrate on the east.

How did the RAF know? Hitler's attack on the SU surprised them, too. The RAF felt safe because they were safe.

The US planes has no place in this disscussion. We are talking what would happen if Germant and Russia didn't started a war between themselves. The events we are talking about would have hapened before US joins the war.

Fine. At least we agree that after 1941 a German victory against GB was completely impossible.

Actually Wuftavffe wouldn't have needed to rule the skys. Just to secure a spot for the German invasion. The tha panzers and the wermacht would have destroyed the plane production.

Actually, that's just what happened during the Battle of Britain: an air battle for the air superiority over southern England.

Planes, as tanks, artilery etc. are build from steel and need fuel. Less recources spend on tanks, more recources spent on planes.It's simple.

You've missed my sentence about machine tools - deliberately, I guess.

And you can't turn bomber factory to fighter one.

Oh, you don't have to turn a bomber factory into a fighter factory, a bomber factory is a fighter factory: the engines are basically the same. All you need is a different airframe, which can be produced with the same resources and machines.

 

[Colonel_here]

Oh, you don't have to turn a bomber factory into a fighter factory, a bomber factory is a fighter factory: the engines are basically the same. All you need is a different airframe, which can be produced with the same resouces and machines.

I can confirm this. The aircraft museum of Toronto stands right now in the former building of De Havilland and nearby there are remains of other De Havilland buildings. They produced Mosquitos and Tiger Moths, as well as engines for Lancaster bombers. Overall there is not much hasstle to switch the production from fighters to bombers or other way around.
Hitler switched strategy after Luftwaffe failed to produce air supremacy at needed deadlines. The British War Office was so secure of the lack of possibility of Sealion occuring that they committed resources and men to fight in Greece. The last actually pushed back the schedule for German invasion of Soviet Union.

 

[Fox Mccloud]

I have heard that only one soldier from the Japan Machurian army survived....

According to Wikipedia, the Japanese had a million men in Manchuria, but only 20,000 died.

 

[fing0lfin]

Now were does that ludicrous number come from? The Luftwaffe Order of Battle, 24 June 1941 shows that the Luftwaffe had 2702 planes ready in the East, of which were 2007 serviceable (I added the numbers for "Russia" and "Norway and Finland"). No match for the RAF.

And then they lost. What's your point? The premise of this argument is not "Would Germany have won the war if Hitler had not made any errors?", but "What would have happened without a war against the Soviet Union". All other conditions not related to this operation remain the same, so PLEASE stop adding further premises.

BTW, if you want to know why your asseration that the Wehrmacht would have conquered GB if they kept on bombing the airfields is wrong, you can inform yourself here:
Why Sealion is not an option for Hitler to win the war, especially the following paragraphs:

Spoiler :

So what happens if the Luftwaffe go after the airfields more effectively? 11 Group pulls back to the Midlands. The Luftwaffe pounds Kent and Sussex for a while, achieving diminishing returns (although the hop fields, and hence the output of beer, will be reduced noticeably).

When Sealion starts, 11 Group has had chance to rest and recover and build up its strength, while the Luftwaffe have had to carry out a lot of sorties. On Sealion, 11 Group, in addition to 10 and 12 Group can re-enter the fray. They won't have so long over the area of operations, but against that, they have a huge number of potential targets - barges and landing beaches and transport aircraft. The Luftwaffe fighters have equally limited time over target, and they have a huge number of things they have to protect. If any target is damaged severely, Sealion is made unworkable. Thus the RAF need to succeed only once, while the Luftwaffe need to succeed everywhere and every time.

Meanwhile, RAF's bomber command has just been presented with a massive, unmissable target in the form of the barge fleet. If the Germans are flying fighter cover over the barges, then these fighters are not flying as escort for the German bombers. If they are not escorting the bombers, then the bombers are unprotected against RAF fighters. In this case, the Luftwaffe will be ineffective at keeping the RN Home Fleet at bay. In essence, if the RAF doesn't get the barges, then the RN does.

It is worth reiterating the key figures, that of fighters. At the time in question, the fighters available were 600 for the Luftwaffe, and 670 for the RAF.

Britain was outproducing Germany in planes, so the proportions are steadily moving in Britain's favour.

But this is a completely different discussion, and I won't continue it here.


Great, you just confirmed my loss ratio! My number translate into 1.77 German planes shot down for every British plane, your numbers result in 1:1.75. Another source (Churchill's "The Second World War", p.299) states that 915 British and 1,733 German planes were shot down, a loss ratio of 1:1.89.

How did the RAF know? Hitler's attack on the SU surprised them, too. The RAF felt safe because they were safe.

Fine. At least we agree that after 1941 a German victory against GB was completely impossible.

Actually, that's just what happened during the Battle of Britain: an air battle for the air superiority over southern England.

You've missed my sentence about machine tools - deliberately, I guess.


Oh, you don't have to turn a bomber factory into a fighter factory, a bomber factory is a fighter factory: the engines are basically the same. All you need is a different airframe, which can be produced with the same resources and machines.

http://ostfront.boinaslava.net/index.php?page=germans- That's from where i took the numbers...but it's in Bulgarian so i doubt you will understand it

What are the machine tools made form ??? Steel and iron, too. I am talking about raw materials.


But i really can't understand you. All this numbers which you give...Don't you realise that they doesn't really matter. The topic is not what happened in ww2. These numbers can only show us what realy happened (when Germany invaded USSR). But the topic was what would happedn if Germany hadn't invaded....All these about sealion..well you are talking about the 'real' operation sealion. The numbers which really used in it. These don't help us. Don't you see ?? The topic is what would happen without USSR. And as i see you claim that there would be no difference

 

[Shaihulud]

I don't think the Germans would ever develop the atomic bombs. I read that Heisenberg overestimated the critical mass necessary for the chain reaction of u235 by several time over. They did have enough fissible materials to make an atomic bomb, but they did not have what they think they required. I agree that Stalin would attack nazi Germany, read that somewhere as well, in this very forum I think.

 

[fing0lfin]

I don't know what make you belive that Stalin would have attacked Germany.
Both Hitler and Stalin knew that the Solviet army wasn't ready for war. It laked of command structure and offivcers after the purges in the 30s. Even when the wermacht invaded, Stalin gave his soldier an order not to attack. He though some mistake had happened and he wanted to solve the problem with diplomacy.

 

[El_Tigre]

http://ostfront.boinaslava.net/index.php?page=germans- That's from where i took the numbers...but it's in Bulgarian so i doubt you will understand it

I prefer the official Order of Battle to any other WW2-Website. Do you know that the whole Luftwaffe altogether had only 3500 planes in June 1941, and that this number includes transports and recon planes?

What are the machine tools made form ??? Steel and iron, too. I am talking about raw materials.

The difference between planes/tanks/vehicels and machine tools is that the former are mass produced while the latter are not. As a consequence, the production of machine tools is very time-consuming and more dependent on skilled labour than on raw materials. It takes more than just a couple of months to build a new vehicle or airplane factory.

But i really can't understand you. All this numbers which you give...Don't you realise that they doesn't really matter. The topic is not what happened in ww2. These numbers can only show us what realy happened (when Germany invaded USSR). But the topic was what would happedn if Germany hadn't invaded....All these about sealion..well you are talking about the 'real' operation sealion. The numbers which really used in it. These don't help us. Don't you see ??

Of course we are talking about the reality - with the sole exception of the preparation and implementation of Operation Barbarossa. All other facts which are not touched by this matter stay the same. But sure, lets forget common sense, twist the facts and distort reality until you, fing0lfin, can someday, somehow come up with a scenario in which Germany defeats GB!!

Do you really don't care that

• throughout WW2 GB produced considerably more planes than Germany?
• Germany would have needed a numberical superiority of 2:1 in a second Battle of Britain (1:1.75 didn't work, remember?)?
• Germany couldn't have produced that many planes in 1940/41 even without Operation Barbarossa, as I just proved above?
• without Operation Barbarossa, GB could have increased its fighter production by several thousands by reducing bomber production?
• GB would have had a couple of thousand more planes because without Operation Barbarossa, there would have been no Lend-Lease?

Now let me introduce to some more facts that should have at least some importance even in "fing0lfins's fairy land of WW2":

• Aviation Gas. Tetraethyl to be more precise. Tetraethyl was an indispensible part of AvGas for the Luftwaffe, because without it, the octane rating of German fuel would have been too low for airplane engines. Germany actually did produce enough Tetraethyl, and had a supply of several months. However, even the training programm of a large scale increase of the Luftwaffe would have sucked dry that supply within weeks. And no, Tetraethyl plants CANNOT be build within a couple of weeks. Germay started building a third Tetraethyl plant shortly after the start of WW2, but it wasn't finished until 1944. Your usual argument (less resources for tanks, more planes instead) does NOT apply here, because tank engines didn't need Tetraethyl.
• The Royal Navy. Even with total air superiority above England, the RN would have made mincemeat out of the German invasion fleet. Why? Because not until 1943 did the Luftwaffe have torpedo planes or armour piercing shells for dive bombers. Translation for the weak minded: the Luftwaffe couldn't even put a dent into anything larger than a Destroyer until 1943. And even IF the Luftwaffe would have been a threat to the RN, the fleet would have just engaged at night, when air superiority would be completely useless.
• Bomber Command. During the Battle of Britain, Bomber Command basically sat around idle. But during an invasion, there would have been tons of targets for the British bombers: the transports in port, the transports at sea, the unloading transports, the landing zone, the German concentration area in France,...
• So now, the Luftwaffe must not only take care of the British Fighter Command, but also of the RN and Bomber Command while at the same time it has to disrupt the British ground forces and destroy the British transportation network.

Those fundamental facts are irrevocable and signicifant even in the What-If scenario we are talking about.

The topic is what would happen without USSR. And as i see you claim that there would be no difference

Learn to read. I'm arguing that the differences (e.g. moderately more planes) wouldn't have made a difference against GB. I hope you understand the difference...

Conclusion: Operation Barbarossa was not only the realization of one of Hitler's dreams (Lebensraum, destruction of Communism), but also a desperate attempt to turn the tide in WW2. GB had defeated the Wehrmacht in 1940, and Hitler and his generals knew that this defeat was decisive and irrevocable. By attacking the Soviet Union, Hitler thought he could compensate this defeat by gaining total control of the European continent, which would lead to a stalemate between Germany and Great Britain. Perhaps, several years after defeating the SU, Germany would have been able to invade GB. Unfortunately, the entrance of the US into the war destroyed this last hope, too.