[quote=waylander]There is another school of thought here that Germany simply started the war too early... by all accounts it was gearing up to be on a war footing for 1942(ish) so that was one problem

Another and maybe the biggest problem was that although Germany had an excellent grasp of tactical warfare it was a rank amature when it came to strategic warfare - think of the difference it would have made had Germany had Lancasters and Flying Fortresses as part of their arsenal. All of a sudden the Russian factories which had been moved to the other side of the Urals might have been at risk... British factories hard or impossible to hit with He111s or Do217s would be easily in range - I'd imagine even some of the eastern seaboard would be reachable (even if only on a one-way ticket.

Another Hitler stupidity (and Goering - of I've read my history correctly you could make a very good case for Goering to have cost Germany the war too!!) was the abandonment of the attacks on the radar installations and their attacks on our airfields - both of which were apparently scarily close to finishing us off (the bombing raid on Berlin therefore could have pretty much saved the world, even though it lead to the Blitz)...
/quote]

I read somewhere that initially Germany was considering 1944 as the start year for war. Regardless Germany would have been better prepared in either 42 or 44, but then so would have the British, French, Poles and Soviets. I think that had the war started later Germany would have actually had less success than historical.

I can't say if Germany had any outstanding strategist or not, but it didn't matter because the only strategist who counted was Hitler - and brilliant he was not.

Germany was developing a long range bomber before the war but put the program aside for a number of reasons. They felt that any war would be over before sufficient bombers would be available. Hitler was interested in number of bombers, not number of engines, so twin engine bombers were built. These smaller bombers were also more suitable for tactical use that the German army subscribed to. Finally, to develop and manufacture a long range bomber and the support structure such a force required was just beyond Germany's capability in the later 30s and this was acknowledged by several German aviation and government officials. But even if Germany had an equivalent Lancaster or B-17 it's doubtful they would have accomplished much. Even the allies bombers didn't have a serious impact on German industry until late in the war. The planes, bombs, and accuracy just were not capable enough at the time and the situation was not completely rectified until the A-bomb was dropped on Japan.

How would the Battle of Britain ended had Germany continued attacking the radar stations and airfields? Well quite possibly Germany would have subdued the Royal Air Force. But there was still the matter of transporting an army across the channel and I highly doubt that Germany would have succeeded in that endeavor against the Royal Navy. Even if the German army was successfully shipped to England, the soldiers would had then faced a British army that had largely recovered from Dunkirk. This is one of those fun what if scenarios but a German invasion of Britain had about as good an outcome as a Japanese invasion of Hawaii after Pearl Harbor - it just wasn't going to work militarily. A much more likely outcome would involve politics, but that's a whole new avenue to explore.

De Havilland must have had one heck of a sales team to get the Mosquito accepted when everyone "knew" that all combat aircraft must be made from metal. Too bad there is only a couple left in the world due to their wooden structures not holding up as well as metal airframes. As for being stealthier, air traffic control today sometimes have difficulties in detecting wooden framed aircraft like Bellancas and homebuilts.