Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Theoretical invasion of England

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> RE: Theoretical invasion of England Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Theoretical invasion of England - 1/15/2009 2:05:06 PM   
timtom


Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline 		There was a debate here in the UK a couple of years back after three RUSI scholars presented the heretical view that the BoB wasn't decided by the RAF alone. Tory press - or its readers rather - reacted in predictable fashion, fx comments in the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1527068/Battle-of-Britain-was-won-at-sea.-Discuss.html

After the dust settled, the RUSI lot restates their case:

http://www.rusi.org/research/militarysciences/history/commentary/ref:C4538D604EF124/

http://www.rusi.org/research/militarysciences/history/commentary/ref:C4538DAE3AB61C/

http://www.rusi.org/research/militarysciences/history/commentary/ref:C4538E034F182D/

http://www.rusi.org/research/militarysciences/history/commentary/ref:C4538E2591AE95/



_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 61
RE: Theoretical invasion of England - 1/15/2009 2:14:35 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

There was a debate here in the UK a couple of years back after three RUSI scholars presented the heretical view that the BoB wasn't decided by the RAF alone. Tory press - or its readers rather - reacted in predictable fashion, fx comments in the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1527068/Battle-of-Britain-was-won-at-sea.-Discuss.html

After the dust settled, the RUSI lot restates their case:

http://www.rusi.org/research/militarysciences/history/commentary/ref:C4538D604EF124/

http://www.rusi.org/research/militarysciences/history/commentary/ref:C4538DAE3AB61C/

http://www.rusi.org/research/militarysciences/history/commentary/ref:C4538E034F182D/

http://www.rusi.org/research/militarysciences/history/commentary/ref:C4538E2591AE95/




Thanks Thomas!


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S. [EDIT]
The 4 last links are not working...

P.P.S. [EDIT]
Strange... now they seem to work... in one case I get only the main page of "RUSI" and the next time I get the commentary (as I should)... strange...

< Message edited by Apollo11 -- 1/15/2009 2:23:24 PM >

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to timtom)
Post #: 62
RE: Theoretical invasion of England - 1/15/2009 2:25:22 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

There was a debate here in the UK a couple of years back after three RUSI scholars presented the heretical view that the BoB wasn't decided by the RAF alone. Tory press - or its readers rather - reacted in predictable fashion, fx comments in the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1527068/Battle-of-Britain-was-won-at-sea.-Discuss.html

After the dust settled, the RUSI lot restates their case:



I remember that, being on an RAF squadron the result was, predictably, total indifference

EDIT:
The Battle of Britain was won by the RAF, but it was the Royal Navy that saved us from an invasion. The entire point of the BoB was to defeat the RAF so that they would be unable to protect the Royal Navy when they went into battle. If the Royal Navy hadn't been capable of protecting us then the BoB wouldn't have been needed and Ze Germans would probably have come anyway.

< Message edited by Dixie -- 1/15/2009 2:58:14 PM >

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to timtom)
Post #: 63
RE: Theoretical invasion of England - 1/15/2009 2:26:59 PM   
timtom


Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

There was a debate here in the UK a couple of years back after three RUSI scholars presented the heretical view that the BoB wasn't decided by the RAF alone. Tory press - or its readers rather - reacted in predictable fashion, fx comments in the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1527068/Battle-of-Britain-was-won-at-sea.-Discuss.html

After the dust settled, the RUSI lot restates their case:

http://www.rusi.org/research/militarysciences/history/commentary/ref:C4538D604EF124/

http://www.rusi.org/research/militarysciences/history/commentary/ref:C4538DAE3AB61C/

http://www.rusi.org/research/militarysciences/history/commentary/ref:C4538E034F182D/

http://www.rusi.org/research/militarysciences/history/commentary/ref:C4538E2591AE95/



Thanks Thomas!

Leo "Apollo11"

P.S. [EDIT]
The 4 last links are not working...

P.P.S. [EDIT]
Strange... now they seem to work... in one case I get only the main page of "RUSI" and the next time I get the commentary (as I should)... strange...


Hrmph...from the main menu, click Research -> Military Science -> Military History Circle -> Commentary.


_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 64
RE: Theoretical invasion of England - 1/15/2009 2:48:12 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 2903
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

In my opinion it could have worked (with enormous losses, but hey, that would have been a decisive victory, the end of the war, kaput: a last supreme effort should be part of the equation). Thanks the Big Manitou it didn't


Major amphibious landings don't just happen, they are the result of vast planning, huge logistic effort and considerable time. I don't doubt that if several Panzer divisions and sufficent supplies, provided through a shipping effort that could be maintained, had landed in Britain, Germany would have won the War. However, my point is that this could not have happened.

The Germans could not have got to Britain with enough force (and maintained it), especially as Hitler was a cautious commander. He mainly took risks because usually he wasn't aware of the what the risks were. He said that he would never have attacked the Soviet Union if he had been aware of the true strength of The Red Army, especially the number of tanks. The attack on France was not planned as a blitzkrieg, Hitler had a much more cautious plan, turned into blitzkreig by his disobedient panzer commanders. Only after it became a dazzling success did Hitler take the credit. Hitler was fully aware of the risks of a seaborne invasion and he would not have done it, as in fact history confirmed.

The Dunkirk Evacuation had just demonstrated that the Royal Navy had full command of the Channel and could operate in the face of large German air power. Most damage was done to ships tied up in Dunkirk harbour, or stopped off the beaches full of troops, and still they did the job. What would have happened if the Germans had met this force in the open sea and the gloves were off. The German preparations for 'Sea Lion' were pathetic and could not be seen as a serious proposition, but merely bluff.

The seaborne component of the German invasion of Crete was decimated by the Royal Navy, despite the serious loss of British ships. The German paratroops would not have survived without immediate air support. Over Crete the Germans had absolute air supremacy, over Britain they would not.

I stand by the words of a British admiral in a different age, when the French Grand Armee was massed at Bologne - 'I don't say that Napoleon can't come, I just say that he cannot come by sea'


(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 65
RE: Theoretical invasion of England - 1/15/2009 3:11:17 PM   
timtom


Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

There was a debate here in the UK a couple of years back after three RUSI scholars presented the heretical view that the BoB wasn't decided by the RAF alone. Tory press - or its readers rather - reacted in predictable fashion, fx comments in the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1527068/Battle-of-Britain-was-won-at-sea.-Discuss.html

After the dust settled, the RUSI lot restates their case:



I remember that, being on an RAF squadron the result was, predictably, total indifference



Heh, one of my senior lecturers at Uni (in Denmark) was one of the prime movers of the socalled "2nd generation" of historians of the Occupation 1940-45 whos work challenged the cherished public consensus of one nation in unified and effective resistance against Nazi occupation specifically and generally. He liked to entertain us over lunch with stories of how concerned members of the public reacted to their iconoclasms. Think dog excrements through the mail and such.

Good thing we don't see that kind of thing around here, eh?


_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 66
RE: Theoretical invasion of England - 1/15/2009 3:17:40 PM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline 		There's another question to solve, too.

Suppose the Luftwaffe "won" the Battle of Britain, that the RN's threat was eroded (by air power or french/italian fleet), that the Evacuation of Dunkirk failed to bring back over 300.000 personnel, that the OKW had pre-thought plans for Seelowe, and that they had enough barges and assets in the 1940 summer.  Which are, I believe, the very minimal conditions for even attempting Seelowe.

In such conditions, is it not more plausible that Britain would have sought a negociated armistice ?  Would William Donovan still have reported to Roosevelt an optimistic assessment of the british situation ?
A successful invasion of Great Britain would not have been guaranteed once the RAF and RN were brushed aside (complete destruction is not realistic), but it still meant bigger losses for the UK, maybe it would have been enough, combined with lesser prospects of getting USA's help, for Winston (or a replacement...) to accept a negociated settlement.
So, even if all conditions for attempting Sealion were met, there're still some doubts that it would have been necessary...

Discuss.

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 67
RE: Theoretical invasion of England - 1/15/2009 3:19:11 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

Heh, one of my senior lecturers at Uni (in Denmark) was one of the prime movers of the socalled "2nd generation" of historians of the Occupation 1940-45 whos work challenged the cherished public consensus of one nation in unified and effective resistance against Nazi occupation specifically and generally. He liked to entertain us over lunch with stories of how concerned members of the public reacted to their iconoclasms. Think dog excrements through the mail and such.

Good thing we don't see that kind of thing around here, eh?



Oh no old chap, we're far more civilised here in the British Isles. We just get the Daily Mail and Telegraph to write articles about you and then their readers get angry and write letters to the Mail and Telegraph

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to timtom)
Post #: 68
RE: Theoretical invasion of England - 1/15/2009 3:28:31 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		"Their Finest Hour" - One of GDW's Europa series is really good.

I got it for Knavey last year(?) for his birthday. We used to play it when we were teenagers.

The Europa series is amazing (and insane). All of Europes Western and Eastern fronts in battalion-sized units.

Thier Finest Hour at BoardGameGeek.Com

-F-

< Message edited by Feinder -- 1/15/2009 3:31:31 PM >

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to timtom)
Post #: 69
RE: Theoretical invasion of England - 1/15/2009 3:42:40 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		Ah, who does not remember the dream of "Grand Europa" where player could tie all the maps together in a large field house and play out the whole war in Europe. And of course, forego any simblance of having a real life....

However, real historians know that in the end the Germans sucessfully invaded and went all the way to the US.



_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 70
RE: Theoretical invasion of England - 1/15/2009 3:44:37 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

The Dunkirk Evacuation had just demonstrated that the Royal Navy had full command of the Channel and could operate in the face of large German air power. Most damage was done to ships tied up in Dunkirk harbour, or stopped off the beaches full of troops, and still they did the job. What would have happened if the Germans had met this force in the open sea and the gloves were off. The German preparations for 'Sea Lion' were pathetic and could not be seen as a serious proposition, but merely bluff.

The seaborne component of the German invasion of Crete was decimated by the Royal Navy, despite the serious loss of British ships. The German paratroops would not have survived without immediate air support. Over Crete the Germans had absolute air supremacy, over Britain they would not.

I stand by the words of a British admiral in a different age, when the French Grand Armee was massed at Bologne - 'I don't say that Napoleon can't come, I just say that he cannot come by sea'




While I think the degree of "full command of the channel" is too strong, I agree with most else here.

The earlier stated notion that the RN would back off after serious losses is just total bunk. Only a strategic decision to evacuate and continue the war from elsewhere - made by political leaders - would have resulted in any backing off from an invasion of Britain. All that I have read and seen of history about or touching on the RN over hundreds of years has one very consistent theme. If you had to pick just one defining characteristic of the RN it's this: THEY FIGHT!

The biggest problem for sealion would have been the lack of adequate landing craft and sealift. Even if all other obstacles had been overcome in any semi-realistic way (no, complete eradication of all British warplanes was not realistic, etc.), the lack of the needed appropriate sealift would have been a show stopper or, at the very least, made the landings a small affair.

What of the politics? Would a defeat of RAF during BoB, making an invasion much more likely, have resulted in some commitment of US forces for the defense of Britain? The possibility must be considered. The rhetoric that was bandied about and the actions taken in real life can not accurately reflect what would have happened in such a turn of events.

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 71
RE: Theoretical invasion of England - 1/15/2009 4:45:36 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 2903
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

There's another question to solve, too.

In such conditions, is it not more plausible that Britain would have sought a negociated armistice ?  Would William Donovan still have reported to Roosevelt an optimistic assessment of the british situation ?
A successful invasion of Great Britain would not have been guaranteed once the RAF and RN were brushed aside (complete destruction is not realistic), but it still meant bigger losses for the UK, maybe it would have been enough, combined with lesser prospects of getting USA's help, for Winston (or a replacement...) to accept a negociated settlement.
So, even if all conditions for attempting Sealion were met, there're still some doubts that it would have been necessary...

Discuss.


This is a much more difficult issue, as there is very little evidence in the public domain and all the senior players are dead, having not revealed any major secrets. Winston Churchill was adamant that Britain should fight and strangely, having been an arch imperialist, ensured that the war would proceed, which led to the emptying of the British treasury, destruction of much of our industry and housing and the eventual dismantling the Empire after the War. There were reported to be elements including the other prospective wartime prime minister, Lord Halifax, who thought that to avoid these costs Britain should seek a negotiated settlement. The abdicated King Edward VIII, then Duke of Windsor, was implicated as a possible replacement monarch, after such a settlement. Did Rudolph Hess fly to Scotland as part of this process, why was he alone held in Spandau until death, or murder, when he was not part of the worst Nazi attrocities in the later part of the war.

The British are often depicted by Hollywood as useless tea drinkers getting in the way of fighting the War, but this is not the case. In 1939 Britain was getting ready, albeit nearly too late, to wholeheartedly confront the totalitarian dictatorships. There were only a handfull of demoracies in the World in 1939 and by 1940 several of them had been occupied. The USA was trying to maintain an uncomfortable neutrality. Britain was prepared to confront Germany and Italy, with Japan and possibily Spain in the wings and if that were not enough, was preparing to take on Russia as well, to help Finland in 1940. The landing force that attempted to save Norway was hampered, as the ships were loaded for the expedition to help Finland. The force had the wrong material, loaded in the wrong ships, for the revised units. No sign of backing down at this stage and this is with Neville Chamberlain (forever marked as an appeaser) still prime minister.

On the opening of the War, plans were enacted to move 3 million people out of the major cities, although only half agreed to go, this major movement was complete as the declaration of war was issued to Germany. All this indicates that the British Government fully understood the gravity of the situation and was prepared to take any action. There is no indication that they intended to talk their way out, Britain meant business. The time for talking ended at Munich.

Did the defeat of France change their minds, I don't think so. There was a curious relief that Britain was now alone and the country willingly accepted laws and controls needed for the war effort, which would put many dictatorships to shame. Germany did not invoke a 'Total War' economy until 1943, way too late.

There is evidence that Italy offered to help start negotiations, but they could not get even to the point of asking for the possible terms, as that might be seen as weakness and embolden Hitler. Churchill was playing for a win and not interested in a draw.

Could Churchill have been overthrown to permit negotiations. After the ship of state had been set on a course for victory, or nothing, it is difficult to see how any group, or individual, could have changed that course, any more than any group could have done the same thing in Germany.



(in reply to Ambassador)
Post #: 72
RE: Theoretical invasion of England - 1/15/2009 4:52:15 PM   
Howard Mitchell


Posts: 449
Joined: 6/3/2002
From: Blighty
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Japan
I prefere to liston to the ones who have the actual knowlage etc etc etc


An interesting series of articles can be found at the Royal United Services Institute website:

http://www.rusi.org/research/militarysciences/history/commentary/ref:C4538DAE3AB61C/

EDIT: D'oh, just read timtom's post!

The official history 'The Defence of the United Kingdom' also has much to say on the defences available, though as a history its author, Basil Collier, doesn't stray into the realms of might-have-beens.

The British Army was rapidly re-equipping in the Summer of 1940. Two pounder AT guns increased from 176 in June to 498 at the end of September for example, by which time the armoured units possessed 240 medium and 108 cruiser tanks, as well as 514 machine-gun armed light tanks. 424 25-pounder field guns had been added since June as well.

< Message edited by Howard Mitchell -- 1/15/2009 4:53:32 PM >

_____________________________

While the battles the British fight may differ in the widest possible ways, they invariably have two common characteristics – they are always fought uphill and always at the junction of two or more map sheets.

General Sir William Slim

(in reply to Japan)
Post #: 73
RE: Theoretical invasion of England - 1/15/2009 4:55:34 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		ENOUGH ALREADY.   Why not just say that if Chamberlin's spine hadn't been made of cream cheese, the German Army would have done away with Hitler in 1938 and there wouldn't have been any War?  

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 74
RE: Theoretical invasion of England - 1/15/2009 5:04:27 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 2903
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline


[/quote]

While I think the degree of "full command of the channel" is too strong, I agree with most else here.

[/quote]

Agreed, the statement may be too strong, the RN would not have gone anywhere at any time, but as at Dunkirk, would have carried out its task in the channel despite any losses. There is absolutely no doubt that if an invasion started the RN would have responded in full force and although the Germans would have inflicted losses, they would not have been able to stop the RN doing whatever it needed to do, when the stakes were even higher. Again, during the Dunkirk Evacuation the British were able to operate up until the evacuation area was on the point of collapse, with all types of ships from warships to paddle steamers and more, without the Luftwaffe being able to stop them. Invasion a few months later in the same seas would have met with the same response.


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 75
RE: Theoretical invasion of England - 1/15/2009 5:05:10 PM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline 		...or there would have been a war in '38, albeit much different.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 76
RE: Theoretical invasion of England - 1/15/2009 5:10:41 PM   
Iridium


Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Japan


Eisenhover



Who's that?

< Message edited by Iridium -- 1/15/2009 5:12:11 PM >

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture

(in reply to Japan)
Post #: 77
RE: Theoretical invasion of England - 1/15/2009 5:13:11 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 2903
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ENOUGH ALREADY.   Why not just say that if Chamberlin's spine hadn't been made of cream cheese, the German Army would have done away with Hitler in 1938 and there wouldn't have been any War?  


I don't think that trying to negotiate out of what was going to be the most destructive war in history has anything to do with cream cheese. Where was the US of A while democracy was going down the tubes. The German army was not going to do away with Hitler, as he had given them so much and promised much more. The only way to solve these problem may be boots on the ground, but only after you have tried absolutely everything else.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 78
RE: Theoretical invasion of England - 1/15/2009 5:43:43 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline 		"I stand by the words of a British admiral in a different age, when the French Grand Armee was massed at Bologne - 'I don't say that Napoleon can't come, I just say that he cannot come by sea'" -- Rasputitsa

Well, that was true during the Napoleonic Wars and even in WW1. But you must not ignore the revolutionary changes in WW2: the plane (best cheap ship killer) & the tank that is.

Yamamoto had to make this very choice on june 1942, after his 4 CVs were massacred. "I still have 11 BBs. Should I continue or not?". He didn't.

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 79
RE: Theoretical invasion of England - 1/15/2009 6:12:37 PM   
Iridium


Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Well, that was true during the Napoleonic Wars and even in WW1. But you must not ignore the revolutionary changes in WW2: the plane (best cheap ship killer) & the tank that is.

Yamamoto had to make this very choice on june 1942, after his 4 CVs were massacred. "I still have 11 BBs. Should I continue or not?". He didn't.


Thing is, even if Germany wins the BoB, the UK's airforce would never be completely destroyed. They were building fighters at a prodigious rate, the channel is small enough to provide fighter cover from either side of it and even if initial stages of an invasion were successful keeping it supplied would be a grinder that Germany could not afford. This of course assumes Axis forces possess the sheer numbers of transport craft available for such an operation (which they did not).

I doubt Germany could pull off a reverse Dunkirk in a retreat from England.

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 80
RE: Theoretical invasion of England - 1/15/2009 6:17:29 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		I've got a book at home that goes into detail of the Operation Sealion plans; the general opinion of everyone was that had the invasion taken place, it would have been disastrous for the Germans.

They intended to use every Channel ferry they could get their hands on to carry troops, horses (yes, horses) and vehicles, but that wasn't nearly enough.  So, they decided to use river barges that were towed by minesweepers, ferries and tugboats as well.  The towing ship would cast off the lines and the barge was supposed to drift to shore and ground before the troops/vehicles could unload.

Supplies would be carried by merchant ships that would sit off shore for days while lighters and other small craft would unload them.

Since they never had enough craft to carry all the divisions they wanted at one time, the plan was to surge a maximum number of men across in the first wave, then return for more with the motorized vessels.  However, each transit of the Channel was very roundabout to avoid minefields and shoals, so a one way trip could take 36 hours for the slow moving ferries.

Naval defense forces consisted of their remaining DD's and torpedo boats, U-boats and a heavy mine barrier in the west approaches of the Channel, plus a strong Luftwaffe presence.  No heavy ships were involved in screening the landing forces; IIRC the fear of grounding and mines kept them out of the Channel.

All of this was predicated on the Luftwaffe destroying the RAF and then somehow neutralizing the RN.  However, the RN's base at Scapa Flow was out of range of the Luftwaffe, and there were too many smaller bases on both sides of Britain for the Luftwaffe to completely destroy or close.  The RN studies mentioned in my book indicate that if an invasion had taken place, ships as large as County class CA's would have tried to force the German defenses in the Channel, and even a single DD in the middle of towed barges and ferries would have wreaked havoc.  And the RN had plenty of destroyers...

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 81
RE: Theoretical invasion of England - 1/15/2009 6:17:44 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 2903
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Well, that was true during the Napoleonic Wars and even in WW1. But you must not ignore the revolutionary changes in WW2: the plane (best cheap ship killer) & the tank that is.



I am sorry, I did not intend the quote to be taken literally, I just drew the parallel that Napoleon could not cross the Channel in 1805 and I believe that Hitler could not cross in 1940.

In 1941 the world was astounded by the effects of the attack on Pearl Harbor and the sinking of HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse, this is because up until that time air attack on ships on that scale had not been that effective. It was after 1940 that the Germans established Fliegerkorps X, as a specialist anti-ship unit, which was very effective in the Mediterranean.

In 1940 I don't think the Luftwaffe would have been that effective against ships at sea, to repeat the point, the Luftwaffe could not stop the evacuation from Dunkirk, even when a large number of the ships were unarmed and slow. There would have been an increase in capability, as they improved their bases in France, but at that time I don't think there had been much emphasis on anti-shipping strikes. The Luftwaffe was mainly a tactical airforce to support land operations.

The Dunkirk evacuation took place over many days, the RN would only have to get in amongst the invasion barges once, to cause irreplaceable losses, or bombard the invasion ports at night to do terminal damage. Aerial photos show the barges packed into small French channel ports, they had to be concentrated for the invasion and dispersal would have meant longer sea voyages to their objectives, increasing the risk of interception.


(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 82
RE: Theoretical invasion of England - 1/15/2009 6:37:58 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 2903
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline 		As has been noted the Germans may well have tried to establish a mine barrier in the Channel. During the Falklands War in 1982 the British invasion fleet was preparing to enter San Carlos Water, but did not know if it was mined. Admiral Woodward did not have any anti-mine capability, so he contacted one of his frigate captains and asked him to take his ship through the channel that night, without saying why. The captain realised the problem and said, 'I suppose you want me to sail around a bit to see if there are any mines' before going off to do just that. In 1940 the RN would have swept into the English Channel, led by a horde of old WW1 destroyers to do the same job.




(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 83
RE: Theoretical invasion of England - 1/15/2009 7:11:59 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ENOUGH ALREADY.   Why not just say that if Chamberlin's spine hadn't been made of cream cheese, the German Army would have done away with Hitler in 1938 and there wouldn't have been any War?  


I don't think that trying to negotiate out of what was going to be the most destructive war in history has anything to do with cream cheese. Where was the US of A while democracy was going down the tubes. The German army was not going to do away with Hitler, as he had given them so much and promised much more. The only way to solve these problem may be boots on the ground, but only after you have tried absolutely everything else.




Actually, you should study the political history more closely. The Russians had already offerred to close ranks with the British and French (the Poles were understandably reluctant to grant them passage. The Wehrmacht knew it was't ready for a war with Britian, France, and Czechoslovakia (and potentially Russia), and a large conspiracy existed to remove Hitler if he attempted to order it.

Chamberlin proved to be the best "bodyguard" Hitler ever had, when his desperate grab for "peace in our time" made the Fuhuer look like an unstoppable political genious, and the Western Powers like a "paper tiger". Stalin decided to have nothing further to do with such unreliable powers as Britian and France (who'd just sold the Czechs "down the river") and began thinking about siding with the "winner". And the Wehrmacht plot fell apart when it seemed that Hitler "had the number" of his opponants and might well win all of Germany's desires politically. They'd look like fools trying a revolt against Germany's most successful leader since Bismarck.

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 84
RE: Theoretical invasion of England - 1/15/2009 7:12:04 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: borner

It would have taken the KB going there to clear out the Royal Navy. Otherwise, what do you do? Run everything across the channel, beach it, and hope you get things unloaded before the RN comes through at night and blasts everything to scrap? You better pray for a short campaign as you sure are not going to get much in the way of supply after the first wave because everything you sent is going to be sunk.



But how much can air tactics adapt and how quickly. It's said that Germany did not have the air power to stop the RN. They certainly had no shortage of Stukas. THey also did have some number, not sure how many, squadrons of HE115.

In the Solomons campaign, the Japanese had quite a bit of success with the Betty making night time anti-shipping sorties, to the point that until the Betties were neutralized it made it difficult for the USN to operate withing Betty range at night.

I'm not so certain that this was an issue that the German's could not have overcome, or planned for, but then we have the benefit of a lot of hindsight. If I were a German army officer I'm may not realize just how powerful my air force was, or how vulnerable capital ships had become to air attack, even at night.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to borner)
Post #: 85
RE: Theoretical invasion of England - 1/15/2009 7:24:59 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hornblower

Its not only important to consider IF they could have landed the troops, but how and if they could keep them supplied. 
I agree that this whole discussion is based on the assumption that the RAF lost the battle of Britian.
 
The royal navy would have pulled back every ship and sub possible from other fronts to break up the line of supply from france/Netherlands to whatever port the German Army took – and they would need a port.  You can’t fly in a tank or heavy field pieces.       

I agree that supplying the army over a longer period of time is the key to the entire operation, but after having read many of the posts here, and restarting some long dormant memory neurons, I'm convinced that Germany could, if executing Hitler's plan correctly, have established a beach head in Southern England. I'm also confident that if Germany managed to keep its army supplied, it could have beaten the Home Guard defenses.

I'm on the fence as to whether Germany could have neutralized the RN to the point that resupply would remain possible. I think it would be very touch and go at best. Massive airlift might help.

I think the predominant reason Operation Sealion never took place though is because Hitler just wasn't that serious. His respect for the people of the UK was probably a greater deterrent than the RN.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Hornblower)
Post #: 86
RE: Theoretical invasion of England - 1/15/2009 8:05:46 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		The book I have says that the Germans could have landed troops on Southern England, but only from the first wave and whatever they could airlift in.  Once there, without heavy artillery or armor or regular resupply, they'd be at the mercy of any organized British units brought up against them.  Their plan to resupply and bring over more waves of men was so ludicrous that even the Kriegsmarine officers thought it was lunacy, and the Royal Navy would have gladly sacrificed as many destroyers as needed to destroy the supply lines. 

Plus, the RAF could not have been destroyed; there were several more squadrons and wings of fighters out of range of the Luftwaffe that were available if an invasion took place, and the Bomber Command forces would have thrown everything they had at both the German infantry on British soil and the small craft trying to supply them.

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 87
RE: Theoretical invasion of England - 1/15/2009 8:10:28 PM   
Barb


Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline 		Try to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sealion#Post-war_test_of_the_plan

_____________________________


(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 88
RE: Theoretical invasion of England - 1/15/2009 8:40:50 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 2903
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Actually, you should study the political history more closely. The Russians had already offerred to close ranks with the British and French (the Poles were understandably reluctant to grant them passage. The Wehrmacht knew it was't ready for a war with Britian, France, and (and potentially Russia), and a large conspiracy existed to remove Hitler if he attempted to order it.

Chamberlin proved to be the best "bodyguard" Hitler ever had, when his desperate grab for "peace in our time" made the Fuhuer look like an unstoppable political genious, and the Western Powers like a "paper tiger". Stalin decided to have nothing further to do with such unreliable powers as Britian and France (who'd just sold the Czechs "down the river") and began thinking about siding with the "winner". And the Wehrmacht plot fell apart when it seemed that Hitler "had the number" of his opponants and might well win all of Germany's desires politically. They'd look like fools trying a revolt against Germany's most successful leader since Bismarck.




Political history and its interpretation has changed constantly as more and more documents are released from archives, for example after the 50 year rule in the UK and the fall of communism in the Soviet Union.

Stalin's intent was to return the Soviet Union to Imperial Russia's pre-1914 borders and then to gain as much additional territory as possible, to activate Russia's strategy of Deep Battle, fought on the territory of the enemy. Before May 1940 six states were occupied by the totalitarian dictatorships and Germany only attacked one of them, Poland. Russia attacked and occupied parts of Finland, Rumania and Poland, and fully occupied Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania.

Stalin would negotiate with anyone who would give him what he wanted, Britain had no bargining postion not wanting to give away other people's territory (Munich shows how this option goes). Both Germany and Russia had been defeated in WW1 and had lost territory in the Versailles Treaty. Hitler and Stalin wanted it back and therefore had common cause, the UK had nothing in common with either of them.

The Czechoslovakian Sudetern Land was part of the revision of the Versailles Treaty demanded by Hitler, as he saw it, to reunite the German speaking peoples. It is a tragedy that the Munich agreement was made, but no one was prepared to risk another major war in Europe. The USA, as signatory of the Versailles Treaty, showed no interest and had not joined the League of Nations, which may have stiffened the democracies position. In hindsight action may have worked, but Hitler was the arch propagandist and the stakes were frighteningly high. Alliance with the Soviet Union, whose favorite tactic was to occupy countries to save them from aggression was not a good option, for anybody except Hitler.

In 1938, having participated in the disarmament treaties of the 1930's, the UK was in a weak position to confront Germany and possibibly the Soviet Union. The UK, quite rightly, did not trust the motives of the Soviet Union. It is a further tragedy that Roosevelt did not also take this view in 1945, acting against the advice of Winston Churchill. The people of Eastern Europe have only just finished paying for that mis-judgement. Perhaps the USA did not want to make a stand, fearing re-igniting a destructive war (Chamberlain had felt the same), cream cheese is found on both sides of the Atlantic.

The result is that after doing all that was humanly possible, including losing some of his own honour and other people's liberty, Chamberlain drew a line and stood by it, he prepared the country for war and as was demonstrated in 1940, Britain was ready, but only just. How ready was the USA in 1941.

Actually I find political history very interesting, you should try it sometime.



(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 89
RE: Theoretical invasion of England - 1/15/2009 9:12:13 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline 		I don’t think Sealion could ever have been successful, no matter what the assumptions. Jumping from an assumption to a ne plus ultra conclusion ignores all the intermediate steps.

What does it mean, to say the RAF lost the BoB? Does it mean that all the planes, pilots, infrastructure, organization etc.. are magically dead? Or just that the Luftwaffe achieved operational freedom and flexibility over an area? There were many portions of the UK that were outside the operational range of the Luftwaffe that could serve as re-organization, re-training sanctuaries, such that the RAF would always provide a threat to a Sealion op.

I don’t care how many minefields you lay, they are tactical and can be overcome by technique, tactics, and a sufficiency of gonads. That’s something I have never heard the RN accused of lacking.

Amphibious operations are so gigantically complex as to begger the imagination. Forget Tarawa, forget Saipan, forget Sicily, this is a country you are talking about, with all the psych factors involved with a 100% hostile environment. The Allied problems in landing 6 divisions, and establishing 16 divisions in Normandy are nothing compared to the problems Germany would face in an invasion of Britian.

The vestigal RAF would fly, and maybe die, but in the interim, they would kill, and kill. The RN would damn the mines and sail, and maybe die, but in the interim, they would kill, and kill. Germany didn’t have the lift.

Nope, couldn’t happen.


_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> RE: Theoretical invasion of England Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.953