Battle of Britain: Failure

[Woodlouse2002]

[quote]

Yeah, take a look at what happened to the Hood.

[Smoke2much]

LOL, knew it would needle you Woody.  I was being a little tongue in cheek.  I happen to agree with you.  I also think that even if the Germans had made it over the channel we would have kicked their collective assess back to Prussia.

No offense intended.

Will

[ATI_7500]

could we please concentrate on fictional events,not real history?

[Smoke2much]

Whoops! Sorry.

I don't think Germany would have the sheer numbers required to invade. That is one advantage that US had when going into Normandy.

We, not US.  The US did not provide all the manpower.

[Smoke2much]

No, I believe it is your good self who is kidding

British and Commonwealth (3 beaches) 75,214 men

United States (2 Beaches) 57,500 men

Airborne:

British and Commonwealth 7,900

United States 15,500

Total: British and Commonwealth = 83,114

United States = 73,000

http://www.warchronicle.com/numbers/WWI ... umbers.htm

Will

We were allies, they needed us and we needed them.

[Smoke2much]

Glad to be of service.

Will

[Scorpiоn]

Now, if I may, I'd like to guide us to the subject matter...

[Smoke2much]

Now, if I may, I'd like to guide us to the subject matter...

Sorry...

[Scorpiоn]

Yes. But the Luftwaffe had no experiance in attacking shipping. It would have taken time to destroy the whole navy. Whats more the battleships, crusiers and destroyers were practically bristling with AA guns. And then there are the aircraft carriers. It takes one hell of a lot to sink a battleship and the luftwaffe would take very heavy losses.

Basically, all the navy had to do is sink some of the transports as they crossed the channel. The Luftwaffe had to completely destroy one of the three biggest navys on the planet. No easy task.

P.s. The presence of a navy is what makes the German in invasion different from the Allied. Only six E-Boats went up against the entire fleet and only a single, norweigen destroyer was sunk. The german invasion force would have faced the entire Royal Navy. A navy that is rarely defeated.

Assuming the RAF has ceased to exist, the Luftwaffe would be free to sink, or for your sake, try to sink every ship that gets close to the transports.  Hypothetically, the Germans dash across the Channel, with nearly the entire Luftwaffe providing CAP.  My main point is the Royal Navy, at that time, was in no position to freely sacrifice it's ships in such a manner.  Destroyers for bases deal anyone?

[Smoke2much]

I think the sacrifice would have happened.  The defeat would have been total or the victory total, this was not a time for half measures.

A program that I watched recently implied, well stated, that sealion was an elaborate bluff intended to get Britain to negotiate peace.

If you dispassionately look at these isles in 1940 it is nearly impossible to gues what would have happened.  The success of Overlord was dependant on maintaining the bridgeheads level of supply.  It needed total air and naval superiority.  The Luftwaffe were unable to gain the air superiority an I don't know enough about the Kriegsmarine to make an educated assessment.

Will

[Hagar]

Silent is right. If we're to discuss this in the spirit it was intended we must do so dispassionately on a purely hypothetical basis.

Destroying the front line fighter bases would not have been enough to put the RAF out of action. They would have withdrawn to other airfields north of London & regrouped. There were also reserve squadrons of fighters & light bombers already based out of range of the aircraft in use by the Luftwaffe at that time. Although their response times would have been longer this would have enabled them to support the Royal Navy & attack shipping in the Channel at will.

Historically, the victor is usually the general that makes less mistakes than his opponent. Things rarely work out exactly as planned & plenty of mistakes are made in wartime.