Could Germany have invaded England ?

PatsytheNazi

Let's say the Luftwaffe won air supremecy. But I wonder how they could have dealt with the British navy which was much larger and better equiped than the Germans whose navy was the poor relation as their conquest was land based relying on the army and air force. And since the Germans method to cross the channel was mainly canal barges from Holland used to transfer goods on the Rhine, surely they would not have been suitable for a sea crossing and would have been shot to pieces by the British Navy ? And also, how would they have transported thier tanks etc with suitable sea craft ?

So therefore, did Germany have a realistic chance of invading England ?

Fratton Fred

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Let's say the Luftwaffe won air supremecy. But I wonder how they could have dealt with the British navy which was much larger and better equiped than the Germans whose navy was the poor relation as their conquest was land based relying on the army and air force. And since the Germans method to cross the channel was mainly canal barges from Holland used to transfer goods on the Rhine, surely they would not have been suitable for a sea crossing and would have been shot to pieces by the British Navy ? And also, how would they have transported thier tanks etc with suitable sea craft ?

So therefore, did Germany have a realistic chance of invading England ?

No.

However, had the Vichy government decided to hand over the French Fleet to the Germans, then I believe there would have been a real possibility as the combined German French Fleet would have been as large, if not larger than the British.

PatsytheNazi

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No.

However, had the Vichy government decided to hand over the French Fleet to the Germans, then I believe there would have been a real possibility as the combined German French Fleet would have been as large, if not larger than the British.

Yes it seems to be the case alright. So why did the Germans go ahead with the Battle of Britain if they would have been too weak to do a channel crossing ?

Ping Chow Chi

If Germany had taken complete control of the sky over the south of Britian it may have forced the British to look for a peace treaty with Germany. Plus while it looked like the Germans where focusing on Britian, Stalin thought that Russia would be safe from invasion.

I think Hitler was hoping to force Britian into signing a peace treaty, before quickly launching a full scale attack on Russia.

I really think that an invasion of Britian, especially in the 1200 barges they had prepared would have been a foolish adventure. They might have pulled it off, but in my opinion the chances of it going wrong where much much higher.

Fratton Fred

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Yes it seems to be the case alright. So why did the Germans go ahead with the Battle of Britain if they would have been too weak to do a channel crossing ?

Britain were still a threat and as the previous poster said, Germany wanted them out of the way. Don't forget, as well as the battle of Britain, there was also the war in the Atlantic as well.

PatsytheNazi

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

If Germany had taken complete control of the sky over the south of Britian it may have forced the British to look for a peace treaty with Germany. Plus while it looked like the Germans where focusing on Britian, Stalin thought that Russia would be safe from invasion.

I think Hitler was hoping to force Britian into signing a peace treaty, before quickly launching a full scale attack on Russia.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Britain were still a threat and as the previous poster said, Germany wanted them out of the way. Don't forget, as well as the battle of Britain, there was also the war in the Atlantic as well.

Yes, I have wondered if

(A)the Battle of Britain's purpose was to give Britain a very bloody nose by the Luftwaffe inflicting massive damage to British industry as well as the U Boats in the Atlantic (which it did) so put Britain out of the war as a major threat (which was the case until America came in)

(B) to act as a decoy before the invasion of the USSR. But since the Battle of Britain was in 1940 and invasion of the USSR in 1941, therefore does it not hold up ?

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

I really think that an invasion of Britian, especially in the 1200 barges they had prepared would have been a foolish adventure. They might have pulled it off, but in my opinion the chances of it going wrong where much much higher.

Also agree with you there, but maybe Hitler was prepared to do it anyway as his fanaticism hardly ever stopped him acting against expert advice. I suppose we'll never know.

FiSe

I doubt very much that German invasion of Britain was ever taken seriously. German top brass knew very well, that they haven't got enough of resources to do it successfully.
They had not enough of ships to transport the troops and material and patrol the invading areas from the sea and supply routes, Luftwaffe was a bit of a joke when in comes to a long range support of the troops, be it bombing or fighter, over the UK as they didn't have aircraft capable of such missions.

In my personal view, BoB was there to give a lesson to the Brits because of their miraculous Dunquerke escape. And all the invasion preparations were there to put Britain under massive pressure and, basically, to keep them out of the way for as long as possible.
Another question is the alleged Soviet attack on Germany, which could play a role in the outcome of the German 'British adventure'.

Anyway, Germany could have invade Britain, but not with the equipment they had during WWII, if the outcome of the war would have been different, if the Germany would get together enough of manpower, aircraft, fuell supplies....
Isn't that '46 DUST Game scenario?

PatsytheNazi

Well the consenus seems to be that Germany had no real intention of invading Britain but just wanted to give UK a very bloody nose. No doubting the bravery and tenacity of the RAF in the Battle of Britain but well, it seems the Germans achieved their objective of wrecking industrially and bringing financial ruin on Britain.

We were as well out of it, what could we have offered but to be cannon fodder for the Luftwaffe.

tadcan

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Well the consenus seems to be that Germany had no real intention of invading Britain but just wanted to give UK a very bloody nose. No doubting the bravery and tenacity of the RAF in the Battle of Britain but well, it seems the Germans achieved their objective of wrecking industrially and bringing financial ruin on Britain.

We were as well out of it, what could we have offered but to be cannon fodder for the Luftwaffe.

The Luftwaffe very nearly destroyed the RAF at the start of the BoB. When some an RAF attack bombed Berlin, Hitler order British cities to be destroyed instead. This gave the RAF a chance to build up their strength.

Their was apparently a crackpot plan to invade Ireland, kill the Irish and turn the island into a bread basket for the Aryan nation.

bubonicus

I think they could have, but didn't because of one mistake and a lot of bad decision's.

After Dunkirk the Germans had the British on the run and most of their equipment was left behind, So British fighting capabilites where severly reduced.

The start of the Luftwaffe campaign was bombing shipping lanes in the channel, A job they did really well, becasue the RAF only fought raids over England trying to conserve their forces because they where badly outnumbered.

Also Just as the Luftwaffe had brought the RAF to it's knee's, One bomber run missed a military target and hit London, Which Churchill responded with bombing Berlin. Which in turn made the Luftwaffe bomb London and starting the blitz and forgetting about the RAF. Giving the RAF time to regroup.

edit : damn you tadcan, just in before me.....

Mr. Presentable

I'd say no, but it was likely never part of any plan. Had the USA not gotten involved it is probable a treaty would have been reached, with Germany holding France, Belgium, Nederlands, and England being granted Greece and North Africa.

PatsytheNazi

nipplenuts wrote: »

I'd say no, but it was likely never part of any plan. Had the USA not gotten involved it is probable a treaty would have been reached, with Germany holding France, Belgium, Nederlands, and England being granted Greece and North Africa.

I remember hearing that Hitler had proposed that Britain could keep it's overseas colonies, India, West Indies etc if they kept out of Europe ? If Germany hadn't got invovled with the USSR, they could have quite easily have defeated Britain in Africa just as they had done in Norway, Crete etc

As for Greece, Musolini dragged Germany into taking that.

Mr. Presentable

The US invaded through Southern Europe because they had to keep the English from establishing colonies there. Germany was not alone in having expansionist dreams.

FiSe

nipplenuts wrote: »

The US invaded through Southern Europe because they had to keep the English from establishing colonies there. Germany was not alone in having expansionist dreams.

Absolutely, while British were hiding on the British Isles, the US Army went to beat the Germans in Africa and then liberated Italy and Southern France. Only then the British realised their mistake and opened 2nd front in Normandy.

Fratton Fred

nipplenuts wrote: »

The US invaded through Southern Europe because they had to keep the English from establishing colonies there. Germany was not alone in having expansionist dreams.

Colonies where? Italy?

Fratton Fred

FiSe wrote: »

Absolutely, while British were hiding on the British Isles, the US Army went to beat the Germans in Africa and then liberated Italy and Southern France. Only then the British realised their mistake and opened 2nd front in Normandy.

Thankfully the US defeated the Italian fleet in Taranto and then stopped the Axis at El Alamein otherwise it could have been a lot different.;)

Mr. Presentable

The Yanks believed Churchill wanted to colonise Greece and yes, possibly Italy.

getz

nipplenuts wrote: »

The Yanks believed Churchill wanted to colonise Greece and yes, possibly Italy.

what are you smoking

gbee

Some historians say Hitler had no intention of invading Britain at all, hence his apparent unpreparedness for such an event. Hitler was expecting a peace treaty, it never came.

However, despite this, Britain was defenceless BUT her spy and misdirection network actually fooled Hitler into thinking that the land forces were in fact much greater than previously thought of.

Those rubber inflatable tanks may have done as much to win the war as the RAF and the convoy ships.

Hitler had plans to invade of course, as he had plans to invade Cork and seize the port ~ BTW Churchill was also planning to reinvade and seize the ports [back] ~ hence the stand off with Dev.

The British fleet would have been massacred by the U-Boats stationed in Cork, Bantry Galway, Belfast and both northern and southern supply routes would have been effectively sealed off ~ you know how successful these boats were with a very thin supply and support base, so you can imagine how effective if they had bases so close to land instead of in France.

Keep in mind always in the war analysis that the USA was more in favour of supporting Hitler than Churchill ~ and the canny US president had to exploit the expected Japanese attack on Pearl to swing public favour his way, ie to support Churchill.

So at the time we are speaking about, Britain stood very much alone, had a defeated army with all of its equipment left in Dunkirk, its navy fighting a losing battle in the North Atlantic and Germany still had its three most powerful battleships which totally outgunned anything the British had, and they only needed a little support to make them a fierce fighting force, but Hitler was saving them for a perceived bigger battle with Russia ~ Russia was Hitler’s target all along, he really did not want a war with Britain and if he had in fact invaded he’d have won convincingly ~ but that window of opportunity passed as the Air Battle of Britain dragged on though the Summer, the RAF were a totally ineffective ground attack force at that time and a few 88’s would have polished them off ~ but Hitler did not know this.

PatsytheNazi

gbee wrote: »

Some historians say Hitler had no intention of invading Britain at all, hence his apparent unpreparedness for such an event. Hitler was expecting a peace treaty, it never came.

However, despite this, Britain was defenceless BUT her spy and misdirection network actually fooled Hitler into thinking that the land forces were in fact much greater than previously thought of.

Those rubber inflatable tanks may have done as much to win the war as the RAF and the convoy ships.

Was it not the American's who thought up of these very clever decoys and put them into very good effect for D Day ?

Hitler had plans to invade of course, as he had plans to invade Cork and seize the port ~ BTW Churchill was also planning to reinvade and seize the ports [back] ~ hence the stand off with Dev.

The British fleet would have been massacred by the U-Boats stationed in Cork, Bantry Galway, Belfast and both northern and southern supply routes would have been effectively sealed off ~ you know how successful these boats were with a very thin supply and support base, so you can imagine how effective if they had bases so close to land instead of in France.

Keep in mind always in the war analysis that the USA was more in favour of supporting Hitler than Churchill ~ and the canny US president had to exploit the expected Japanese attack on Pearl to swing public favour his way, ie to support Churchill.

Thought the USA was very pro Britain as it was selling arms to them and loaned millions as part of the Lend Lease arrangement to Britain before Pearl Harbour ?

So at the time we are speaking about, Britain stood very much alone, had a defeated army with all of its equipment left in Dunkirk, its navy fighting a losing battle in the North Atlantic and Germany still had its three most powerful battleships which totally outgunned anything the British had, and they only needed a little support to make them a fierce fighting force, but Hitler was saving them for a perceived bigger battle with Russia ~ Russia was Hitler’s target all along, he really did not want a war with Britain and if he had in fact invaded he’d have won convincingly ~ but that window of opportunity passed as the Air Battle of Britain dragged on though the Summer, the RAF were a totally ineffective ground attack force at that time and a few 88’s would have polished them off ~ but Hitler did not know this.

You may have a point there, Hitler was getting ready for the BIG one against the USSR.

Fratton Fred

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

[/B]
You may have a point there, Hitler was getting ready for the BIG one against the USSR.

He was, there was no doubt about that, but all the time Britain remained in the war, he had to guard his Western front. Additionally, as GBee stated above, the German navy had some impressive ships that would have blockaded Russia, but as it was, they were kept pretty occupied by either the Royal Navy, or the RAF.

Scharnhorst, Bismarck, Tirpitz and Gneisenau, along with the German cruisers would have had a free reign in the North Atlantic and would have had little problem destroying the Soviet Navy.

Tabnabs

gbee wrote: »

The British fleet would have been massacred by the U-Boats stationed in Cork, Bantry Galway, Belfast and both northern and southern supply routes would have been effectively sealed off ~ you know how successful these boats were with a very thin supply and support base, so you can imagine how effective if they had bases so close to land instead of in France.

This is an interesting theory, but I'm not convinced it stacks up. The northern French coast is even closer to the UK but the German Navy didn't base any submarine pens here (1st and 9th flotillas in Brest being the closest)? I think the RN and the RAF would have kept a very close watch on the U Boat activity from any bases in Ireland and would have made life as difficult as possible. Surely the bases in France and Norway could have been just as effective as bases in Ireland?

sealgaire

FiSe wrote: »

Absolutely, while British were hiding on the British Isles, the US Army went to beat the Germans in Africa and then liberated Italy and Southern France. Only then the British realised their mistake and opened 2nd front in Normandy.

Wasn't it Churchill that pushed for the invasion from the south and Africa?

Empire o de Sun

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Colonies where? Italy?

They probably would have looked to consolidate their control of the Med. Remember, WW1 was about "fighting for freedom" but after the war Britain and France ended up with larger empires.

I do think that Hitler initially didn't want to invade Britain, as then what would happen to it's empire. Germany didn't have the resources to take over it. I think that maybe he was looking for a peace treaty in which Britain cooperated with Germany in supplying resources which it didn't have. Germany had very few natural resources for modern warfare, only the USA, USSR and Britain (via it's empire) had access to all the resources needed to fight a modern mechanised war. Germany had some, and the ones it did have it didn't have in the quantities needed except maybe coal.


Just remembered, the USSR was supplying Nazi Germany until it invaded it with raw materials that it needed. Stalin even increased deliveries to buy more time,,,, he thought.

Fratton Fred

Dyflin wrote: »

This is an interesting theory, but I'm not convinced it stacks up. The northern French coast is even closer to the UK but the German Navy didn't base any submarine pens here (1st and 9th flotillas in Brest being the closest)? I think the RN and the RAF would have kept a very close watch on the U Boat activity from any bases in Ireland and would have made life as difficult as possible. Surely the bases in France and Norway could have been just as effective as bases in Ireland?

When you consider the amount of Bombing Kiel and Brest were subjected to, Cork would have been flattened.

gbee

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

[/B] Thought the USA was very pro Britain as it was selling arms to them and loaned millions as part of the Lend Lease arrangement to Britain before Pearl Harbour ?.

The President was pro Britain and he was supplying aid but he was limited by his charter as he did not have the backing of congress.

Many schemes and initiatives were started before the USA could join the war, it was very difficult to supply 'military' aid and hardware. And the US Navy could not engage the U-Boats patrolling their eastern seaboard.

As you know, once the US declared war on Germany the U-Boat menace was pushed into the mid north Atlantic, where, despite losses, massive aid, trucks, tanks, troops poured over got through.

kmick

They might not have been able to invade England but the Nazi's would have done a lot of damage with air superiority over the UK and could have attacked naval bases and propaganda targets all over the place.

getz

its a open secret ,but in the early 60s as a second steward on a cargo liner that we took to scrap in glasgow,it was my job [as the captains steward] to help him,i was called up to his cabin so i would be with him when he opened the safe ,and destroyed all the paperwork,among the many envelopes was one that had a goverment seal, the skipper told me that it was ment to be opened only in a emergency in case of a war ect,as the ship was a pre 1940s built vessel it had been in the safe since since then, i remember him saying to me,in case of a war[britain being invaded ] the ship was to go where the goverment in exile was, at that time it was in montreal,so i think germany would know that the war would not finish if britain had fell in the hands of the nazi.

Tabnabs

Apologies for the thread drift, but similar to the story above. During the 60s plans were drawn up for the British Merchant Fleet to do the same job. I know of one captain whose ship was visited/inspected by civil servants and he was told off the record the reason for their arrival. It seems to have been the standard UK government back up plan for invasion.

getz

Dyflin wrote: »

Apologies for the thread drift, but similar to the story above. During the 60s plans were drawn up for the British Merchant Fleet to do the same job. I know of one captain whose ship was visited/inspected by civil servants and he was told off the record the reason for their arrival. It seems to have been the standard UK government back up plan for invasion.

there was also a problem in the 60s, that if war started it would be a nuclear one,europe would be in a mess,many of the new merchant fleets had been built for that in mind,the shipping company i was on manchester liners,was no exception,all its new container ships could pump a wall of water around the ship,theory being it would have been able to sail through nuclear fallout, thank god we did not have to find out,

Fratton Fred

Dyflin wrote: »

Apologies for the thread drift, but similar to the story above. During the 60s plans were drawn up for the British Merchant Fleet to do the same job. I know of one captain whose ship was visited/inspected by civil servants and he was told off the record the reason for their arrival. It seems to have been the standard UK government back up plan for invasion.

In Churchill's famous speach, he wasn't joking when he said "We, will never surrender".

danbohan

Fratton Fred wrote: »

In Churchill's famous speach, he wasn't joking when he said "We, will never surrender".

yea they said that in singapore too !

gbee

danbohan wrote: »

yea they said that in singapore too !

Yup, massive mistake there. If Churchill put his fingers [stupidly IMO] up to a superior force, then the surrender of the British forces in Singapore could be seen as treasonable.

getz

gbee wrote: »

Yup, massive mistake there. If Churchill put his fingers [stupidly IMO] up to a superior force, then the surrender of the British forces in Singapore could be seen as treasonable.

to lose one battle,is to be expected,to win the war is the important bit. and that is what churchill did .[and against all the odds]

LordSutch

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Let's say the Luftwaffe won air supremecy. But I wonder how they could have dealt with the British navy which was much larger and better equiped than the Germans whose navy was the poor relation
So therefore, did Germany have a realistic chance of invading England ?

Thanks to the RAF the Luftwaffe didin't win air supremacy, and the same goes for the Royal Navy who out gunned the German Navy > which leaves your whole hypothesis shot down in flames

gbee

LordSutch wrote: »

Thanks to the RAF the Luftwaffe didin't win air supremacy, and the same goes for the Royal Navy who out gunned the German Navy > which leaves your whole hypothesis shot down in flames

It's supposed to be a hypothesis, not an actual history lesson.

Germany did have air supremacy and beat the RAF to a handful of planes. For a while the Luftwaffe could come and go with impunity. Now, if Hitler had continued to fight for the very last RAF plane, instead of switching to bombing London ~ now we are in hypothesis territory again ...

Continue now, as Hermann Göring, I've just defeated you miserable RAF, London, England is only defended by a few home guards with pea shooter ja?

Fratton Fred

danbohan wrote: »

yea they said that in singapore too !

everyone loves a wit, even half a one.

Mycroft H

FiSe wrote: »

Absolutely, while British were hiding on the British Isles, the US Army went to beat the Germans in Africa and then liberated Italy and Southern France. Only then the British realised their mistake and opened 2nd front in Normandy.

What about the Desert front?? That was primarily a british operation

RadioRetro

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Was it not the American's who thought up of these very clever decoys and put them into very good effect for D Day ?

Nope, that was a British wheeze through and through. As were the 'funnies', tanks adapted for different roles on the beachheads, eg., flame-throwing, minesweeping, (barely) amphibious. The Yanks wanted nothing to do with the latter, btw, which is why they had none.

this book tells the whole story and is an entertaining read.

PatsytheNazi

RadioRetro wrote: »

Nope, that was a British wheeze through and through. As were the 'funnies', tanks adapted for different roles on the beachheads, eg., flame-throwing, minesweeping, (barely) amphibious. The Yanks wanted nothing to do with the latter, btw, which is why they had none.

this book tells the whole story and is an entertaining read.

Yes, their was as English guy called Hobart who was a magican before the war, who invented the " funnies " - and they actually worked I think he made tanks and so on out of timber in the Desert War and also came up with ideas for D Day.

Used to lay a solid surface ofr tanks and lorries to pass over soft ground.

I'd imagine decoy of some sort have been used in war since time began, but I think the rubber inflatable tanks that gbee speaks of in post #19 were developed by the Americans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DummyShermanTank.jpg

FiSe

landyman wrote: »

What about the Desert front?? That was primarily a british operation

Oh no, you got it all wrong, they were busy colonising Italy, when the Italian army was out partying with ze Germans

Steyr

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

but I think the rubber inflatable tanks that gbee speaks of in post #19 were developed by the Americans

Stiil a practice used by Russia today!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/howaboutthat/7563546/Russias-inflatable-decoy-weapons-and-military-hardware-in-pictures.html