If Germany had won the air, could Royal Navy have prevented a German invasion ?

Tarzan7

Wondering, the above. Now we know the German navy was the poor cousin of the German army and air force as the Germans were mainly about land conquest and Blitzkrieg tatics etc. So therefore I am very skeptical of the German navy taking control of the seas off the south east of England for an invasion.

However, is there a case that the Royal Navy ( RN ) would have risked unsustainable losses from attacks from the land based Luftwaffe in France if the Germans had won the Battle of Britain ( BoB) ?

exaisle

Tarzan7 wrote: »

Wondering, the above. Now we know the German navy was the poor cousin of the German army and air force as the Germans were mainly about land conquest and Blitzkrieg tatics etc. So therefore I am very skeptical of the German navy taking control of the seas off the south east of England for an invasion.

However, is there a case that the Royal Navy ( RN ) would have risked unsustainable losses from attacks from the land based Luftwaffe in France if the Germans had won the Battle of Britain ( BoB) ?

Why the abbreviations? (WTA?)

280special

Without a doubt if the Royal Air Force (RAF)had been defeated in the BOB then the invasion would have gone ahead and been successfull. The RN could never have operated in the narrow confines of the English channel or the southern North Sea with an unopposed Luftwaffe operating from bases in France and Holland. Lets not forget that daylight English channel convoys stopped in late July, due to Luftwaffe activity.

The deficiencies in RN anti-aircraft (AA)defences were very evident off Dunkirk and during the Norwegian debacle. Quite a few of their main armaments were unable to train high enough to engage aircraft once they were overhead, so not much use against Ju87's or 88's !!, and their secondary or AA armaments,especially on corvettes,destroyers and light cruisers, consisted of a few machine guns and, if they were lucky, one or two pom-poms.

The German Navy would not have been needed to handle the RN, the RN would have been blasted out of the water long before they got near the invasion fleet.

280special

exaisle wrote: »

Why the abbreviations? (WTA?)

Why not? makes it easier and quicker to type a reply !

Tarzan7

280special wrote: »

Without a doubt if the Royal Air Force (RAF)had been defeated in the BOB then the invasion would have gone ahead and been successfull. The RN could never have operated in the narrow confines of the English channel or the southern North Sea with an unopposed Luftwaffe operating from bases in France and Holland. Lets not forget that daylight English channel convoys stopped in late July, due to Luftwaffe activity.

The deficiencies in RN anti-aircraft (AA)defences were very evident off Dunkirk and during the Norwegian debacle. Quite a few of their main armaments were unable to train high enough to engage aircraft once they were overhead, so not much use against Ju87's or 88's !!, and their secondary or AA armaments,especially on corvettes,destroyers and light cruisers, consisted of a few machine guns and, if they were lucky, one or two pom-poms.

The German Navy would not have been needed to handle the RN, the RN would have been blasted out of the water long before they got near the invasion fleet.

Excellent.

TerrorFirmer

Absolutely true. Without RAF aircover, the RN would have been blown out of the water. There's no excuses, or provisions available - that's the naked truth. The Luftwaffe, operating from bases in France, Netherlands, etc, would have sunk the RN, without air cover, almost effortlessly.

Navy AA capability was largely based on sufficient air cover, not stationary defenses. Without sufficient local air cover, the RN was doomed to catastrophic results, regardless of the AA infastructure.

Indeed, with adequate aerial leadership, one would argue that the LW would have effortlessly forced the RAF to their knees. But, they didn't, and hindsight means little. They came incredibly close in 1940, but, not realizing the damage they were inflicting, switched to other methods.

War is a game of chance. And the battle of Britain, through various factors, was ultimately a game of chance throughout various factors in witch the British prevailed despite inferior air and manpower, to their eternal credit.

The world owes them that gratitude, despite their failures. Few can fault the British in that battle.

Stovepipe

The RN's inadequate AA cost them a lot of ships in the Med, later.It also earned them the undying enmity of the RAF, for their tendency to shoot first and identify later. I'd suggest though, that the Kriegsmarine's own AA was no great shakes, either, given that Swordfish operating at 90 feet and 90 knots (correct conditions for launching torpedos) managed to do them a lot of harm.
With regard to the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe had proved the point about the vulnerability of RN ships to steep dive bombing and the RN were loath to risk their ships off Dover but higher office thought better and insisted they escort useless convoys past Dover. Churchill almost lost the Navy's respect for him on that issue.

regards
Stovepipe

Ping Chow Chi

When I look at how much prep and build up the DDay landing took, with the US and British airforces having total control of the skies and their navies having total control of the sea and even then it wasn't a foregone conculsion, I can not see how Germany could have successfully invaded, not with the equipment that they had anyway.

Stovepipe

I think if the Germans had attempted to invade within a month of the evacuation of Dunkirk, they would have stood a good chance, if they had control of the air (even of a small section of the Channel). Britain had next to no artillery or tanks available, their war production was not fully in war mode and their Army was not in good condition. If the Germans had landed successfully, they would have needed to have amassed a large amount of artillery and tanks, as well as wheeled transport, to break out of the beachhead and sustain an advance, as well as keep the supply line protected from RN attack from the Med and North Channel and North Sea. Apart from that, Britain is about 800 miles long and densely populated, especially around the industrial Midlands, so it would have been a tough slog to conquer and occupy. They would have needed to bring over a very large occupation force, apart from the invasion army. Given that the German panzers were worn out by the time they reached Dunkirk, coupled with the loss of so many transport aircraft, it would have been miraculous if they could have made it across in one piece and then sustained themselves in another blitzkrieg.

regards
Stovepipe

Ping Chow Chi

Stovepipe wrote: »

I think if the Germans had attempted to invade within a month of the evacuation of Dunkirk, they would have stood a good chance

I agree that if the German army had managed to make a successfull landing and managed to keep a clear supply line a month after Dunkirk that they probably would have beaten the British (and allies) troops. But I think taking out the RAF and the RN in a month and mustering enough boats would have been a tall order.

My gut feeling is that if Germany had gone all out to invade Britian it would have found a way to be successfull, eventually. But it would have been at a high cost and that cost would have left it totally exposed to Russia.

I cant help feeling that using adapted barges to move an army accross the channel is not going to work though.

280special

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

When I look at how much prep and build up the DDay landing took, with the US and British airforces having total control of the skies and their navies having total control of the sea and even then it wasn't a foregone conculsion, I can not see how Germany could have successfully invaded, not with the equipment that they had anyway.

Different ball game completely.

In 1940 the Germans had the best tanks, best trained soldeiry and some of the best generals. The British had some good soldiers, a few tanks and anti-tank weapons, and damned all else. The British didnt have time to prepare proper anti-invasion defences and their only hope was the RAF, luckily for them, and the rest of us, the RAF did the job, helped by Fat Herman as he was called !

In 1944 the Germans still had the best tanks, some of the best trained soldiers,some of the best generals and had been preparing anti-invasion defences for years. The Allies didnt have great tanks, had relatively inexperienced and, in some cases, poorly trained soldiery. No one knew if they could overcome the defences or if the number of casualties would be too high to keep going. They didnt have the mass numbers or "cannon fodder" attitude of the Russians, even if they did send their Shermans out to take on Tigers knowing that in all probability 15 crewmen would die for every Tiger killed ...on a good day.

Thats why there was a question of doubt over the success of the invasion.

BUT the Allies did have air superiority and that proved to be as vital a factor as any. No Panzers, supplies or troops could move in safety during daylight, static defences were pounded to hell and back, and the factories were getting hit hard as well.

Stovepipe

@PingCC,
It's quite the fashion in British circles to deride the German barges but those barges were much bigger and more seaworthy than their British equivalent and still are! In a lot of cases, the only mod they needed was to fit a ramp for vehicles and a self-defence AA gun.I'm quite sure German engineers would have sorted out the ramp problem in due course. The Germans and other Europeans were well versed in the art of using large barges on their wide inland rivers. If they had got across in one piece, they would only have needed the most basic of port facilities to unload. I also think that the psychological shock to the British of having enemy troops ashore would have hindered a stout defence.

regards
Stovepipe

280special

Stovepipe wrote: »

I think if the Germans had attempted to invade within a month of the evacuation of Dunkirk, they would have stood a good chance, if they had control of the air (even of a small section of the Channel). Britain had next to no artillery or tanks available, their war production was not fully in war mode and their Army was not in good condition. If the Germans had landed successfully, they would have needed to have amassed a large amount of artillery and tanks, as well as wheeled transport, to break out of the beachhead and sustain an advance, as well as keep the supply line protected from RN attack from the Med and North Channel and North Sea. Apart from that, Britain is about 800 miles long and densely populated, especially around the industrial Midlands, so it would have been a tough slog to conquer and occupy. They would have needed to bring over a very large occupation force, apart from the invasion army. Given that the German panzers were worn out by the time they reached Dunkirk, coupled with the loss of so many transport aircraft, it would have been miraculous if they could have made it across in one piece and then sustained themselves in another blitzkrieg.

regards
Stovepipe

Good points but the fact is that the Luftwaffe would have decimated the RN if the RAF wasnt there, look at what happened in Malaya, Norway, Crete, Greece or Malta. As regards the midland, mass population areas, the Germans didnt concern themselves with "collaterial damage" too much, in fact they used mass panic to their advantage on many occasions. The figures for losses to the German JU52 fleet look drastic but quite a few of those were repaired and returned to service, that leaves in excess of a minimum of 250? Something over 4000 well trained,dedicated Fallschirmjager landing inland of the landing beaches would have been one heck of a headache for the British !

With regards to their armour and transport, with an invasion of southern England in August or September after the defeat of France in late june, 30-60 days would have given them plenty of time to service and repair their tanks and transport. And thats not allowing for items captured during the Battle of France or their reliance on horse drawn transport.

But then we also need to consider what would have happened in the Uk had an invasion taken place. What were the objectives of the inavsion? what targets would they have gone for? Would the British people and their government have held out or would the pro-Nazi tendencies of some of the British ruling classes have caused them to surrender ?

It could well be that the simple event of an invasion taking the southern counties would have been enough. And we would not be here now to debate the issue !

Ping Chow Chi

280special wrote: »

Good points but the fact is that the Luftwaffe would have decimated the RN if the RAF wasnt there, look at what happened in Malaya, Norway, Crete, Greece or Malta.

Didnt the Lufwaffe only destory one or two RN ships in Norway? And at dunkirk, despite their air superiority I think the RN only lost half a dozen ships?

getz

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

Didnt the Lufwaffe only destory one or two RN ships in Norway? And at dunkirk, despite their air superiority I think the RN only lost half a dozen ships?

england was desperately not prepared,the best they could come up with to stop a german invasion was plans to set a light the english channel ,or my favorite one was the goon show one,build a carboard replica ,and float it in the english channel,so when the germans land on it,they would burn it,only problem would be, what if the germans realized and dropped carboard bombs on it. [live in my world ,its much more fun]

Ping Chow Chi

Ha. Goon show.... that's going back some years!

I dont doubt that if both armies faced each other on a level playing field that the Germans would have won (though I doubt that they would have roll'ed over as easy as some seem to suggest) the problem was always getting the army on shore safe and securing a supply line.

BlaasForRafa

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

Didnt the Lufwaffe only destory one or two RN ships in Norway? And at dunkirk, despite their air superiority I think the RN only lost half a dozen ships?

The Royal Navy lost 6 destroyers with over 20 badly damaged, because of the shallowness of the water a number of ships were beached and then repaired. Don't forget that after Dunkirk Britain was so short of destroyers that it had to appeal to America for help.

In open waters though, like in the Crete campaign the Royal Navy suffered terribly. 3 cruisers were sunk along with 6 destroyers (including Mountbattens ship HMS Kelly) and the battleships Valiant and Warspite were badly damaged and out of action for months afterwards.

Jim S

Some interesting views, I agree and would differ with some.
The Kriegsmarine was never happy with the intention to invade as they said from the start they had neither the ships to transport Sealion nor the resources to defend it.( Most of their destroyer force having been lost in Norway).
Minefields featured heavily in their plans to keep the RN at bay and the laying of mines and sweeping of them was a never ending process by both sides.
The invasion would only have been launched if the RAF had been defeated and the circumstances for invasion were thankfully never achieved even if Coastal Convoys were badly disrupted and for a time stopped.
I don't know if the Luftwaffe would have destroyed the RN as they had at Crete , it is worth mentioning that the German surface ships heading for Crete were badly mauled and it is likely that German losses would have been high.
Supply would have been the Achilles heel , a spell of bad weather post invasion would have not been good for the Germans and transport aircraft were in short supply.
Had they achieved control of the air could they have kept it ?
Sealion was always going to be a very high risk venture , the crossing would have been long the craft were river craft not made for the sea , slow and mostly making head way under tow, any force arriving would have arrived cold wet , sea, sick and under fire - specialist craft they did not have.
The RN would have taken losses but it is likely that had they got amongst the invasion force they would have caused considerable damage.

Fratton Fred

Jim S wrote: »

The RN would have taken losses but it is likely that had they got amongst the invasion force they would have caused considerable damage.

I think that is the key. The RN has proven over the centuries (Thanks in part to the execution of John Byng) that they would fight until the bitter end, regardless of the odds.

The shape of the German invasion craft would not have required an awful lot of RN ships to have got in and routed them. For every ship the Luftwaffe sunk, there would have been another two ready and waiting to sacrifice themselves in the defence of the realm.

it may well have cost the RN the majority of its ships, but the Germans would have lost tens, if not hundreds of thousands of men.

Morlar

These are from a photo album in my posession :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71456964

showing preparations for Operation Sealion. & might be of interest







I think it's interesting to see them practice going over the sides and also landing with bicycles ready to roll.

Stovepipe

You're forgetting the potential of a successful airborne assault. If the Germans managed to keep a clear channel for even a few days, they would have had enough time to establish a paratroop/airlanded troops foothold, assuming they had managed to keep local air superiority. If they managed to get enough tanks and artillery ashore and caused a movement of population to clog roads, like in France and Holland, then they would have been very hard to dislodge. I recall reading about Sealion being wargamed by historians and that the conclusion was that RN intervention from the Med, as well as other Empire intervention, such as from Canada, would have tipped the balance. As Fratton Fred says, the RN would fight tooth and nail to stop a seaward invasion and their size would have allowed them to sustain heavy losses and still intervene against a German fleet (which, incidentally, would have been boosted by all the captured merchant fleets of Western Europe).

regards
Stovepipe

DarylH

Despite the greatness of the RN at this time if the Luftwaffe owned the air to begin with they could easily help the German Navy own the sea, regardless of past achievements of the RN avoiding letting the Luftwaffe destroy some of there ships I would argue that with air superiority they could easily destroy more ships than they could build & do this on a daily basis.
Of course this is all in theory and opinion,
given the BoB was always going to be won by the British.

Jim S

Given that the Germans would have been depending on fighters to sustain that air superiority and the lack of ability shown by the 110 to mix it with the Hurricane and Spitfire the fight would have fallen on the 109.
The invasion fleet was never going to be a sprinter - mostly towed it would have been quite a task to bring it to GB shores in good order , to keep aircover over it would have been an exhausting task.
As far as keeping this up for a few days , escorting or clearing the way for JU-52's the Luftwaffe didn't have the resources and taking losses could not have sustained the effort.
(As far as paratroopers went the Luftwaffe was very short of transport aircraft and as yet did not have a large glider force.)

Invasion, only if a collapse of the RAF was to take place and given Goring's direction of the battle that chance was lost early on.

Derfelcadarn

Germany didn't like paratroops. They mostly deployed Fallschirmjaeger as elite troops after Crete, because of the high losses they took in landing. They didn't have the will or the transport aircraft to get large numbers of troops on the ground. To get large numbers of troops ashore across the Channel, they'd have had to use flatbottomed barges and whatnot from the Rhine, it'd be like a reverse Dunkirk.
While the RN would take heavy losses assuming Luftwaffe air superiority, they'd take their lumps in defence of the realm. Even without battleships, enough destroyers, frigates, minesweepers and corvettes sailing through the centre of an invasion force would sink a sizable chunk purely with bow waves and wake turbulence.
Also, the Wehrmacht were hurting and stretched, with a lot of their vehicles damaged. Many generals opposed Seelowe unless the army got six months to rest, rearm and replace losses.

280special

Jim S wrote: »

Given that the Germans would have been depending on fighters to sustain that air superiority and the lack of ability shown by the 110 to mix it with the Hurricane and Spitfire the fight would have fallen on the 109.
The invasion fleet was never going to be a sprinter - mostly towed it would have been quite a task to bring it to GB shores in good order , to keep aircover over it would have been an exhausting task.Hardly, their bases were by then very close to the channel. As it was the majority of the planned invasion beeches were in SE England within easy range of the 109 and the route for at least those barges going from Boulogne, Calais and Dunkirk werent that great. If you look at German thinking before d-day you can see their thinking quite clearly, they expected the Allies to come by the shortest,easiest route, largely the route they had planned to use in reverse in 1940...
As far as keeping this up for a few days , escorting or clearing the way for JU-52's the Luftwaffe didn't have the resources and taking losses could not have sustained the effort. But their plan was to have effectively cleared the air of the RAF before launching the invasion, Fighter command would have been decimated before the Ju52's appeared.
(As far as paratroopers went the Luftwaffe was very short of transport aircraft and as yet did not have a large glider force.)

Invasion, only if a collapse of the RAF was to take place and given Goring's direction of the battle that chance was lost early on.

Yes, thank god for Goring !!

280special

Derfelcadarn wrote: »

Germany didn't like paratroops. ??? They were amongst the pioneers, formed in 1936, they were the elite of the elite regarded as the poster boys of Nazi Germany and Goring's Luftwaffe,they used them very, very successfully in Norway, Holland and Belguim !! They mostly deployed Fallschirmjaeger as elite troops after Crete, because of the high losses they took in landing. They didn't have the will What about the plan to land paratroops and glider infantry on the vital target of Lympne airfield in Kent ? or the transport aircraft to get large numbers of troops on the ground.I would suggest you check out Hitler's war directive To get large numbers of troops ashore across the Channel, they'd have had to use flatbottomed barges and whatnot from the Rhine, it'd be like a reverse Dunkirk. But Dunkirk was a successfull if costly seaborne operation, 338000 troops moved in the face of artillery and air attacks isnt to be sneezed at !
While the RN would take heavy losses assuming Luftwaffe air superiority, they'd take their lumps in defence of the realm. Even without battleships, enough destroyers, frigates, minesweepers and corvettes sailing through Ignoring all those Bf-109's,Ju88's, Ju87's, Do-17's,He-111's and Fw-200's buzzing around their heads ? the centre of an invasion force would sink a sizable chunk purely with bow waves and wake turbulence.Right.....
Also, the Wehrmacht were hurting and stretched, with a lot of their vehicles damaged. Many generals opposed Seelowe unless the army got six months to rest, rearm and replace losses.

..

280special

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

Didnt the Lufwaffe only destory one or two RN ships in Norway? And at dunkirk, despite their air superiority I think the RN only lost half a dozen ships?

At Dunkirk the RN lost 6 destroyers, the French lost 3 with a lot damaged. But what isnt covered in those figures are the other large ships that were lost or damaged, including coastal patrol ships, transports, etc.

In the Norway Campaign the RN lost a lot of ships, not all at the hands of the Luftwaffe but some indirectly through the fear of air attack. For instance HMS Effingham ran onto some rocks when sailing in poor visability and at speed in fear of being caught by air attack.

Even when specifically equipped for AA work the RN didnt fare too well against the Luftwaffe, Curacoa & Cairo were severly damaged by bombs, Curlew sank. The ordinary cruiser Suffolk barely made it back to Scapa.

The destroyers Gurka, Afridi, Bison(French), Grom (Polish) were all sunk, and the British also lost a Submarine captured by a combination of German Air and sea power !

Norway is perhaps a good example of what might have happened to the RN in the event of the Luftwaffe defeating Fighter Command and the RN sending their fleet south to defeat a German invasion in the face of german aircraft based only a few miles away across the channel.....total destruction beckoned for Jack Tar !

Jim S

280special

Hardly, their bases were by then very close to the channel. As it was the majority of the planned invasion beeches were in SE England within easy range of the 109 and the route for at least those barges going from Boulogne, Calais and Dunkirk werent that great. If you look at German thinking before d-day you can see their thinking quite clearly, they expected the Allies to come by the shortest,easiest route, largely the route they had planned to use in reverse in 1940...

Still not a lot of time to have in the air especially as coordination of transports and escorts would have been a problem.
With an invasion under way the RAF would have moved reserves in from the North to take on the immediate threat and every transport lost would be a major blow to the Luftwaffe, not to mention the troops lost.
Crete - even with air superiority the Germans came within an ace of being defeated - I feel they might have fared worse in England.

But their plan was to have effectively cleared the air of the RAF before launching the invasion, Fighter command would have been decimated before the Ju52's appeared.

True but in the event of invasion the RAF would still not have been absent and in clearing the sky the Luftwaffe would also have been significantly weakened.

I agree , thank God for Herman G. !

mountainyman

RN 5 capital ships, 11 cruisers, 53 Destroyers
KM 1 capital ship, 1 cruiser, 20-30 Submarines

RAF 570 Hurricanes and Spitfires
LW 600 Me109s (750 bombers)

It depends what you mean by 'Won in the Air'.
Even if the airbases in the south of England had been destroyed the Luftwaffe couldn't have had complete air superiority and the gap between the KM and the RN is ludicrous.

Anyway the point is moot the English were better.

http://www.changingthetimes.net/samples/brooks/why_sealion_is_not_an_option.htm

Fr.Jack

So the English kept the Germans back. Right. LOL

Snickers Man

I think the whole idea of Operation Sealion was perfunctory and incidental. It is part of the British mythology of WWII that they successfully bet back a German invasion which was very unlikely to have been instigated anyway, even if the Luftwaffe had managed to destroy the RAF on the ground.

The reasons have been cited above. Densely populated country, too difficult to manage, a massive drain on resources.....Hitler had more important things to do than keep the British down at heel. All he wanted was the British Army out of the continent and Britian put back in its box. A negotiated peace with Britain keeping its Empire (like France was able to do) would have been the ideal result for Hitler.

The second best result was what he got:

• An emasculated British Army fighting the Italians in the desert for a couple of years while the Wehrmacht got on with the major project of capturing Russia as far as the Urals.
  
• The Royal Navy tied up on convoy escort duty and not able to enforce the sort of blockade that eventually won the First World War. Not that they would have been able to close down the French Atlantic coast as easily as they had the North and Baltic Seas.
  
• A fledgling Bomber Command who for the next two years got pasted by the German defences whenever they tried to bomb Germany proper.

It was the Soviet Union who won WWII, not the British Army. That should be self evident, but it's to be expected that the average Briton experiences a bit of cognitive dissonance on that point.