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

Stovepipe

@getz, the account I read was from an RAF pilot's story as one of the Hurricane pilots operating over the Med. He said that one 109 struck Fiji with a 250 kg bomb, which stopped it. A second 109 finished it.His words, not mine. Fiji's decks were said to have been crowded with soldiers.
@jawgap, there is plenty of photographic evidence of German beach obstacles well out from the high tide mark, such as poles with Teller mines on them.

regards
Stovepipe

BlaasForRafa

getz wrote: »

this is what happened,to HMS fiji, she had expanded all of her ammunition fighting off numerous attack for over two hrs,she was hit by several bombs from messerschmit bf 109s, before a aircraft jagdeschwader 77 dropped a bomb close alongside and blew in the fijis bottom plates,she was then hit by three bombs dropped by a junkes ju 88, thats a lot different than your story,she was a sitting duck that could no longer fight back.

Can you quote a source for the Ju88 attack?, because I can't locate any.

I've checked several books for the attack on the Fiji. From The Lost Battle by Calum MacDonald (Fiji had been under attack by Ju87's by this point for several hours and her companion ship HMS Gloucester had already been sunk)

At 1745, however she was spotted by a Messerschmitt 109 which dived out of the overcast and scored a direct hit with a single bomb. The blast blew out the bottom of the ship, the engines stopped and she lay dead in the water, listing heavily. Shortly afterwards a second bomb hit the main boiler room and brought down the mainmast, which was still flying a yellow air-raid warning flag. At 2015 she turned over and sank

From Junkers Ju87 in North Africa and the Mediterranean by John Weal

Singled out by Oblt Dr. Ernst Kupfers 3./StG 1, the 9,400 ton Gloucester was hit repeatedly and brought to a standstill, badly on fire. The ship which had survived attack by II/StG 2 off Malta in January was not to escape a second time. Within minutes she had gone under. (Retiring southwards still under heavy air attack, the Fiji was sunk soon afterwards by Bf109 fighter-bombers)

And from the same book, in reference to comments made about destroyers being flung about making for hard targets the fate of the Kelly and Kashmir might make enlightening reading

At 0755 hours they were spotted by more than 20 Ju87s of I/StG 2 led by Gruppenkommandeur Hubertus Hitschhold. The dive-bombers attacked immediately. After taking a hit amidships, Kashmir sunk in less than 2 minutes. Despite violent evasive manoeuvres, Kelly could not escape the same fate, a bomb striking her in the engine room and causing her to capsize almost at once - half the ships company went down with the destroyer.

Ellis Dee

When I studied history, it was driven into my head that what it is all about is what happened (Leopold von Ranke "Wie es gewesen ist"), not what would have happened in some or other alternative timeline. However, the Japanese demonstrated very clearly in Pearl Harbour that the era of dreadnoughts and capital vessels was well and truly over and that the future now lay with air power, including the carrier-based sort. It was just too bad for them that they missed the American carriers and the USA was able to match them, and to spare, when it came to building both aircraft and carriers.:cool:

The attack on Pearl Harbour was a surprise, and happened without a declaration of war, but only three days later two of the Royal Navy's mightiest vessels - the Prince of Wales and the Repulse - were sunk in a couple of hours near Singapore. They were in a declared war and as well prepared as they could be, but against air power they had no chance.

Accordingly, it seems unlikely that the Royal Navy could have stopped a German invasion of Britain without the support of the RAF. The Germans could have taken their time and bombed the fleet to shreds and then invaded, and by then there would have been no Royal Navy.:)

Jawgap

Stovepipe wrote: »

......
@jawgap, there is plenty of photographic evidence of German beach obstacles well out from the high tide mark, such as poles with Teller mines on them.

regards
Stovepipe

that is indeed true - there are obstacles further up beaches out of the water which were designed to impede mobility, but the teller mine topped nutcrackers, hedgehogs, tetrahedrons etc were all placed in the inter-tidal area. Why place a mine on a 2 metre high hedgehog if it's on the dry beach? Better to plant an explosive just behind it to catch troops out as they shelter from incoming fire. Even better - save the mine and plot the obstacles for pre-selected artillery fire missions to hit anyone unfortunate enough to duck behind them.

The idea for the teller mine equipped stuff was that the Germans thought the Allies would land at high-water which meant the mines would be just under the water where landing craft could trigger them as they came in over them.

If the Germans expected the Allies to land on a rising tide, they'd have found some way to plant explosives just below the water level at low tide - that they didn't suggests they expected any landing to be conducted according to their flawed logic, at high tide.

to come back on topic, the Germans might have been a formidable land army, but they lacked a tradition of amphibious operations and as a result they had trouble defending against operations such as Overlord and Shingle (the Anzio landings) - they might have been masters of the counter-attack, but, apart from Jubilee (the Dieppe Raid), is there an example of them pushing a determined landing back into the sea?

This lack of tradition, an unsuitable doctrine and unimaginative planning would have doomed any potential crossing of the Channel.

Stovepipe

@jawgap, I don't know. I reckon they did well to give such a rigorous defence of Dieppe, given that they used a mix of sailors, regular soldiers, dockyard men, anti-aircraft gunners, artillerists and any other warm body that could be armed and sent into battle. I also think they gave a very good account of themselves at Anzio and Salerno, courtesy of Kesselring's ability to find enough men out of thin air to block gaps in the line. They also had the advantage in Normandy defensive positions, of being able to preregister the beaches for artillery fire and use a one-word coding system to bring down fire on any sector of the beach. So, they seemed to have some class of a grip on the job of defending beaches. I also think that what they didn't reckon on was intense Allied reconnaisance of the D-Day beaches by divers and submarines, even down to taking sand and gravel samples.

regards
GttC

Jawgap

@stovepipe - I think you're engaging in what John Mearsheimer called "wehrmacht penis envy"

Regardless of how tenaciously individual units fought at the tactical level, the German Army was bad at amphibious warfare - both defending against it and conducting it. Overlord & Shingle were a success for the Allies and a failure for the Germans because the Allies got ashore and stayed ashore.

Doctrinally the Germans were not geared for amphibious action, meaning from the outset any attempt at Sealion would likely have ended very badly. Is there an example of a successful German amphibious action, of any scale, against a determined defence? - Norway hardly counts!

The Allies had to learn through Torch, Husky and even Jubilee before they could do Overlord - I doubt the German Army with no experience of amphibious warfare and a combined arms doctrine that was exclusively land focussed, could have projected their power across the Channel succesfully at the first time of asking.

Fratton Fred

Ellis Dee wrote: »

When I studied history, it was driven into my head that what it is all about is what happened (Leopold von Ranke "Wie es gewesen ist"), not what would have happened in some or other alternative timeline. However, the Japanese demonstrated very clearly in Pearl Harbour that the era of dreadnoughts and capital vessels was well and truly over and that the future now lay with air power, including the carrier-based sort. It was just too bad for them that they missed the American carriers and the USA was able to match them, and to spare, when it came to building both aircraft and carriers.:cool:

The attack on Pearl Harbour was a surprise, and happened without a declaration of war, but only three days later two of the Royal Navy's mightiest vessels - the Prince of Wales and the Repulse - were sunk in a couple of hours near Singapore. They were in a declared war and as well prepared as they could be, but against air power they had no chance.

Accordingly, it seems unlikely that the Royal Navy could have stopped a German invasion of Britain without the support of the RAF. The Germans could have taken their time and bombed the fleet to shreds and then invaded, and by then there would have been no Royal Navy.:)

The Japanese apparantly visited Taranto just after the British decimated the Italian fleet (not that the British played any part in WWII according to Snickersman) and used that as the model for pearl harbour.

Any invasion wouldn't have been prevented by capital ships though, they would have simple stood guard to keep the German's capital ships out of action. The destroyers and patrol ships would have been the main weapon.

Also. As I said earlier (and another poster alluded to) it wouldn't have taken much to overwhelm the barges the Germans planned to use and Royal Navy MTBs and mine sweepers would have been effective and hard to hi from the air.

BlaasForRafa

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Also. As I said earlier (and another poster alluded to) it wouldn't have taken much to overwhelm the barges the Germans planned to use and Royal Navy MTBs and mine sweepers would have been effective and hard to hi from the air.

German E-Boats had a clear superiority over MTBs in 1940

Fratton Fred

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

German E-Boats had a clear superiority over MTBs in 1940

True, but even an e-boat v MTB battle in amongst the barges would have sunk them.

Jawgap

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

German E-Boats had a clear superiority over MTBs in 1940

I think it might be worth remembering how destroyers originated.

Destroyers were developed to protect larger battleships from torpedo boats - their original designation was "Torpedo Boat Destroyer" which was shortened to "destroyer."

The worth of the E-boat against the MTB is not the issue, it's how might E-boats have survived against destroyers?

Of the 153 destroyers the RN lost during the war, 55 fell to aircraft, 22 to other surface ships (http://www.naval-history.net/WW2aBritishLosses10tables.htm)

It's all speculation, and an interesting discussion.

Stovepipe

@jawgap LOL!

regards
Stovepipe

Tony EH

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.

This is entirely correct. There just isn't any realistic scenario where a German invasion of the South coast of Britain is successful with the equipment that they had at their disposal. Even if the RN was half the size it was.

BTW, didn't we just have this discussion a few months ago?

Manic Moran

Why are people focusing on an irrelevant issue? The question in the OP hinges upon the German invasion, not the survival of the Royal Navy. I would imply the word ' successful' before ' German' in the question. Whether the RN could stop the Germans getting to shore is one thing, I'm fairly sure they couldn't. More importantly, the question is whether the RN can contribute in a meaningful manner to the defeat of the forces which get there.

A warship parked in the Channel, even a cruiser, let alone the battle wagons, could fire one turret at the beachhead and the other at the embarkation facilities. People seem to be envisioning a case where the German vessels are spotted crossing the Channel at daybreak, the RN swooping down and being bombed throughout the day as the come to the channel and start a fleet engagement. Why would the RN do such a thing? The luftwaffe would presumably not particularly good at bombing ships at night. Let the Germans land, the Army would just have to confine them to a pocket for 24 hours, then come daybreak the next day, the entire home fleet is sitting in the channel guns blazing after starting their approach the previous evening. How much damage do you think they can do in the amount of time it would take the first wave of German aircraft to get there, let alone before they manage to start sinking meaningful numbers of British ships? If the British could prevent the support and supply of the Germans on the British beaches for sufficiently long for the Army to defeat the isolated Germans, that would be mission accomplished for the Navy, and the loss of a significant number of troops for the Germans.

NTM

Tony EH

I agree, even if the Gerries did manage to actually cross the channel in the Rhine river barges (impossible if you ask me), they wouldn't be able to supply the bridgehead. The "invasion" would be over in a few days.

Besides, "Sealion" was a ruse anyway. It never got beyond the preliminary stage, because Hitler's heart was never in it.

Stovepipe

Hi all,
@TonyEh, How could they fail to supply their own bridgehead if they have putative command of the air? With no aerial opposition, they could set up a viable air corridor full of Ju52s. Remember also that they could have captured one or some of the many airfields and auxiliary fields along the South coast and established secure landing sites for air transport.I think further success on land would depend on how much heavy equipment they could ferry across. Naturally, this would require the RN to get within gunnery range of 20 miles or less of convoy routes, which would put them into very confined waters, with all the attendant risks from U and E boats and minefields and air attack.

regards
Stovepipe

Manic Moran

The Allies had some issues with supplying a single division by air in 1944, and there was also that issue of trying to keep the fighters in one city (Stalingrad) supplied by air, I am unconvinced that the Germans could keep an entire invasion force supplied by air, let alone fly in replacements of things like tanks.

The confined waters argument works both ways: U boats had issues getting past the Gibraltar ASW barriers, and I don't believe there was ever a successful large scale engagement by torpedo boats of capital ships. And again, those battleships would only have to survive long enough to destroy the barges and raise havoc with the embarkation points.

NTM

Tony EH

Stovepipe wrote: »

Hi all,
@TonyEh, How could they fail to supply their own bridgehead if they have putative command of the air? With no aerial opposition, they could set up a viable air corridor full of Ju52s. Remember also that they could have captured one or some of the many airfields and auxiliary fields along the South coast and established secure landing sites for air transport.I think further success on land would depend on how much heavy equipment they could ferry across. Naturally, this would require the RN to get within gunnery range of 20 miles or less of convoy routes, which would put them into very confined waters, with all the attendant risks from U and E boats and minefields and air attack.

regards
Stovepipe

It would be impossible for the Germans to supply any kind of bridgehead, with a running battle going on on the mainland and the channel. They just didn't have the equipment to do so. Ju-52's ? Come on. Their supply load wasn't the best AND they have to supply a fighting bridgehead. Your scenario requires that the British are no longer a fighting force in any way shape or form. If that's the case, then the Germans could just walk onto Island with no worries at all and such a scenario is nonsense.

But, realistically...

The Luftwaffe were NEVER in a position to totally wipe out Britain's airforce, Fighter Command, Bomber Command AND Coastal Command etc. In real life, the British were producing more aircraft than the Germans were in 1940. Even if that wasn't happening, The Luftwaffe would have wiped out Britain's airforces until well into 1941.

The Luftwaffe or the Kriegsmarine would NEVER have been able to totally wipe out the Royal Navy. They wouldn't have even been able to keep them at bay. The Royal Navy ruled the Channel. That's the reason why the U-Boot waffe had to get into the Atlantic via Scotland before the U-Boat bases in France were established, rather than risk getting caught in the shallow water of the Channel where there was nowhere to hide from RN destroyers. The Kriegsmarine were NO MATCH for the Royal Navy, no matter what way it's cut and destroying ships from the air in the 1940's was far more difficult than it's being portrayed in this thread. Especially fast moving destroyers.

The Germans would NEVER have got across the channel in the Rhine barges. A heavy sea alone would have claimed a lot of the men and equipment mid Channel.

Even if they did land on the South Coast of Britain, the Germans then have to fight their way all the way throughout the Country, through heavy, determined opposition that would completely out number the Germans.

And most importantly, Hitler has to abandon his war aims completely, ie Russia, his very reason for war in the first place and concentrate on a LONG campaign that wasn't even of tertiary concern to him.

The whole idea of a successful German invasion (Seaborne or Airborne) of Britain is ridiculous, to be honest. While they did carry out some truly amazing feats during the war, the Wehrmacht did have it's limitations and there was just far too much in the way of German victory in Britain.

Stovepipe

@TonyEH, What determined, heavy opposition? By their own admission, they had no tanks or artillery worth the name, the BEF was shattered, their beaches were not yet adequately prepared for defence and they had no defence in depth whatsoever, apart from what the Home Guard could throw together. The one battle scenario that I've read was that they expected to lure the Germans into a war of attrition along the 800-mile length of the island, slowing them down until Canadian/US forces were brought in. That works if the rail network stays intact and the RAF's bombers are allowed to operate freely at night and the populus complies by sitting still and not clogging roads and supposed battle areas.

regards
Stovepipe

getz

there was also the shore batteries all along the southern coast that would pick off any of the larger boats,the germans would have to have first dropped paratroops to take them out

Tony EH

Stovepipe wrote: »

@TonyEH, What determined, heavy opposition? By their own admission, they had no tanks or artillery worth the name, the BEF was shattered, their beaches were not yet adequately prepared for defence and they had no defence in depth whatsoever, apart from what the Home Guard could throw together. The one battle scenario that I've read was that they expected to lure the Germans into a war of attrition along the 800-mile length of the island, slowing them down until Canadian/US forces were brought in. That works if the rail network stays intact and the RAF's bombers are allowed to operate freely at night and the populus complies by sitting still and not clogging roads and supposed battle areas.

regards
Stovepipe

The BEF may have been sent home with their tails between their legs, but it's not like THEY were only forces available to the British. Your excluding the regular Army forces, reserves, territorials. Never mind the home guard. Into the bargain, the Germans would only have been able to land extremely small forces, if they were able to land anything at all. Sure, the British lost a good bit of material in France, but it's not like they lost everything. Plus the Germans wouldn't have had much equipment either and they would have been completely outnumbered too with a fighting bridgehead to struggle through as well.

There is not one single realistic scenario where the Germans can launch a victorious campaign on British soil.

Colonialboy

Tarzan7 wrote: »

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

Interesting question if poorly phrased.
The RN could never prevent a German invasion..... the only thing that could prevent a German invasion was if Germany never attempted one(as it turned out) . And the Royal Navy would not have been operating on its own, as others point out there were land forces, factories and planes in the North of England, America was monitoring events, Hitler had opened a second front etc...
You should be asking could Britain have prevented a successful invasion.

Theres too many what-ifs and buts etc for a definitive answer..

Your premising alot on Germany executing a PERFECT war plan , perfect decision making, perfect timing, perfect weather, perfect production in perfect amounts of the right planes,landing craft etc etc..(with no human error present) and the Allies executing an IM-PERFECT plan.

I would not regard the Navy as poor cousins within the Germany armed forces. It had its plus and minus in terms of leadership, decisions and equipment just like the air and ground forces.

An increase in U-Boats in the seas around Britain would have been as big a factor in allowing for an invasion as control of the skies. Last time I checked without fuel planes cant fly. So are we saying if Germany had won the Battle of Britain and incresed U-Boats in the seas around England could the RN have prevented a successful invasion...

Germany was un-prepared for an invasion, the Blitzkreig push to Dunkirk went much faster than expected , the whoel thing of moving Rhine barges (which disrupted production back in Germany) is evidence of how un-prepaared they were for having to invade.

There was a believe if Europe mainland fell and Spain, Italy and France fell behind Hitler , Britain would sue for peace before any invasion was required.

Course you also have to consider what would America have done if the Battle Of Britain had turned the other way and Germany was preparing a viable invasion.
Look at Malta, the Germans had superiroriy of the skies there but never managed the invasion.

I dont think Germany was ever going to be able to mount a viable invasion of Britain. The memory of WWI and the fact so much blood was spilt on their soil meant Vichy France rolled over to some degree as regards German occupation, England was never going to or allow that.

getz

i do not think hitler himself ever believed he could invade britain,because the invasion plan was revised several times and,as early as august 14th,there were signs that hitler was already backing away from a landing if the odds were too high,there were he said[his own words] other ways of defeating britain. and i am sure he was in the best position to know,

Colonialboy

getz wrote: »

i do not think hitler himself ever believed he could invade britain,because the invasion plan was revised several times and,as early as august 14th,there were signs that hitler was already backing away from a landing if the odds were too high,there were he said[his own words] other ways of defeating britain. and i am sure he was in the best position to know,

agreed he was in the best position to know as he had the most information...
but was he the best person to know what todo with the information he had ...

sometimes I think in some ways once the war had truly kicked off Hitler made major mistakes in terms of the military campaign and lacked decisiveness and real strategic understanding of warfare as oppossed to mass social manipulation, he did some favours for the Allies at key points the whole war.

getz

Colonialboy wrote: »

agreed he was in the best position to know as he had the most information...
but was he the best person to know what todo with the information he had ...

sometimes I think in some ways once the war had truly kicked off Hitler made major mistakes in terms of the military campaign and lacked decisiveness and real strategic understanding of warfare as oppossed to mass social manipulation, he did some favours for the Allies at key points the whole war.

he must have been very confused with the advice he was getting,not all the german high command were for invading britain,following the fall of france to germany in june 1940,herman goring advised hitler to occupy spain and north africa rather than invade britain,before the armistice with france had ever been signed,general heinze guderian also argued for seizing britains stateigically important naval base of gibralltar,guderian even urged hitler to prospone the armistice so that he could rush through spain with two panzer divishions,take gibralter,and then invade french north africa,one of hitlers most important military advisors general alfred jodi.[chief of OKW[high command of armed forces ] operations,also presented hitler with a formal plan to cut off britain from its eastern empire by invading spain, gibralter,north africa,and the suez canal, instead of invading the british isles

Delancey

mountainyman wrote: »

The Americans won WWII for only 250,000 lives.

.... and the Soviets won if at a cost of 25 million lives.

Operation Sealion was always unlikely - planning for it was very basic ( as we now know from German records ) the German Navy had no amphibious capability and a fleet of barges travelling at 3 or 4 knots would have been chopped to pieces by Royal Navy destroyers.

In those days the British Navy was huge and though vulnerable to air attack would still have been able to inflict serious damage on an invading fleet , as an attacker the Germans would have needed more luck than the British given the advantages that fall to a defender.

Battle of Britains importance is , I feel , greatly exaggerated , though that is not to take away from the acheivements of the RAF.

Ping Chow Chi

Tony EH wrote: »

The BEF may have been sent home with their tails between their legs, but it's not like THEY were only forces available to the British. Your excluding the regular Army forces, reserves, territorials. Never mind the home guard.

I seem to remember last time this was brought up someone mentioned that there were several fully equipped Canadian divisions in Britain at that time as well.

Colonialboy

getz wrote: »

he must have been very confused with the advice he was getting,not all the german high command were for invading britain,following the fall of france to germany in june 1940,herman goring advised hitler to occupy spain and north africa rather than invade britain,before the armistice with france had ever been signed,general heinze guderian also argued for seizing britains stateigically important naval base of gibralltar,guderian even urged hitler to prospone the armistice so that he could rush through spain with two panzer divishions,take gibralter,and then invade french north africa,one of hitlers most important military advisors general alfred jodi.[chief of OKW[high command of armed forces ] operations,also presented hitler with a formal plan to cut off britain from its eastern empire by invading spain, gibralter,north africa,and the suez canal, instead of invading the british isles

Thanks for the info...good post.

At the time there was alot of 'dis-information' coming out of fascists Spain fed to them by allied sympathisers , all that 'The man who never was' (?) stuff.
It all higlights there were a myriad of options and suggestions on the table. I still hold that Hitler probably made the wrong choices. (albeit the right ones for people who love their freedom). Paranoid was probably starting to kick in and he didnt know who to believe.

So coming back to original question if Germany had developed better ground to air comms, evolved the Luftwaffes tactics during the Battle of Britain, made better choices in terms of aircraft production, knocked out British radar, increased U-boat production , developed more long range bombers, taken Gibraltar and developed a proper landing fleet, not provoked America.. then the Royal Navy could have done little to stop an invasion , now would the invasion have been successful... who knows.

Course if the invasion was successful we might all be driving German cars and taking instruction from a seat of power in Berlin ... luckily that never came to pass

OS119

Colonialboy wrote: »

...So coming back to original question if Germany had developed better ground to air comms, evolved the Luftwaffes tactics during the Battle of Britain, made better choices in terms of aircraft production, knocked out British radar, increased U-boat production , developed more long range bombers, taken Gibraltar and developed a proper landing fleet, not provoked America.. then the Royal Navy could have done little to stop an invasion , now would the invasion have been successful... who knows...

this is the problem with this hypothetical: it says that yes, Germany could have won the air war - if it had twice its population, and was somewhere else, and had its own oil, and and hadn't expended huge resources on political, not military objectives. unfortunately, that slightly undermines the question as it would no longer be 'could Germany have won the air war?', it would have become 'could America have won the air war?'.

its a bit like saying 'yes, i could score with Jennifer Lopez - if i was George Clooney'.

TerrorFirmer

OS119 wrote: »

this is the problem with this hypothetical: it says that yes, Germany could have won the air war - if it had twice its population, and was somewhere else, and had its own oil, and and hadn't expended huge resources on political, not military objectives. unfortunately, that slightly undermines the question as it would no longer be 'could Germany have won the air war?', it would have become 'could America have won the air war?'.

its a bit like saying 'yes, i could score with Jennifer Lopez - if i was George Clooney'.

Germany could have easily won the air war if Hitler was as interested in it as he was in turning eastwards. He never had much interest in conquering Britain per se, and after the initial battle of Britain, which in itself almost went Germanys way until they switched from airfields back to urban centers, it would have been a war of attrition which Germany was in a far, far better position to win. Bad decisions coupled with relative disinterest by Hitler in a campaign to entirely subjugate England meant that after they lost the opening stages, rather than gear up for round 2 and beyond, in which they most certainly would have defeated the RAF eventually, Hitler decided he wasn't, basically, arsed and decided to turn eastwards to realize his true passion of expanding eastwards. After June 1940, Britain hadn't a hope of actually outright winning any campaign. Victory in the Battle of Britain was certainly a victory, but it was not a victory in the sense of battles like Normandy, Stalingrad, Kursk, etc. The RAF did not defeat the Luftwaffe. They won the first phase in a battle which Hitler decided to break off. Had the 'Battle of Britain' continued, the RAF would have been destroyed sooner or later.

Tony EH

"...it would have been a war of attrition which Germany was in a far, far better position to win."

Not true. The British were outproducing the Germans in aircraft in 1940. In real life, the Germans were actually LOSING the war of attrition.

"The RAF did not defeat the Luftwaffe..."

True, but they blunted their nose. The fact is though, that the Luftwaffe lost more aircraft in the first month of Barbarossa, than they did in the whole campaign over Britain. Hitler withdrew, not due to losses, but because he knew that it was a pointless pursuit (which was his opinion from the beginning) and one that detrimental to the original war aim in the first place, Russia. His heart just wasn't in it. The whole campaign in the West in 1940, from Norway to Britain was a complete anomaly for the Germans, totally divorced from the aspirations Hitler envisaged.

"Victory in the Battle of Britain was certainly a victory...the RAF would have been destroyed sooner or later"

The "victory" that the RAF achieved was it's right to exist as a viable threat to the Germans on the continent. Which it continued to be throughout the remainder of the war. However, it was never really in any serious danger of being completely destroyed. Fighter Command would have taken a severe beating, but the RAF as a whole was never going to be "destroyed"...sooner or later. Such a story would require that the Germans have vastly superior forces at their disposal than they did and years of campaigning to do it. Not to mention the political will.

BlaasForRafa

"...it would have been a war of attrition which Germany was in a far, far better position to win."

Not true. The British were outproducing the Germans in aircraft in 1940. In real life, the Germans were actually LOSING the war of attrition.

Sort of. The british were producing more planes but they were short of experienced pilots, something which the Jagdwaffe weren't short of after the spanish civil war, poland etc.

Also in the winter of 1940/41 the germans moved into a qualitative advantage over the RAF which they would have for over 2 years, first in 40/41 the Bf109F replaced the E, the F was superior to the contemporary Spitfire, then in late 1941 the Fw190A was introduced which was so superior to the Spitfire V that the British seriously considered mounting a commando raid on a french airfield to steal one.

Had the germans not launched Barbarossa in June 1941 then they would have been in a position to establish dominance over the channel and southern england in 1941/42, with 10 Geschwadern of Bf109Fs and Fw190As I wouldn't be putting my money on the RAF.

Course Hitler decided to go after the soviets so its all what if at the end of the day.

The "victory" that the RAF achieved was it's right to exist as a viable threat to the Germans on the continent.

Well, again the answer is "sort of". The RAF were a threat, but not a major one. The germans only left JG2 and JG26 to cover the whole of the western coast of Europe, it was only after the US 8th air force started raids into europe in force that more fighters were pulled back from other theatres.

Jim S

Getz does make a very good point, the options in the Mediterranean . which Goring and Donitz were very keen to pursue some of the fruits were to be seen in 1941 - Crete , with the Royal Navy seriously damaged.
Malta would also have fallen and the Italians increasingly in a position to dominate the Med.
If the British position in the Middle East collapsed the political pressure on Churchill would have been critical, Turkey as well as Spain would have been drawn into an orbit around the Axis.
With Suez in Axis hands India would have been under direct threat from them and with Japanese expansion in the Far East threatening American interests Britain would have been pretty isolated.
With British troops expelled from Eastern Africa and the Middle East India could have been blockaded and the British rule there further undermined, the investment to the Axis small and the material ,political and military rewards potentially huge.

Tony EH

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Sort of. The british were producing more planes but they were short of experienced pilots, something which the Jagdwaffe weren't short of after the spanish civil war, poland etc.

True, the RAF were suffering somewhat from a shortage of fighter pilots, but I believe that this is one of the enduring myths of the battle. I remember seeing a doc on it one time, one of many, which stated that even at the height of the battle, pilots were being granted leave! During the same period, Luftwaffe pilots were flying 3 or 4 sorties a day. Truly incredible. In addition, the experience that the Luftwaffe had has been greatly exaggerated too. The Jagdwaffe may have had a core of experienced pilots, such as Werner Molders and Adolf Galland, but the vast majority of its ranks were not much more experienced than their British counterpart.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Also in the winter of 1940/41 the germans moved into a qualitative advantage over the RAF which they would have for over 2 years, first in 40/41 the Bf109F replaced the E, the F was superior to the contemporary Spitfire, then in late 1941 the Fw190A was introduced which was so superior to the Spitfire V that the British seriously considered mounting a commando raid on a french airfield to steal one.

Agreed. In fact the FW190 (once it got over its teething problems) had a very impressive 5 to 1 ratio over the Spitfire up to 1942. I also believe that the Jadgwaffe held the advantage over Fighter Command with the Emil too. The main reason being the way the Jagdwaffe flew their mount. They used energy tactics, instead of the turn fighting that the RAF fighter pilots were used to. Additionally, the used the looser Rotte and Schwarm formation which was far superior to the Vic formation favoured by Fighter Command.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Had the germans not launched Barbarossa in June 1941 then they would have been in a position to establish dominance over the channel and southern england in 1941/42, with 10 Geschwadern of Bf109Fs and Fw190As I wouldn't be putting my money on the RAF.

Again, only if they had substantially increased production of aircraft and had the political will to take the fight to the British. Both situations didn't exist. The simple fact is that, despite the quality of the German aircraft, their production percentages weren't that great, until 1943/44 and even if they did establish dominance over the Channel, what would have been the point?

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Course Hitler decided to go after the soviets so its all what if at the end of the day.

I think it's better put that Hitler decided to call a halt to his irritating Western distraction and go back to his original preoccupation.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Well, again the answer is "sort of". The RAF were a threat, but not a major one. The germans only left JG2 and JG26 to cover the whole of the western coast of Europe, it was only after the US 8th air force started raids into europe in force that more fighters were pulled back from other theatres.

True, but both Geshwaders (and JG1 as well) had orders to only hold the fort and the reason there weren't more left in the West was because Germany's fighter production was pretty rubbish. The RAF were the threat they chose to be, however. There wasn't much point in going all out to destroy the German fighters on the continent, because there wasn't any procedure for continuation even if such a thing was achieved. like the Germans before them, The British had no real plans for an invasion of enemy territory. So, Circuses, Rodeos and Rhubarbs were the order of the day. Of course, the Jadgwaffe could choose to engage, or stay on the ground. Just like the RAF had chosen to do with the Luftwaffe fighter sweeps over Southern England in July/August 1940.

Dyr

There's a really good book called "strategy for defeat" about the luftwaffe during WW2. From what I remember the author reckoned operation sealion was an absolute non runner tactically, the germans had lost too many naval resources in norway to support and they lacked the inter-service coherence for such a land-sea operation as the luftwaffe and heer had done during the blitzkrieg.

Theres also some stats in there for the manpower and aircraft losses the luftwaffe suffered during latter stages of the BOB, they were in as bad a condition as the RAF. All their non 109 units were operating at little more that half capacity, there was no way they could have supported landings or an invasion.

Victor

Manic Moran wrote: »

The Allies had some issues with supplying a single division by air in 1944,

A bridge too far? Surely a huge part of that problem was they were in the wrong place, with no proper radio or other communications and with faulty intelligence on the enemy they were facing? The biggest problem was the Paras weren't getting the supplies that were being delivered.

and there was also that issue of trying to keep the fighters in one city (Stalingrad) supplied by air,

Is "one city" an accurate description? How big was the pocket when they were being supplied by air?

I am unconvinced that the Germans could keep an entire invasion force supplied by air, let alone fly in replacements of things like tanks.

Move the metal workers from the tank factories to the aircraft factories and shipyards and see what can be made in year. Do not invade Yugoslavia and Greece. Have the French and Italians close the Mediterranean to Middle Eastern Oil and other British supplies. Buy off Spain with parts of North Africa.

The confined waters argument works both ways: U boats had issues getting past the Gibraltar ASW barriers,

Water depths would make a big difference between the two - much of the North Sea is less than 10 fathoms (18 metres) and more determined static minefields would have been useful against capital ships and submarines. Invading in the summer would have minimised the length of the night and the ability of naval forces to 'sneak in'.

Assuming the German destroyed the RAF (instead of destroying London, etc.) the Germans never had to invade - all they would have had to do is damage the Royal Navy and general morale enough to force the British to the table.

Colonialboy wrote: »

Look at Malta, the Germans had superiroriy of the skies there but never managed the invasion.

They never seriously attempted it. While clearing the British out of the Mediterranean might have been useful, the timing never made sense.

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

I seem to remember last time this was brought up someone mentioned that there were several fully equipped Canadian divisions in Britain at that time as well.

Infantry divisions? What with British and French tank armoured machine gun carrier divisions having failed to stop German tanks?

If the decision was taken to force the British to a peace and the USSR was ignored, I can imagine the USSR still supplying the Germans with fuel and production diverted away from the army to the navy and air force. By the middle of 1941, the abilities and balance of power would have been very different.

We know that the Germans were very determined and very capable if they put their minds to something. However, they (well Hitler) lacked focus to finish one task before starting the next.

Ping Chow Chi

Victor wrote: »

If the decision was taken to force the British to a peace and the USSR was ignored, I can imagine the USSR still supplying the Germans with fuel and production diverted away from the army to the navy and air force. By the middle of 1941, the abilities and balance of power would have been very different.

Indeed if they had focused on Britain until the middle of 1941 Russia would have actually been prepared for war with Germany. Remember one of the reasons Russia was caught by suprised is that Stalin didn't think that Germany would fight a war on two front.

Like I have said before. if Germany had focused just on Britian I am in no doubt that they would have won, eventually. But they did have a huge red army on their boarder to be worried about as well. Maybe if Germany had beat Britain maybe the whole of europe would have fallen to the Red army as there wouldn't have been the US army in western europe once it had taken Berlin.

Victor

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

Like I have said before. if Germany had focused just on Britian I am in no doubt that they would have won, eventually. But they did have a huge red army on their boarder to be worried about as well. Maybe if Germany had beat Britain maybe the whole of europe would have fallen to the Red army as there wouldn't have been the US army in western europe once it had taken Berlin.

I don't see the USSR starting a war with Germany - it doesn't have the logistics or national sense of desperation to do so.

With a British-German peace, Germany can consolidate its hold on mainland Europe and normal trade can resume. Separate peaces are agreed with the governments in exile. Germany takes chunks of the French, Belgian, Dutch and British empires and gives more to Japan. Germany can avoid the Battle of the Atlantic, which reduces the antagonism with the USA. One then wonders would the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact be signed - it would be in Germany's interests that it wouldn't be. Assuming Germany can hold off against starting a war with the USSR before the original aim of 1943, then potentially Pearl Harbour doesn't happen, because Japan can use Soviet, Indonesian and Middle Eastern instead of American oil. The United States doesn't enter the war. Maybe Finland falls to the USSR at the end of 1941. The war in the Balkans doesn't happen. The Americans and British don't provide support to the USSR.

In 1943, Germany and its European allies invade the USSR. Seeing the German success, Japan, Spain and Turkey join in. Come 1945, the USSR has collapsed.

Hitler was an fool.

Belfast

Jim S wrote: »

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.

I agreed even with German control of the air it could never transport and supply a large enough German army to control Britain.
The royal navy might have taken losses but it would have one.
as the Luftwaffe was not able to stop the British evacuation of Dunkirk , I cannot see them being able to protect a German invasion force.

Mission Impossible: Operation Sea Lion
http://fch.fiu.edu/FCH-2002/Carney-Mission%20Impossible-2002.htm

gbee

Colonialboy wrote: »

... luckily that never came to pass

Oh but it has, no so many German cars, but the rest has happened, we are governed from Germany.

And I know it's going to another level so I don't expect a reply. A new thread perhaps.

Victor

Belfast wrote: »

as the Luftwaffe was not able to stop the British evacuation of Dunkirk , I cannot see them being able to protect a German invasion force.

They were slightly occupied taking the rest of France at the same time. The comment is akin to saying the winning team at a game don't get to watch the match.

gbee

Victor wrote: »

They were slightly occupied taking the rest of France at the same time. The comment is akin to saying the winning team at a game don't get to watch the match.

Should I throw in Vichy France ~ a little known sort of "we support Hitler so leave us alone and destroy the rest of Europe" France.

TheLynx

In a way contradicting history, the Germans did win the battle of Britain, but lost the war

Victor

TheLynx wrote: »

In a way contradicting history, the Germans did win the battle of Britain, but lost the war

No, they gave up before the battle was finally decided and started the Blitz.