Tsukiyumi wrote:A) the Russians and Americans had stayed out of the war until later on?
B) Chain Home had been disabled?
Deepcrush wrote:The issue for the invasion is that as soon as said Armor moves more then 60 miles inland, they are now at the mid range of the RAF and thus targets for the RAF.
This would have led to a cut off as soon as the US joined the war, a Dunkirk for the Germans. As the addition of US air forces (or even just US supplied aircraft) too the RAF would have easily destroyed any standing Armor.
However as Dowding pointed out to Churchill, the survival of the RAF equaled the survival of England.
I have to disagree that the RN could withstand the continued attack of the Luftwaffe in order to engage the German landing forces. Considering that the RN would have to start out of range of the Luftwaffe then attempt to close range and engage.
The problem is simply that the Germans needed to clear the skies, even landing 140,000 troops is meaningless if the armor they bring with them is being slammed by 2000lbs bombs by the air.
The key would be using the RN to block the future withdraw of German forces as they try to flee back across the Channel. After the Luftwaffe has been bled out and after the US is actively in the war.
Also the cost to the RN to engage during the invasion rather then a year later would have been a waste of naval support that the UK didn't need to expend.
Captain Seafort wrote:How exactly are they going to get 60 miles inland? Even assuming that the barges a) don't get swamped as soon as they leave port and b) survive the RAF and the RN, they've still got to go back across the Channel to collect follow-up forces, fuel, ammunition, etc. They will suffer losses on each trip, ultimately leaving the forces ashore hungry, immobile and helpless.
Captain Seafort wrote:US aid was completely unnecessary to defeat any attempted German invasion.
Captain Seafort wrote:Dowding had to assume the Germans knew what they were doing. Post-war evidence demonstrates that they didn't.
Captain Seafort wrote:They would certainly have suffered losses, but nowhere near 100%. I think you're underestimating the difficulty of trying to hit a fast, manoeuvering ship, especially when you've got enemy fighters launching spoiling attacks.
Captain Seafort wrote:They needed to completely clear both the skies and the seas. If they failed either requirement then the invasion fleet would be slaughtered.
Captain Seafort wrote:Again, you're massively overestimating the Germans' ability to get ashore and keep their forces supplied. US aid would have been completely unnecessary to smash the invasion.
Captain Seafort wrote: If the Germans had been able to stay ashore for a year, they would almost certainly have won - it would have meant that they'd taken a major port, and were bringing supplies in fast enough to sustain their forces. The UK forces available in 1940 wouldn't have been able to resist the forces the Germans had available. The Germans' problem was that they couldn't get ashore in numbers, and couldn't sustain those they could. However, the reason they couldn't do so was because of the combined efforts of the RAF and the Navy, predominately the latter. Removing either of those factors would have made it easier for them, which was a risk that simply couldn't afford to be taken.
Deepcrush wrote:Southern England is rather easy ground for armor and troops to cross, 60miles isn't really hard for a force to transit.
Considering the lack of effective English defenses
US aid was completely unnecessary to defeat any attempted German invasion.
That would be true, if the RAF was double its size and the RN wasn't spread out around the world and the British islands had the a matching number of troops to the Germans. However none of this was the case.
Incorrect, your post war opinion would like to pretend such, however the post war experts have openly stated Dowding to have been correct in his warnings and actions.
I never said anything about 100%, not that such losses would matter. The RAF was outnumbered 3:2 in the air, so engaging in central airspace would have meant giving the air power advantage to the Germans. Which would have destroyed the RAF, which as Dowding pointed out would have allowed for an invasion of England itself.
And of course if the RN and RAF had been commited to an engagement over the channel, the Germans would have been salughtered[/quoted]
Fixed for you.Getting ashore is easy
For a force with vehicles, fuel, food, ammunition and no resistance, this is true. For a German invasion during the Second World War, it's impossible.
Other than the most extensive complex of field and fixed fortifications outside the Rhineland.
All the RAF had to do was disrupt LW attacks on the RN's destroyers, which would themselves simply have to sail up and down in front of the landing barges. End of invasion.
Post war experts (i.e. a Staff College exercise based on Sealion, conducted by the best senior officers in the British and German armies) expected that the Germans would be reduced to trying to evacuate what was left of the landing force within a few days.
Bollocks. 3:2 disadvantage would have been more than sufficient to disrupt LW attacks on the RN. End of invasion.
Dead bodies floating ashore face-down tend to be rather ineffective combatants, and that's the only way the vast majority of the Sealion invasion force would have reached the beaches.
Deepcrush wrote:Undermanned and underequipped, not impressive.
This would be a very cute theory if it didn't require the GHSF
for the out numbered RAF to be able to engage an equal number of LW aircraft and all none engaged LW fighters to be sporting and turn back to France.
Would these be the same pretend experts that told you that Germany planned to use flat bottom tugs and barges
But on the serious side, the IJN was destroyed, their aircraft were unable to effectively engage the USN's aircraft in a way to disrupt the sinking of the IJN. The same problem applies to the RAF. Again, this points back to the need of preserving RAF in fighting strength as the RN was simiply to weak to counter the German forces as a whole.
thelordharry wrote:I'm not sure if any of you know about this but there's an account on Twitter that's 'live tweeting' events from 1939 as though they're realtime. It's from a British perspective.
It's a novel idea and the project will conclude in six years time, mirroring the end of the war.
Today sees the live tweeting of the events of the Battle of the River Plate
There's also one from a US perspective:
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest