Battle of Britain

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Hoth
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 14 May 2003 18:47
Location: UK

RE

Post by Hoth » 15 May 2003 22:46

The Germans were well equipped when the Allies landed in Normandy, and they weren't stopped. If the Germans had continued their elimination of the RAF and RN, then focussed on a U-boat blockade through 1940 to early 1941, followed by mased land invasions at points on Britains southern coast, Britain would have been beaten. And once we'd been beaten, Hitler could have beat the Soviets back to the Urals and established defensive fortifications, and basically won the war.

James Patrick
Member
Posts: 456
Joined: 05 May 2002 16:14
Location: Saint Louis, Missouri, USA

Post by James Patrick » 16 May 2003 01:46

It had to be then or never. Had the Germans left it, they would have lost the advantage of the British Army's lack of equipment, which we both agree was left on Dunkirk Beach.
I agree. Not only would the British Army have time to reequip, the British would also have more time to prepare defenses and demolish harbor facilities. This would cause the Germans to have to select alternate landing areas farther away from the shortest span of the Channel. Looking at the Western Allies in Overlord, the longer they waited, the less feasible a "short hop" to the Pas-de-Calais became. The Germans could wait and try to build a more capable fleet that would be able to fight its way to further invasion beaches, but I doubt German leaders would want to get into a miniature naval arms race with Great Britain (especially with their plans for the USSR on the back burner). That's the problem with Sealion. To work, the Germans needed years of planning and preparation. However, they never wanted war with Great Britain so they never did this. If they started after Dunkirk, then they would have to divert resources away from the coming conflict with the USSR. They got themselves in a real mess.
Jim

Yngwie J.
Member
Posts: 310
Joined: 10 May 2003 17:49
Location: Norway

Post by Yngwie J. » 16 May 2003 17:01

Hi Dave!

You wrote :
I totally agree with what you are saying. My point is though that there would be NO aerial defence to speak of in the north because they would have been ordered south, as the last throw of the dice, to repel the incoming Luftwaffe
But wouldn´t an attack in the North still be whitin range for southern based fighters to repell.
It had to be then or never. Had the Germans left it, they would have lost the advantage of the British Army's lack of equipment, which we both agree was left on Dunkirk Beach.
An excellent point! Which brings us back to the weakness of the invasion plan to begin with.
The Kriegsmarine strongly advised against Operation Sealion as they knew they couldn´t provide the support the invasion would need to be pulled of succesfully. Instead they suggested the invasion to be carried through on a later date, or on a smaller scale. Either one would be futile.

Best regards,
Yngwie J.

User avatar
Sam H.
Member
Posts: 1975
Joined: 19 Sep 2002 21:21
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Post by Sam H. » 16 May 2003 17:12

Perhaps a better use of the resources for the Germans would be to exploit the British weakness in the Med. With Italy's help, and the arrival of the Afrika Korp in, say August or September 1940, the Axis could be in Suez by the end of the year.

User avatar
Lord Gort
Member
Posts: 2014
Joined: 07 Apr 2002 14:44
Location: United Kingdom: The Land of Hope and Glory

Post by Lord Gort » 16 May 2003 17:58

Yes Sam, I have always thought Raeders Blue water strategy would have had devastating results.




regards,

User avatar
David Brown
Financial supporter
Posts: 792
Joined: 20 Apr 2003 00:46
Location: Prescot on Merseyside in England.

BATTLE OF BRITAIN

Post by David Brown » 16 May 2003 23:17

Hello Yngwie.
But wouldn´t an attack in the North still be whitin range for southern based fighters to repell.
I can't see how. They would have been sent south to make up for the losses down there. If the Luftwaffe attacked both in the south and the north at the same time the R.A.F. would not have had the resources to defend both. They could not be in two places at the same time.

Take care,

Dave

User avatar
David Brown
Financial supporter
Posts: 792
Joined: 20 Apr 2003 00:46
Location: Prescot on Merseyside in England.

BATTLE OF BRITAIN

Post by David Brown » 18 May 2003 01:18

WHAT'O CHAPS!!!

Are you all conceding the argument? :D

Dave (with tongue in cheek) :wink:

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Post by Andy H » 18 May 2003 03:44

i think the ball's well and truely in your court.

I think we have established that on a Naval & Logistical front the Germans stood no chance, the only area open for debate is the air war.

If the RAF say moved it's fighters say just north of the River Thames, they would still be able to reach the invasion beaches, whilst any bombers attacking the fighter stations would be un-protected by Luftwaffe fighters given that the RAF sqns had fallen back and the range to target had increased for the Germans.

IMO the whole idea of any meaningful contribution by Luftwaffe planes based in Norway has been discounted, again for logistical reasons

Andy

User avatar
David Brown
Financial supporter
Posts: 792
Joined: 20 Apr 2003 00:46
Location: Prescot on Merseyside in England.

BATTLE OF BRITAIN

Post by David Brown » 18 May 2003 21:02

Hi Andy H
Andy H wrote: No one is doubting that Germany could launch an Airborne invasion, but how would they back that up, without using heavy lift equipment such as ships-which they didn't have?
I was hoping for time to re-group before anyone responded to my last post...well...it serves me right for bragging doesn't it :wink:

I've collected most of my info over the years from library books and I've filled reams of paper with thousands of notes on given subjects, and with my unique filing system (meaning - stuffed in one of dozens of Kwik Save carrier bags), I can never find anything when I want it. I've recently ripped my little place to shreads trying to find a tape recorded broadcast so I could give a response to a post I made in another thread. I just get everything back to normal and then this :roll:

Regards the above quote - I'm starting to take everything to bits again because I am certain that Germany did have the ships that would take heavy lifts. I'm shooting in the dark at the moment because I haven't found where I made a note of it but the reason they were not made available had something to do with them being needed to transport iron ore and coal from Sweden to keep the war production going smoothly. Had these been given over for just a few days, it might have made all the difference.

the whole idea of any meaningful contribution by Luftwaffe planes based in Norway has been discounted, again for logistical reasons
No it hasn't.

Luftflotte 5 took a pasting from 72 Squadron on the 15th August 1940 as the result of poor intelligence which lead them to believe that the north was undefended. If the R.A.F. moved all of its fighters to the south (on the assuption that they would have still been attacking the airfields rather then change tactics and attack cities instead) it would have had to have been the last throw of the dice to prevent the Luftwaffe from achieving air supremacy.

This being the case, there would not have been enough fighter aircraft, or pilots, to repel any airborn invasion in the north. So while the decision was made by the Luftwaffe not to try this ploy again after incurring such losses, if it were the fact that there was no air defence in the north, there would be nothing preventing them from trying that route again. Decisions can be reversed if the situation becomes more favourable.

Dave

User avatar
David Brown
Financial supporter
Posts: 792
Joined: 20 Apr 2003 00:46
Location: Prescot on Merseyside in England.

BATTLE OF BRITAIN

Post by David Brown » 18 May 2003 21:08

I forgot to mention, if you can get your hands on a copy of "BATTLE OF BRITAIN - NEW PERSPECTIVES" by John Ray, it's worth taking a look at.

It doesn't help my argument in this thread but it takes the lid off what was happening behind the scenes during the Battle of Britain and all the in fighting that was going on, both at fighter command, the R.A.F., and the Government.

I've only just started it and it's already given me something to think about.

Dave

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Post by Andy H » 18 May 2003 23:29

to repel any airborn invasion in the north
8O The logistics of this are more scary than any proposed invasion in the South. I agree that the intial landing would suceed given the paucity of troops in the area, but again the lack of any re-inforcements would eventually lead to it's demise.

Andy

john2
Member
Posts: 990
Joined: 03 Feb 2003 23:25
Location: north carolina

Reply.

Post by john2 » 19 May 2003 19:33

I voted for option 3. Germany had practically no navy what so ever. Wooden barges were to be used to cross the channel and would have been shot to pieces by the royal navy. The idea that Hitler was close to defeating Britain is a myth. The key to invading Britain was not simply air superiority but a good navy. Without adequate transport ships and ways to protect the fleet against attack how could Germany ever succeed? Certainly not in 1940 but only after years of building up a strong navy and air arm could Germany hope to have a chance at getting england and that would have been difficult because of the US and Russia.

User avatar
David Brown
Financial supporter
Posts: 792
Joined: 20 Apr 2003 00:46
Location: Prescot on Merseyside in England.

BATTLE OF BRITAIN

Post by David Brown » 20 May 2003 00:04

Andy H wrote:
I agree that the intial landing would suceed given the paucity of troops in the area, but again the lack of any re-inforcements would eventually lead to it's demise.
Hello Andy H

We are talking experienced and battle hardened grizzled Wehrmacht Soldiers here. I don't believe that the British WW1 Battle Field mentality of the now ill-equiped British Army and its leaders in 1940 would have been any match for soldiers who had a clear wealth of experience of modern day battle tactics.


Hello John2
The idea that Hitler was close to defeating Britain is a myth.
Sorry John, but this is wrong.


Take Care

Dave

User avatar
Lord Gort
Member
Posts: 2014
Joined: 07 Apr 2002 14:44
Location: United Kingdom: The Land of Hope and Glory

Post by Lord Gort » 20 May 2003 11:17

David...me old mate....I really cant believe this thread is still going, your putting up a very tenacious erar guard actions it has to be said :D


On may 31st their were 15 divisions available for home defence, true much of the forces were immobile and lacking in equipment. But hsi is still May, and their is still one armoured and Canadian division.


regards,

James Patrick
Member
Posts: 456
Joined: 05 May 2002 16:14
Location: Saint Louis, Missouri, USA

Post by James Patrick » 20 May 2003 15:53

Does anyone have an order of battle of Commonwealth ground forces in England during the time Sealion was suposed to kick off?

Return to “What if”