Feel free to keep bringing them up - they’re an interesting intellectual exercise. The problem is that it is very, very hard to come up with a plausible scenario where the allies don’t win. Fundamentally, Germany cannot win if the United States enters the war - and to come up with a scenario where the US does not enter the war you have to have a point of departure from current history in 1914 at the latest IMHO.
Once the UK was involved in WW1, the level of transatlantic trade is going to suck the US in on the Entente side. Once it enters the war on the Entente side, it isn’t going to switch sides in the next war, nor is it going to return fully to it’s initial isolationist policy. Hence, to plausibly keep the US out of WW1 you have to keep the UK out of WW1.
The reason the US cannot lose is industrial - it has massively more industrial base than any other country on earth in 1940, and virtually all of the engineers who truly understand mass production. It also has a very, very large population of military age and the cash to arm and equip them. The United States had IIRC a little over half the world’s war making potential in 1940, while Germany had something like 15% from memory (marginally more than the UK and Russia individually, rather less than their combined total). This explains why Germany was defeated so thoroughly, and why pretty much no matter what they do it will be defeated. In fact, the better they do earlier in the war the worse things are. If they do eventually take all of Europe, they put themselves in the frame to be destroyed by US nuclear weapons in 1947 or so.
Yup, what he said.
I blame the Ems telegram.
hmmm Germany and idea of airlifting supplies into invading armies???..does anyone else recall stalingrad. Especially with the RAF present at all times and them not having air superiorty, that would have never worked.
alternative realities are great, it can help us better appreciate the actions taken by both parties and experience a glimpse of what people were fighting for…
eg: Operation Sea Lion was ultimately the reason for the Luftwaffe’s attack on the RAF, and again the threat of Operation Sea Lion was motivation for the RAF to do its best. Every RAF pilot up in the air wouldve known that it was up to them to stop the invasion of their homeland
In fact I’m willing to bet that the main reason Operation Sea Lion never took place was because of Hitler’s blunder when he ordered the Luftwaffe to switch targets from RAF airfields to English Cities. If he had kept attacking the RAF on the ground eventually they would’ve run out of aircraft and pilots to fly them. With no RAF, Operation Sea Lion could’ve gone ahead and may or may not have been succesfull
In fact I’m willing to bet that the main reason Operation Sea Lion never took place was because of Hitler’s blunder when he ordered the Luftwaffe to switch targets from RAF airfields to English Cities. If he had kept attacking the RAF on the ground eventually they would’ve run out of aircraft and pilots to fly them. With no RAF, Operation Sea Lion could’ve gone ahead and may or may not have been succesfull
Well, sort of, but you have to remember how close the Luftwaffe was to the edge as well. The table below shows the daily losses - during that crucial period when 11 Group was almost knocked out of the fight, German losses were still round about double the British ones.
http://www.brooksart.com/BoBloss.html
Let’s say that they stick with the airfields, and that by the end of August 11 Group is in tatters - the sector stations are almost all destroyed and most squadrons can only raise a few pilots and aircraft - opposition to the Luftwaffe is patchy and weak. Right, what next? Assuming Sea Lion gets the green light (and let’s assume a little more work has gone into assembling barges and tugs, and that the Kriegsmarine big 'uns do a diversionary sally that keeps the RN’s heavy units out of the Channel), the Luftwaffe has to quickly switch to preparing the invasion zone, including diversionary raids to stop the Brits identifying the invasion site.
When you look at how quickly the RAF bases recovered, that 2 week slot is crucial. Every day, fighters were pouring off the production lines - the UK hit war production far quicker than Germany whose peak wasn’t until 1944, which was too late. Even novice pilots would have been able to hamper the invasion to some degree. And once the invasion force lands, what do you think the RAF will do with all those fighters in 10 Group and 12 Group that have so far only played a peripheral role? Even a half-hearted defence is going to seriously weaken the German invasion, and threaten supply lines.
BlitzKrieg, in order to succeed, needs the following:
Air superiority/supremacy
Lots of tanks and transport
Space to manoeuvre
Dependable Supply Lines
The Wermacht also depended on a certain amount of at least tacit support from the populace - remember they were welcomed as liberators in many parts of Eastern Europe, and the French were very disenchanted with their government; for some the price of occupation was worth paying. It’s hard to see them getting any of the above in Kent in September 1940.
Looking at the evidence, it’s clear that Sea Lion as we know it was a bluff to persuade the UK to come to terms. Without Churchill it had a decent chance of succeeding, and that would have freed up the Wermacht to hit Russia in April/May. That, to me, is a far more likely counterfactual. The other alternative is that Hilter decides he has to knock Britain out of the war first, and invades in 1941 - though again, every month that passes plays to the UK side, since they are producing aircraft and (crap) tanks, while German industry is still knocking out coffee pots and transistor radios for the civs in Berlin. I’ll take an A13 over a Siemens teasmaid any time, mate.
Do those statistics include RAF planes lost on the ground? Remember that for every day that the Luftwaffe bombed RAF Airfields the RAF wasn’t just losing planes in the air but ALSO planes on the ground along with the facilities needed to mantain and supply them.
I am certain that if the Luftwaffe kept targetting the RAF on the ground they would’ve eventually have defeated them. Luckily Hitler’s ego got in the way and at the expense of the City of London, the RAF was given the breathing space it needed
With the British army having been already defeated in France and a large amount of its vehicles and heavy equipment rusting away on the beaches of Dunkirk the British wouldve put a desperate fight on their home soil but would be on the back foot.
In my mind the Royal Navy would’ve been the main obstacle to Operation Sea Lion had the Luftwaffe continued to target the RAF instead of switching to London.
The relevant statistic is the number of planes kept in immediate reserve (i.e. factory fresh aircraft just waiting to be delivered to a pilot who could use them). Throughout the BoB, this always had aircraft in it which were released as soon as they were required. While maintenence facilities were hit (to the extent that Manston was abandoned) it didn’t really affect availability. The limiting factor was always pilots.
You’re suffering from a major logical fallacy here. You’re assuming that the RAF would have done exactly what the Luftwaffe wanted them to do and connived in their own destruction. This wouldn’t have happened - the RAF was staffed by some pretty ruthless professionals. What they would have done (and their are documented plans supporting this) is simply withdrawn North of London until the invasion happened, in which case they would have surged forward again rapidly.
Since little needed to be moved except the aircraft themselves (spares, tooling, etc. could be borrowed while they were in the North) this would take little time and would leave the Germans with little to hit. If they had really wanted to hit anything, it would have meant unescorted raids tracked all the way in - and hence very bad losses.
Why? ALL the German vehicles, artillery (bar a few mortars) and heavy armour would be parked in France as they simply lacked the ability to get it across the channel. Incidentally, the majority of units were fully reequipped within a very short period of time - I can think of at least one unit armed with 3.7"(?) AA guns that left it’s guns at Dunkirk and were most disappointed to find shiny new ones waiting for them the minute they got back (meaning no leave!).
You’re also fundamentally misreading the national character if you think that the defeat in France led to those evacuated being defeatist in nature.
The RN always were the fundamental obstacle - in the sense that unless they did something incredibly stupid (along the lines of scuttle the entire fleet in Scapa Floe as a joke) any invasion by sea will be destroyed, the majority of it before it hit the beaches. IIRC throughout summer 1940 there were around 50 destroyers kept at very short notice to steam within 2 hours steaming of the planned invasion beaches, along with around a dozen cruisers. Given that most of the German barges needed 24 hours to make the crossing and would sink by themselves in moderately bad weather (the wake from a large ship would be more than enough) it’s virtually inconceivable that the Germans could ever get ashore in any force.
Oh, and did you read the rest of the thread? Most of your arguaments have been gone over in far greater depth already and generally thoroughly discredited.
Do those statistics include RAF planes lost on the ground? Remember that for every day that the Luftwaffe bombed RAF Airfields the RAF wasn’t just losing planes in the air but ALSO planes on the ground along with the facilities needed to mantain and supply them.
I am certain that if the Luftwaffe kept targetting the RAF on the ground they would’ve eventually have defeated them. Luckily Hitler’s ego got in the way and at the expense of the City of London, the RAF was given the breathing space it needed
With the British army having been already defeated in France and a large amount of its vehicles and heavy equipment rusting away on the beaches of Dunkirk the British wouldve put a desperate fight on their home soil but would be on the back foot.
In my mind the Royal Navy would’ve been the main obstacle to Operation Sea Lion had the Luftwaffe continued to target the RAF instead of switching to London.[/quote]
Hi mate, good stuff, as PDF says some of it has been gone over before. If you read this:
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1266&start=15
You will find that I posted a good few links on the strength of Fighter Command during the BoB.
Although that I would agree that a lot of the British troops had to be somewhat deflated after Dunkirk I’m convinced that fighting on home soil would have provided a spur to them.
Sir Keith Park’s greatest fear was that more of his squadrons would be caught on the ground by the Luftwaffe, until the switch to London this was exactly what the Luftwaffe were attempting to do. Planes on the ground don’t shoot back. I understand that this actually only happened a small number of times but had the Luftwaffe continued to attack RAF airfields it would’ve proved very costly.
It is more out of curiousity that I would like to see a figure that shows the number of RAF aircraft lost on the ground as well as in the air. I know it is tradition to think of a plane only being a kill if it shot down from the air but when it comes down to it, a plane is a plane.
Did I say that at all? What I actually said was that “they wouldve put a desperate fight” I NEVER once suggested that the British were being defeatist by nature, I was just reminding you that the British Army had just lost a lot of their equipment and a large number of their trained army in France.
Yes I had read the rest of the thread but posted what I did as my opinion in response to Monty’s Double post. I am very sorry to have somehow caused you grief pdf and will endevaour to not have an opinion in the future if it only means you will flame me accusing me of not reading threads and misquoting me eg: claiming I thought the British people were defeatist in nature
Nope, continue what your doing Lemuel. It is good debate. PDF is also a good debater and thats what we like here.
No flames, just points and counterpoints, as long as anyone can clearly and susinctly put their points of view over there is no problem.
After all this is a bit of a what if. Which has been good I may add.
I have just read a very well written piece on Op SEALION here:
http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/althist/seal1.htm
He seems to have a good grasp of the pertinent elements that have all been touched on above.
I’m reopening this thread…
I’ve read some on this at other forums. And I’ve heard speculation that Operation Sealion planning was nothing more than a half-assed bluff and no invasion would have taken place remotely within the timetable after the Fall of France…
So, was Sealion a ruse, or did the Germans have any actual hope of landing in Britain?
RAF Fighter Command lost a total of 20 serviceable fighters on the ground during the whole of the Battle Of Britain
You mentioned the Aquatic Mammal. A Jihad on your arse!
It wasn’t a ruse, and it had a zero chance of success
Germany did manage too get a shore on british soil[ british isle or something]
U can see an english police officer standing next too German Officers and German Soilders,and the germans even took down the british flag and put the nazi flag up. I saw it with my own eyes. History channel and ww2 book.
It was all down too the royal air force,if they fail then britan was doomed:D
That was in the Channel Islands, which are technically part of the Dutchy of Normandy. They are the last bit of France owned by William the Conqueror prior to 1066 still owned by the British Crown, and as they are about 5 miles off the coast of France were considered indefensible.
The Germans fortified them heavily and used large garrisons - which the Allies promptly ignored when they invaded France and later Germany. Indeed, Channel Islanders still celebrate VE day as Liberation Day…
Not quite - the Luftwaffe were incapable of effectively attacking moving ships in 1940. They wouldn’t have been capable of stopping the RN from attacking the invasion fleet, and considering it was largely made of river barges they would most likely have slaughtered it.
Sorry but it was british soil ,but it wast join up to britain. Thats the only british soil the germans ever step foot on. Dont forget britain had an Empire back in those days:D I dont think youre wrong at, all its what i learnt and i dont what to go against a mod,i respect mods,please dont jump down my throat.
Ummm… sort of. The Channel Islanders are subjects of the British Crown (as indeed are Australians, come to think of it), but not part of the United Kingdom. They are self-governing in all matters except defence, citizenship, and diplomatic representation. As such they aren’t actually British soil as they are specifically Crown possesions.
YES are you saying im right?OH im god im right ,im going to chuck a party:mrgreen: