Could the nazis have invaded England? - History Forum ~ All Empires

If ther eis ever a lesson to be learned from history it is that a seamingly weaker enemy should ALWAYS be respected. Why should the RN take any chances? The fact that they were superior in the sea was demonstrated there is no debte there. You are resorting to rhetoric and as such resigning yourself from fact with such statements.

Originally posted by Illirac

Originally posted by Zagros

If ther eis ever a lesson to be learned from history it is that a seamingly weaker enemy should ALWAYS be respected. Why should the RN take any chances? The fact that they were superior in the sea was demonstrated there is no debte there. You are resorting to rhetoric and as such resigning yourself from fact with such statements.

How much superior if they could not stop the U-boats, were afraid of few battleships? Anyway to the Germans were necessary more aircrafts, not ships, they already gathered 2000 barges and the first plan was to send 150000 troops, but then, they decided that firstly the RAF had to be destroyed. So, if RAF was destroyed there would have been an invasion, even with all the English fleet still alive.

And it would still have been a disaster. First the 2,000 barges you speak of were Canal barges, never meant for open water use, let alone the English Channel. Some of them had to be fitted with engines as they had originally been towed. By the time Sea Lion had been canceled they had only been able to fit 900 for use. They still had no clear cut plan for supporting these troops. Fatso Goering had declared the Luftewaffe could supply them from the air. [sound familiar?] And they still hadn't come up with a solution for Fuel transport.

Considering Hitler once stated"On land I am a lion, on the sea I am a coward" I don't believe he ever was serious about Sealion.

"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.

2000 open top barges and 150,000 troops would have been a risk few would been willing to take, even with the RAF gone.

English Channel is not the Mediterranean lake, its a tidal Northern Sea, it also has the most shipwrecks per metre of anywhere in the world. The weather can change in minutes and 25ft waves suddenly appear.

For the allies who went in seaworthy craft on D Day it would have meant loss of the operation, for the Germans in unseaworthy craft, the loss of the whole army. Flip a coin with 150,000 troops....

Edited by Paul - 06-Apr-2008 at 22:27

Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk

Originally posted by red clay

Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by red clay

Originally posted by Paul

Originally posted by deadkenny

But it wasn't 'fighters' that would have been attacking German shipping in any case. The RN would have been attacking the German invasion forces. The Luftwaffe needed to attack the RN with their bombers. The RAF Fighter Command would have been trying to keep the Luftwaffe bombers away from the RN ships.

And 6000 RAF bombers attacking the open top barges.

Germany needed to knock out the RAF fighters so their own fighters could engage the bombers.

6,000 RAF bombers? Even after the 8th Air force arrived there weren't that many bombers available, let alone the RAF on it's own.

In 1940 the RAF had 6,000 Blenheims and Whitleys alone. And of course somewhere around were nearly 12,000 Wellingtons, though some of those were built after 1940.

Total production figures for both medium and light bombers from 1938 to late 1940 was just under 6,000.

I won't quarrel much with that since it's still in the same ballpark. I thought they had stopped building Blenheims and Whitleys by 1941. But even if there less than 6,000 of them, you have a couple of thousand Battles, 1500 or so Hampdens, a few Wellesleys to make up the number.

And those 12,000 Wellingtons started being produced in 1936 going on to 1945 though I'm know about year-to-year production.

Certainly it's enough to justify Paul's assertion that the RAF had 6,000 bombers.

Production of heavy bombers didn't begin until 1941, with acceptance figures at a little over 400.

I'm counting the Wellington as a medium bomber, in so doing I'm coming up 12,000 short of the numbers your quoting.

Which ones would they be? All I was doing was justifying Paul in claiming the RAF had 6,000 bombers available - how can you be 12,000 short on 6,000?

If you look up the individual planes in wikipedia you'll get all the figures I've quoted (to within a hundred or two) plus in some cases the years they were produced.

Also, if there were as many bombers available this early on, why was it that Harris had to "scrape together every bomber available, including those of the advanced training squadrons" to put up his first 1,000 plane raid in early 42. Of those nearly a hundred had to abort due to mechanical problems. So it really wasn't a 1,000 plane raid. If England indeed had a total of 18,000 planes at it's disposal, it doesn't make sense.

Harris needed heavy and medium strategic bombers - primarily the Lancaster and the Halifax. What he didn't have at that point was 1,000 bombers capable of bombing Germany - and getting back.

For knocking out invasion barges and tactical bombing you had those Blenheims and Whitleys and Battles to make up the 6,000. Also there can be no doubt that Admiralty would have brought Coastal Command into action along with the Fleet Air Arm to defend against an invasion, whereas they refused to give any planes to Harris.

Defending the coast from invasion is rather different from bombing Cologne.

Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by Illirac

Originally posted by Zagros

Why wouldn't they be?

My point was that if they were so far better trained a far more powerful they should not have been afraid of a "weaker" enemy, which the Germans were not. They only had less numbers

Where do you get the idea from that the Royal Navy was 'afraid' of the German navy? The RN spent its time seeking out German ships in the attempt to knock them out. It was the German navy that cowered in harbour.

Cowered oh really? Because they had no fuel?

Ok, I know that an invasion was impossible, but it's not fun if everyone agrees with it Wink

For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it.

Originally posted by Zagros

No, they did actually cower in harbour after the sinking of the German battleship Bismarck in the early stage of the war. Thy stood no chance in a naval confrontation before that and conclusively lost all motive after.

The Italians as well had a very powerful fleet, and yet it was (mostly) destroyed...

For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it.

Originally posted by red clay

an officer corps that needed help tying their shoes.

For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it.

Originally posted by red clay

The German Army had little or no experience with large scale amphibious operations.

if i'd get an Euro everytime soemone says "xy had no experience in amphibious operations".... the German Army in 1918 conducted two sucessfull ambhibious operations against Finland and Georgia. and how much experience did the allies had prior to D-Day? how much did the Japanese had prior to their conquest of Philippines & Indonesia? how much experience did the German Army had in "Blitzkrieg" prior to 1939?

Americans at gallipoli? history must be rewritten...

Originally posted by Temujin

and how much experience did the allies had prior to D-Day?

Pachino, Siciliy, Taranto, Salerno, Dieppe, Operation Torch........ Enough?

Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk