Could the nazis have invaded England?

Originally posted by Zagros   Or maybe your own post should be reread - by you! Apology accepted.

Entente and Allies are not the same...

Originally posted by Paul Originally posted by Temujin and how much experience did the allies had prior to D-Day?   Pachino, Siciliy, Taranto, Salerno, Dieppe, Operation Torch........ Enough?

Edited by pikeshot1600 - 08-Apr-2008 at 02:02

Originally posted by Paul   One of the reasons for the delay was the higher than predicted damage done by the Luftwaffe by the French. Add this to the unexpected damage done over Dunkirk, the Luftwaffe had to recuperate, this was part of the reason for the delay. If Guderian had gone for Dunkirk the Huricanes would have inflicted an awful lot more damage on the Luftwaffe. Could an early channel crossing even been thinkable after that.

Basically, Germany had only one chance of invading Britain and that required that the RAF be totally defeated  and that the BEF had been destroyed.

Well having experience is better than not having it.  At Guadalcanal, the necessity for purpose built landing craft in very large numbers became obvious.  The design features of those benefitted from the experience in the Solomons.

Edited by pikeshot1600 - 08-Apr-2008 at 23:25

Originally posted by The Cosmic Fool Without getting too much involved in logistics and semantics; I don't think it's possible. Even if Hitler and Stalin honored the pact, there would probably be enough reason for both sides to continue having a large military buildup on their respective borders. Those are key troops and the German military was already stretched across France and the Balkans. If you were Nazi Germany, you'd need a substantial military force to break open Britain. They've been preparing for countless months for an invasion. Not to mention, trying to get past or destroy the British Home Fleet would have been impossible. They're still the foremost naval power at this point. Basically, in the end it would require immense manpower and logistics, and that only applies if you can get around the naval problem.

I agree if you are considering the invasion in the longer term - i.e. a much better prepared German invasion against much better prepared British defenses.  However,  I still maintain that there was a window of 'vulnerability', which the Germans mostly let 'close' when they stopped Guderian's planned attack on Dunkirk before the BEF was there in force.  If you combine a possible 'capture' of the bulk of the BEF with earlier German preparations and invasion by July 1940, the equation is much different because the British defenses are much weaker (although admittedly so are the attacking German forces). 

Regarding the RN, keep in mind that it would have suffered heavy losses from air attacks in the Channel if it had tried to maintain 'standing' patrols.  In order to sortie 'into' the Channel, it would have had to get past mines and u-boat 'screens'.  Also note that it would have been easier for the Germans to replace their losses of infantry and converted river barges than it would have been for the British to replace their RN ship losses.  I'm not saying that the RN couldn't or wouldn't do it, just that it would have been a definite 'trade off' in effectiveness 'defending' the Channel vs. ship losses.

Without a doubt Germany could have initially invaded Britain. But at huge cost.

Initially using a land force in a shallow harbor speed would have been the essence of the attack. Paratroopers would have been used in an attempt to secure small towns villages in between the south downs and London.

The attempt would have been a disaster within 2 weeks though. As we all know now Britain had been developing a very sophisticated defence strategy in which any attack  would have made Leningrad look like a trip to the park for the Germans.

The 100,000 troops landing would have lost 30% on the beaches, leaving the remaining 70,000 to battle it out with the every increasing numbers of British amour and soldiers blocking any move toward London. The retreat back would have been costly not only for the Germans but also for the civilian population of the south, who would have been using every tactic possible to annihilate and hinder any German advance or retreat

The disaster then lay in the sea, by which the British Navy would have left scapaflow and made easy work of the German navy and troop carriers. It would have been highly plausable to expect very few German prisoners to be taken due to the level of venom against any German at that time. The RAF would not have take pity of troop carrying ships either.

All in all. Britain was no France, Hitler knew it.

I have not read every reply to this line of posts, but I will assume that no one ever mentioned this? My apologizes to anyone who already made this point!

After Dunkirk, a battle or a retreat that the Germans allowed to happen, as was mentioned by one respondant to this line of inquiry (sorry if I did not mention you by name), upon Hitler's orders, etc., I agree with this point.

But, what is not mentioned is the fact that the Brit's then developed a "mirage" defense! That is they developed, in quick fashion, the placement of "fake", tanks, artillery, aircraft, etc., to show to the hundreds of Nazi obversation aircraft that most all invasion points into the Island, was / were defended by hundreds or thousands of guns, tanks, and aircraft!

In other words, Hitler and his henchmen were bluffed from attempting a water borne invasion by false information!

If their information had been better, it is but (IMHO) a fifty-fifty chance that the invasion might well have been achieved!

Regards,

The whole basis of a German invasion was based on German air superiority. If the Germans could have achieved air superiority, no doubt they would have successfully invaded and conquered England.

Originally posted by TheGreatSimba The whole basis of a German invasion was based on German air superiority. If the Germans could have achieved air superiority, no doubt they would have successfully invaded and conquered England.