In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

German invasion of England

jonkjonk Member Posts: 10,121
edited February 2002 in General Discussion
My recent post about German WW2 Technology brought up an interesting point. Germany's best chance to defeat the USSR was destroyed when the invasion of England was called off. Had Germany not had to watch its back, and had been able to throw every last man, machine, and ounce of energy against the Soviets, history may have been different. That may be so, but the question must be asked, could Germany have invaded Great Britain in 1940 and won?It is true that the Brits left most of their heavy equipment at Dunkirk and that an invasion would certainly succeed, IF the Channel could be crossed by a fully equipped, motorized force with sufficient infantry, panzers, etc. Therein lies the problem, however. As we all know, invasion required air superiority which Germany lacked. Now lets make a few suppositions to stack the deck in Germany's favor.Suppose, in 1939, someone with access to and influence with Hitler had convinced him that Britain would fight to the end, necessitating invasion, and that they would not accept an armistice or sue for peace. Suppose that someone had noted that Germany lacked the transport and landing craft to invade Britain, and had started an all out building program to remedy this deficiency. Let's even suppose that through superhuman efforts, Germany had built up enough landing craft, tugs to move the existing barges, support vessels, etc., to pull off a credible 1940 invasion attempt. (Historically it would have taken days to move the existing unpowered barges across the Channel with the existing tugs and powered landing craft were virtually non-existent). Even after all of this, air superiority would still be required.Now let's suppose that someone realized just how vulnerable bombers would be to fighter intercept, and how useless the Me-110 Zerstoerer twin engined fighter would be against single engine interceptors. With the 110 out of consideration, the need for a long-range escort fighter would be clear. The 109, fitted with drop tanks (which it didn't receive until after the cancellation of the invasion, in real life) would have fit the bill nicely. Suppose the drop tanks had been made and the bombers could have enjoyed full fighter escort to and from the targets. Also suppose that Hitler hadn't gone half off his nut, and had kept up pressure against military targets such as airfields, Rolls Royce Merlin factories, Spitfire/Hurricane factories, Radar sights, etc., instead of switching to area terror bombing, which is what he did historically. In this scenario, Germany probably would have achieved air superiority. But still, the invasion wouldn't have been possible.The Royal Navy badly outclassed the Kriegsmarine. An invasion of defenseless transports would have required partial, preferably total sea supremacy. The Luftwaffe may have defeated the RAF, but in so doing would have been badly depleted. A weakened Luftwaffe and an under strength Navy may have badly crippled the Royal Navy, but it is hard to imagine the RN being totally destroyed. Even a few torpedo boats could have wreaked havoc with invasion fleets, and if even a few fighters survived, transports and men piled up on beaches would have been hideously vulnerable to attack. Hence, it is my feeling that a showdown at sea would have resulted in Britain suffering terrible losses, but losses that could be made good by the emergency recall of overseas ships. Germany, however, would have probably lost all its capital ships, and even more aircraft.This being the case, I just don't see how Germany could have moved an army across the Channel with enough oomph to totally knock out the British. I suppose that even if part of the island had been overrun, pressure to sue for peace may have come into play, but as the above case indicates, it would have been dependent on a lot of Ifs.
"...hit your enemy in the belly, and kick him when he is down, and boil his prisoners in oil- if you take any- and torture his women and children. Then people will keep clear of you..." -Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fisher, speaking at the Hague Peace Conference in 1899.

Comments

  • interstatepawnllcinterstatepawnllc Member Posts: 9,390
    edited November -1
    What would have happened if we vaporized Saddam Insane back in Gulf War? Do you think we will have to inevitable eradicate this pesky menace? WHY was this NOT done before? Please pass me the salad tongs!!
  • IconoclastIconoclast Member Posts: 10,515 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Jon, as I noted in the previous thread, the High Command's preparations for war were predicated on a 1943 jump off. The amphibious craft were barely on the drawing board when Hitler & Stalin carved up Poland. No way they could have invaded England in 1940 as things stood. BUT in 1941, after taking command of the air (instead of changing to civilian targets - 'terror bombing') the Luftwaffe could have protected the invasion fleet. Like many madmen throughout history, Hitler was convinced of his invincibility. He's not the only one to lose the 'mother of all battles.'
  • Shootist3006Shootist3006 Member Posts: 4,171
    edited November -1
    Jonk, you don't need to go into such a convoluted what-if scenario. The Germans were within weeks of winning the Battle of Britain when Hitler switched tactics. Prior to Sept. 7 1940, the Luftwaffe was concentrating on airfields and aircraft factories. The attrition rate (for fighters and pilots) exceeded the replacement rate and in 3 or 4 weeks the Germans would have had air superiority over the channel.So what happened on Sept 7? Nothing but on the night of 5 sept, Churchill had the RAF bomb downtown Berlin (causing Goering to change his name to Meyer - but that's another story). This enraged Hitler and he directed the Luftwaffe to strike civilian targets (i.e. London). This relieved pressure on the airfields and factories, allowing the build up of the RAF Fighter Command thus winning the Battle of Britain.All because Churchill was a hard nosed SOB
    Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem.Semper Fidelis
  • gruntledgruntled Member Posts: 8,218 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Still would not have gotten them across the channel. The British would never have committed all their aircraft & pilots.They may have had to pull their aircraft back & allow the Germans control of the air over Southern Britian but when the invasion came they would have had enough aircraftto enable their fleet to smash it. The Germans were planning the invasion like it was a wide river crossing. They knew they had no chance & part of the reason for continuing was to conceal the plans for operation Barbarossa. They couldn't even carry off the invasion of Malta, so what chance did they have of invading England?
Sign In or Register to comment.