If Germany had won the air, could Royal Navy have prevented a German invasion ?

Tarzan7

Wondering, the above. Now we know the German navy was the poor cousin of the German army and air force as the Germans were mainly about land conquest and Blitzkrieg tatics etc. So therefore I am very skeptical of the German navy taking control of the seas off the south east of England for an invasion.

However, is there a case that the Royal Navy ( RN ) would have risked unsustainable losses from attacks from the land based Luftwaffe in France if the Germans had won the Battle of Britain ( BoB) ?

exaisle

Tarzan7 wrote: »

Wondering, the above. Now we know the German navy was the poor cousin of the German army and air force as the Germans were mainly about land conquest and Blitzkrieg tatics etc. So therefore I am very skeptical of the German navy taking control of the seas off the south east of England for an invasion.

However, is there a case that the Royal Navy ( RN ) would have risked unsustainable losses from attacks from the land based Luftwaffe in France if the Germans had won the Battle of Britain ( BoB) ?

Why the abbreviations? (WTA?)

280special

Without a doubt if the Royal Air Force (RAF)had been defeated in the BOB then the invasion would have gone ahead and been successfull. The RN could never have operated in the narrow confines of the English channel or the southern North Sea with an unopposed Luftwaffe operating from bases in France and Holland. Lets not forget that daylight English channel convoys stopped in late July, due to Luftwaffe activity.

The deficiencies in RN anti-aircraft (AA)defences were very evident off Dunkirk and during the Norwegian debacle. Quite a few of their main armaments were unable to train high enough to engage aircraft once they were overhead, so not much use against Ju87's or 88's !!, and their secondary or AA armaments,especially on corvettes,destroyers and light cruisers, consisted of a few machine guns and, if they were lucky, one or two pom-poms.

The German Navy would not have been needed to handle the RN, the RN would have been blasted out of the water long before they got near the invasion fleet.

280special

exaisle wrote: »

Why the abbreviations? (WTA?)

Why not? makes it easier and quicker to type a reply !

Tarzan7

280special wrote: »

Without a doubt if the Royal Air Force (RAF)had been defeated in the BOB then the invasion would have gone ahead and been successfull. The RN could never have operated in the narrow confines of the English channel or the southern North Sea with an unopposed Luftwaffe operating from bases in France and Holland. Lets not forget that daylight English channel convoys stopped in late July, due to Luftwaffe activity.

The deficiencies in RN anti-aircraft (AA)defences were very evident off Dunkirk and during the Norwegian debacle. Quite a few of their main armaments were unable to train high enough to engage aircraft once they were overhead, so not much use against Ju87's or 88's !!, and their secondary or AA armaments,especially on corvettes,destroyers and light cruisers, consisted of a few machine guns and, if they were lucky, one or two pom-poms.

The German Navy would not have been needed to handle the RN, the RN would have been blasted out of the water long before they got near the invasion fleet.

Excellent.

TerrorFirmer

Absolutely true. Without RAF aircover, the RN would have been blown out of the water. There's no excuses, or provisions available - that's the naked truth. The Luftwaffe, operating from bases in France, Netherlands, etc, would have sunk the RN, without air cover, almost effortlessly.

Navy AA capability was largely based on sufficient air cover, not stationary defenses. Without sufficient local air cover, the RN was doomed to catastrophic results, regardless of the AA infastructure.

Indeed, with adequate aerial leadership, one would argue that the LW would have effortlessly forced the RAF to their knees. But, they didn't, and hindsight means little. They came incredibly close in 1940, but, not realizing the damage they were inflicting, switched to other methods.

War is a game of chance. And the battle of Britain, through various factors, was ultimately a game of chance throughout various factors in witch the British prevailed despite inferior air and manpower, to their eternal credit.

The world owes them that gratitude, despite their failures. Few can fault the British in that battle.

Stovepipe

The RN's inadequate AA cost them a lot of ships in the Med, later.It also earned them the undying enmity of the RAF, for their tendency to shoot first and identify later. I'd suggest though, that the Kriegsmarine's own AA was no great shakes, either, given that Swordfish operating at 90 feet and 90 knots (correct conditions for launching torpedos) managed to do them a lot of harm.
With regard to the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe had proved the point about the vulnerability of RN ships to steep dive bombing and the RN were loath to risk their ships off Dover but higher office thought better and insisted they escort useless convoys past Dover. Churchill almost lost the Navy's respect for him on that issue.

regards
Stovepipe

Ping Chow Chi

When I look at how much prep and build up the DDay landing took, with the US and British airforces having total control of the skies and their navies having total control of the sea and even then it wasn't a foregone conculsion, I can not see how Germany could have successfully invaded, not with the equipment that they had anyway.

Stovepipe

I think if the Germans had attempted to invade within a month of the evacuation of Dunkirk, they would have stood a good chance, if they had control of the air (even of a small section of the Channel). Britain had next to no artillery or tanks available, their war production was not fully in war mode and their Army was not in good condition. If the Germans had landed successfully, they would have needed to have amassed a large amount of artillery and tanks, as well as wheeled transport, to break out of the beachhead and sustain an advance, as well as keep the supply line protected from RN attack from the Med and North Channel and North Sea. Apart from that, Britain is about 800 miles long and densely populated, especially around the industrial Midlands, so it would have been a tough slog to conquer and occupy. They would have needed to bring over a very large occupation force, apart from the invasion army. Given that the German panzers were worn out by the time they reached Dunkirk, coupled with the loss of so many transport aircraft, it would have been miraculous if they could have made it across in one piece and then sustained themselves in another blitzkrieg.

regards
Stovepipe

Ping Chow Chi

Stovepipe wrote: »

I think if the Germans had attempted to invade within a month of the evacuation of Dunkirk, they would have stood a good chance

I agree that if the German army had managed to make a successfull landing and managed to keep a clear supply line a month after Dunkirk that they probably would have beaten the British (and allies) troops. But I think taking out the RAF and the RN in a month and mustering enough boats would have been a tall order.

My gut feeling is that if Germany had gone all out to invade Britian it would have found a way to be successfull, eventually. But it would have been at a high cost and that cost would have left it totally exposed to Russia.

I cant help feeling that using adapted barges to move an army accross the channel is not going to work though.

280special

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

When I look at how much prep and build up the DDay landing took, with the US and British airforces having total control of the skies and their navies having total control of the sea and even then it wasn't a foregone conculsion, I can not see how Germany could have successfully invaded, not with the equipment that they had anyway.

Different ball game completely.

In 1940 the Germans had the best tanks, best trained soldeiry and some of the best generals. The British had some good soldiers, a few tanks and anti-tank weapons, and damned all else. The British didnt have time to prepare proper anti-invasion defences and their only hope was the RAF, luckily for them, and the rest of us, the RAF did the job, helped by Fat Herman as he was called !

In 1944 the Germans still had the best tanks, some of the best trained soldiers,some of the best generals and had been preparing anti-invasion defences for years. The Allies didnt have great tanks, had relatively inexperienced and, in some cases, poorly trained soldiery. No one knew if they could overcome the defences or if the number of casualties would be too high to keep going. They didnt have the mass numbers or "cannon fodder" attitude of the Russians, even if they did send their Shermans out to take on Tigers knowing that in all probability 15 crewmen would die for every Tiger killed ...on a good day.

Thats why there was a question of doubt over the success of the invasion.

BUT the Allies did have air superiority and that proved to be as vital a factor as any. No Panzers, supplies or troops could move in safety during daylight, static defences were pounded to hell and back, and the factories were getting hit hard as well.

Stovepipe

@PingCC,
It's quite the fashion in British circles to deride the German barges but those barges were much bigger and more seaworthy than their British equivalent and still are! In a lot of cases, the only mod they needed was to fit a ramp for vehicles and a self-defence AA gun.I'm quite sure German engineers would have sorted out the ramp problem in due course. The Germans and other Europeans were well versed in the art of using large barges on their wide inland rivers. If they had got across in one piece, they would only have needed the most basic of port facilities to unload. I also think that the psychological shock to the British of having enemy troops ashore would have hindered a stout defence.

regards
Stovepipe

280special

Stovepipe wrote: »

I think if the Germans had attempted to invade within a month of the evacuation of Dunkirk, they would have stood a good chance, if they had control of the air (even of a small section of the Channel). Britain had next to no artillery or tanks available, their war production was not fully in war mode and their Army was not in good condition. If the Germans had landed successfully, they would have needed to have amassed a large amount of artillery and tanks, as well as wheeled transport, to break out of the beachhead and sustain an advance, as well as keep the supply line protected from RN attack from the Med and North Channel and North Sea. Apart from that, Britain is about 800 miles long and densely populated, especially around the industrial Midlands, so it would have been a tough slog to conquer and occupy. They would have needed to bring over a very large occupation force, apart from the invasion army. Given that the German panzers were worn out by the time they reached Dunkirk, coupled with the loss of so many transport aircraft, it would have been miraculous if they could have made it across in one piece and then sustained themselves in another blitzkrieg.

regards
Stovepipe

Good points but the fact is that the Luftwaffe would have decimated the RN if the RAF wasnt there, look at what happened in Malaya, Norway, Crete, Greece or Malta. As regards the midland, mass population areas, the Germans didnt concern themselves with "collaterial damage" too much, in fact they used mass panic to their advantage on many occasions. The figures for losses to the German JU52 fleet look drastic but quite a few of those were repaired and returned to service, that leaves in excess of a minimum of 250? Something over 4000 well trained,dedicated Fallschirmjager landing inland of the landing beaches would have been one heck of a headache for the British !

With regards to their armour and transport, with an invasion of southern England in August or September after the defeat of France in late june, 30-60 days would have given them plenty of time to service and repair their tanks and transport. And thats not allowing for items captured during the Battle of France or their reliance on horse drawn transport.

But then we also need to consider what would have happened in the Uk had an invasion taken place. What were the objectives of the inavsion? what targets would they have gone for? Would the British people and their government have held out or would the pro-Nazi tendencies of some of the British ruling classes have caused them to surrender ?

It could well be that the simple event of an invasion taking the southern counties would have been enough. And we would not be here now to debate the issue !

Ping Chow Chi

280special wrote: »

Good points but the fact is that the Luftwaffe would have decimated the RN if the RAF wasnt there, look at what happened in Malaya, Norway, Crete, Greece or Malta.

Didnt the Lufwaffe only destory one or two RN ships in Norway? And at dunkirk, despite their air superiority I think the RN only lost half a dozen ships?

getz

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

Didnt the Lufwaffe only destory one or two RN ships in Norway? And at dunkirk, despite their air superiority I think the RN only lost half a dozen ships?

england was desperately not prepared,the best they could come up with to stop a german invasion was plans to set a light the english channel ,or my favorite one was the goon show one,build a carboard replica ,and float it in the english channel,so when the germans land on it,they would burn it,only problem would be, what if the germans realized and dropped carboard bombs on it. [live in my world ,its much more fun]

Ping Chow Chi

Ha. Goon show.... that's going back some years!

I dont doubt that if both armies faced each other on a level playing field that the Germans would have won (though I doubt that they would have roll'ed over as easy as some seem to suggest) the problem was always getting the army on shore safe and securing a supply line.

BlaasForRafa

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

Didnt the Lufwaffe only destory one or two RN ships in Norway? And at dunkirk, despite their air superiority I think the RN only lost half a dozen ships?

The Royal Navy lost 6 destroyers with over 20 badly damaged, because of the shallowness of the water a number of ships were beached and then repaired. Don't forget that after Dunkirk Britain was so short of destroyers that it had to appeal to America for help.

In open waters though, like in the Crete campaign the Royal Navy suffered terribly. 3 cruisers were sunk along with 6 destroyers (including Mountbattens ship HMS Kelly) and the battleships Valiant and Warspite were badly damaged and out of action for months afterwards.

Jim S

Some interesting views, I agree and would differ with some.
The Kriegsmarine was never happy with the intention to invade as they said from the start they had neither the ships to transport Sealion nor the resources to defend it.( Most of their destroyer force having been lost in Norway).
Minefields featured heavily in their plans to keep the RN at bay and the laying of mines and sweeping of them was a never ending process by both sides.
The invasion would only have been launched if the RAF had been defeated and the circumstances for invasion were thankfully never achieved even if Coastal Convoys were badly disrupted and for a time stopped.
I don't know if the Luftwaffe would have destroyed the RN as they had at Crete , it is worth mentioning that the German surface ships heading for Crete were badly mauled and it is likely that German losses would have been high.
Supply would have been the Achilles heel , a spell of bad weather post invasion would have not been good for the Germans and transport aircraft were in short supply.
Had they achieved control of the air could they have kept it ?
Sealion was always going to be a very high risk venture , the crossing would have been long the craft were river craft not made for the sea , slow and mostly making head way under tow, any force arriving would have arrived cold wet , sea, sick and under fire - specialist craft they did not have.
The RN would have taken losses but it is likely that had they got amongst the invasion force they would have caused considerable damage.

Fratton Fred

Jim S wrote: »

The RN would have taken losses but it is likely that had they got amongst the invasion force they would have caused considerable damage.

I think that is the key. The RN has proven over the centuries (Thanks in part to the execution of John Byng) that they would fight until the bitter end, regardless of the odds.

The shape of the German invasion craft would not have required an awful lot of RN ships to have got in and routed them. For every ship the Luftwaffe sunk, there would have been another two ready and waiting to sacrifice themselves in the defence of the realm.

it may well have cost the RN the majority of its ships, but the Germans would have lost tens, if not hundreds of thousands of men.

Morlar

These are from a photo album in my posession :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71456964

showing preparations for Operation Sealion. & might be of interest







I think it's interesting to see them practice going over the sides and also landing with bicycles ready to roll.

Stovepipe

You're forgetting the potential of a successful airborne assault. If the Germans managed to keep a clear channel for even a few days, they would have had enough time to establish a paratroop/airlanded troops foothold, assuming they had managed to keep local air superiority. If they managed to get enough tanks and artillery ashore and caused a movement of population to clog roads, like in France and Holland, then they would have been very hard to dislodge. I recall reading about Sealion being wargamed by historians and that the conclusion was that RN intervention from the Med, as well as other Empire intervention, such as from Canada, would have tipped the balance. As Fratton Fred says, the RN would fight tooth and nail to stop a seaward invasion and their size would have allowed them to sustain heavy losses and still intervene against a German fleet (which, incidentally, would have been boosted by all the captured merchant fleets of Western Europe).

regards
Stovepipe

DarylH

Despite the greatness of the RN at this time if the Luftwaffe owned the air to begin with they could easily help the German Navy own the sea, regardless of past achievements of the RN avoiding letting the Luftwaffe destroy some of there ships I would argue that with air superiority they could easily destroy more ships than they could build & do this on a daily basis.
Of course this is all in theory and opinion,
given the BoB was always going to be won by the British.

Jim S

Given that the Germans would have been depending on fighters to sustain that air superiority and the lack of ability shown by the 110 to mix it with the Hurricane and Spitfire the fight would have fallen on the 109.
The invasion fleet was never going to be a sprinter - mostly towed it would have been quite a task to bring it to GB shores in good order , to keep aircover over it would have been an exhausting task.
As far as keeping this up for a few days , escorting or clearing the way for JU-52's the Luftwaffe didn't have the resources and taking losses could not have sustained the effort.
(As far as paratroopers went the Luftwaffe was very short of transport aircraft and as yet did not have a large glider force.)

Invasion, only if a collapse of the RAF was to take place and given Goring's direction of the battle that chance was lost early on.

Derfelcadarn

Germany didn't like paratroops. They mostly deployed Fallschirmjaeger as elite troops after Crete, because of the high losses they took in landing. They didn't have the will or the transport aircraft to get large numbers of troops on the ground. To get large numbers of troops ashore across the Channel, they'd have had to use flatbottomed barges and whatnot from the Rhine, it'd be like a reverse Dunkirk.
While the RN would take heavy losses assuming Luftwaffe air superiority, they'd take their lumps in defence of the realm. Even without battleships, enough destroyers, frigates, minesweepers and corvettes sailing through the centre of an invasion force would sink a sizable chunk purely with bow waves and wake turbulence.
Also, the Wehrmacht were hurting and stretched, with a lot of their vehicles damaged. Many generals opposed Seelowe unless the army got six months to rest, rearm and replace losses.

280special

Jim S wrote: »

Given that the Germans would have been depending on fighters to sustain that air superiority and the lack of ability shown by the 110 to mix it with the Hurricane and Spitfire the fight would have fallen on the 109.
The invasion fleet was never going to be a sprinter - mostly towed it would have been quite a task to bring it to GB shores in good order , to keep aircover over it would have been an exhausting task.Hardly, their bases were by then very close to the channel. As it was the majority of the planned invasion beeches were in SE England within easy range of the 109 and the route for at least those barges going from Boulogne, Calais and Dunkirk werent that great. If you look at German thinking before d-day you can see their thinking quite clearly, they expected the Allies to come by the shortest,easiest route, largely the route they had planned to use in reverse in 1940...
As far as keeping this up for a few days , escorting or clearing the way for JU-52's the Luftwaffe didn't have the resources and taking losses could not have sustained the effort. But their plan was to have effectively cleared the air of the RAF before launching the invasion, Fighter command would have been decimated before the Ju52's appeared.
(As far as paratroopers went the Luftwaffe was very short of transport aircraft and as yet did not have a large glider force.)

Invasion, only if a collapse of the RAF was to take place and given Goring's direction of the battle that chance was lost early on.

Yes, thank god for Goring !!

280special

Derfelcadarn wrote: »

Germany didn't like paratroops. ??? They were amongst the pioneers, formed in 1936, they were the elite of the elite regarded as the poster boys of Nazi Germany and Goring's Luftwaffe,they used them very, very successfully in Norway, Holland and Belguim !! They mostly deployed Fallschirmjaeger as elite troops after Crete, because of the high losses they took in landing. They didn't have the will What about the plan to land paratroops and glider infantry on the vital target of Lympne airfield in Kent ? or the transport aircraft to get large numbers of troops on the ground.I would suggest you check out Hitler's war directive To get large numbers of troops ashore across the Channel, they'd have had to use flatbottomed barges and whatnot from the Rhine, it'd be like a reverse Dunkirk. But Dunkirk was a successfull if costly seaborne operation, 338000 troops moved in the face of artillery and air attacks isnt to be sneezed at !
While the RN would take heavy losses assuming Luftwaffe air superiority, they'd take their lumps in defence of the realm. Even without battleships, enough destroyers, frigates, minesweepers and corvettes sailing through Ignoring all those Bf-109's,Ju88's, Ju87's, Do-17's,He-111's and Fw-200's buzzing around their heads ? the centre of an invasion force would sink a sizable chunk purely with bow waves and wake turbulence.Right.....
Also, the Wehrmacht were hurting and stretched, with a lot of their vehicles damaged. Many generals opposed Seelowe unless the army got six months to rest, rearm and replace losses.

..

280special

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

Didnt the Lufwaffe only destory one or two RN ships in Norway? And at dunkirk, despite their air superiority I think the RN only lost half a dozen ships?

At Dunkirk the RN lost 6 destroyers, the French lost 3 with a lot damaged. But what isnt covered in those figures are the other large ships that were lost or damaged, including coastal patrol ships, transports, etc.

In the Norway Campaign the RN lost a lot of ships, not all at the hands of the Luftwaffe but some indirectly through the fear of air attack. For instance HMS Effingham ran onto some rocks when sailing in poor visability and at speed in fear of being caught by air attack.

Even when specifically equipped for AA work the RN didnt fare too well against the Luftwaffe, Curacoa & Cairo were severly damaged by bombs, Curlew sank. The ordinary cruiser Suffolk barely made it back to Scapa.

The destroyers Gurka, Afridi, Bison(French), Grom (Polish) were all sunk, and the British also lost a Submarine captured by a combination of German Air and sea power !

Norway is perhaps a good example of what might have happened to the RN in the event of the Luftwaffe defeating Fighter Command and the RN sending their fleet south to defeat a German invasion in the face of german aircraft based only a few miles away across the channel.....total destruction beckoned for Jack Tar !

Jim S

280special

Hardly, their bases were by then very close to the channel. As it was the majority of the planned invasion beeches were in SE England within easy range of the 109 and the route for at least those barges going from Boulogne, Calais and Dunkirk werent that great. If you look at German thinking before d-day you can see their thinking quite clearly, they expected the Allies to come by the shortest,easiest route, largely the route they had planned to use in reverse in 1940...

Still not a lot of time to have in the air especially as coordination of transports and escorts would have been a problem.
With an invasion under way the RAF would have moved reserves in from the North to take on the immediate threat and every transport lost would be a major blow to the Luftwaffe, not to mention the troops lost.
Crete - even with air superiority the Germans came within an ace of being defeated - I feel they might have fared worse in England.

But their plan was to have effectively cleared the air of the RAF before launching the invasion, Fighter command would have been decimated before the Ju52's appeared.

True but in the event of invasion the RAF would still not have been absent and in clearing the sky the Luftwaffe would also have been significantly weakened.

I agree , thank God for Herman G. !

mountainyman

RN 5 capital ships, 11 cruisers, 53 Destroyers
KM 1 capital ship, 1 cruiser, 20-30 Submarines

RAF 570 Hurricanes and Spitfires
LW 600 Me109s (750 bombers)

It depends what you mean by 'Won in the Air'.
Even if the airbases in the south of England had been destroyed the Luftwaffe couldn't have had complete air superiority and the gap between the KM and the RN is ludicrous.

Anyway the point is moot the English were better.

http://www.changingthetimes.net/samples/brooks/why_sealion_is_not_an_option.htm

Fr.Jack

So the English kept the Germans back. Right. LOL

Snickers Man

I think the whole idea of Operation Sealion was perfunctory and incidental. It is part of the British mythology of WWII that they successfully bet back a German invasion which was very unlikely to have been instigated anyway, even if the Luftwaffe had managed to destroy the RAF on the ground.

The reasons have been cited above. Densely populated country, too difficult to manage, a massive drain on resources.....Hitler had more important things to do than keep the British down at heel. All he wanted was the British Army out of the continent and Britian put back in its box. A negotiated peace with Britain keeping its Empire (like France was able to do) would have been the ideal result for Hitler.

The second best result was what he got:

• An emasculated British Army fighting the Italians in the desert for a couple of years while the Wehrmacht got on with the major project of capturing Russia as far as the Urals.
  
• The Royal Navy tied up on convoy escort duty and not able to enforce the sort of blockade that eventually won the First World War. Not that they would have been able to close down the French Atlantic coast as easily as they had the North and Baltic Seas.
  
• A fledgling Bomber Command who for the next two years got pasted by the German defences whenever they tried to bomb Germany proper.

It was the Soviet Union who won WWII, not the British Army. That should be self evident, but it's to be expected that the average Briton experiences a bit of cognitive dissonance on that point.

Stovepipe

What if the Germans had put in decoy attacks on the Shetlands and the Orkneys, both of which were within range of bombers from Norway? Also, the British coastal defences were very thinly spread and badly equipped in early 1940 and even later, were often dependent on relic weapons and elderly manpower from WW 1 for defence. The coast from Cornwall to the top of Scotland is about 1200 miles long, which would have required a huge amount of troops to offer even a basic level of defence. The radar coverage was also known by both sides to be patchy and not fault-free. The populations of South Coast cities were often to feel the brunt of Luftwaffe attacks, especially Plymouth, Portsmouth and Southampton and the germans showed that they could inflict pinpoint attacks such as the smashing of the Supermarine factory, so I don't think that the automatic assumption that the RAF and RN would prevail against a concerted air/sea assault is correct.

regards
Stovepipe

mountainyman

Fr.Jack wrote: »

So the English kept the Germans back. Right. LOL

The English channel kept the Germans back.
If England had surrendered the Germans would have beaten the Russians.

mountainyman

Snickers Man wrote: »

It was the Soviet Union who won WWII, not the British Army. That should be self evident, but it's to be expected that the average Briton experiences a bit of cognitive dissonance on that point.

The Americans won WWII for only 250,000 lives.

Fr.Jack

No particular Ally won WW2 It was Hitlers incompetence that lost it.

johngalway

Would it not have been foolish to try to invade directly after gaining air superiority? Bide your time once the RAF would have been defeated, pick targets and eliminate them properly. Including the RN. In the mean time, if invasion was to be a goal, build up the proper forces and equipment to get that job done. Then there would be a much improved situation for invasion, RAF gone, RN mostly sunk, infrastructure, manufacturing and defence instillations destroyed or damaged.

Then invade.

Speed is great, but sometimes it's the wrong move. An invasion of Britain would have to be faultlessly planned to succeed.

Stovepipe

@jg, Britain was in bad shape, defence-wise, right after Dunkirk and had no armour or heavy artillery worth the name ready to use. The population was not yet blooded by bombing and had never experienced refugee flight or major deprivation of resources, nor were they really aware of the scale of losses of men and material. Their industrial might was not yet fully up to speed to generate replacement fighters, nor was it's flight training system generating enough new pilots. I think that if the Germans had established even a small toehold on UK home soil, especially within a short Panzer-march on London, then the psychological shock of having had the Channel breached might have tipped the scales in Hitler's favour.

regards
Stovepipe

cloud493

Well, without air cover, yes, the Royal navy would have been in a lot of trouble. But the fact is, even if the RAF's losses in the south/south east had become unsustainable, the plan was simply to withdraw them further back.So there would have been british air forces, in one way or another. Plus the simple fact, the Royal Navy was the most powerful navy in the world, and deployed over half available destroyers(around 100 off the top of my head) around the expected invasion areas, even at serious risks to convoys. Now while its true, the Meditarren experiences of 1941 - 1943 saw that in hostile waters, without air cover, the royal navy almost always found itself in serious trouble, in the English channel, the royal navy/ raf(even the remnants) would have mauled the german invasion fleet, poor as it was, to a point where it would have been unable to invade. The British losses would have been severe, no doubt. But the royal navy was too large, and too effective a force. Churchill knew it. Hitlers admirals knew it. Hitler himself eventually knew it.

bwatson

Snickers Man wrote: »

It was the Soviet Union who won WWII, not the British Army. That should be self evident, but it's to be expected that the average Briton experiences a bit of cognitive dissonance on that point.

You are very, very bitter.

It was a combination of many factors which led to the final outcome of WW2. That should be self evident - to any person who has chosen to study the conflict in depth with an open mind.

It is to be expected however that the average Irishman experiences a hell of a lot of cognitive dissonance when confronted with this most unwelcomed of truths.

It is (not so) surprising that many seek to underplay any British achievement. It is as if many are saddened by the fact that Germany did not succeed in defeating Britain and seek still to focus upon the failings and weaknesses of the British military as if to convince themselves of what would have been a welcomed German superiority!

The British played a vital, very significant role in the war. The British should be (and are) very proud of the actions of their servicemen and women. I do not believe there are many, if any, who believe that Britain "won the war" as you suggest.

I think you become frustrated when any Briton, be they an academic or just somebody with interest in the topic, expresses a sense of pride or gratitude towards their nation's actions during the war. This may come about through a sense of shame at your own nations inaction or a desire to see the destruction/humiliation of the British state, however with that I am now speculating.

Jawgap

Didn't read through all the postings but the short answer to the OP's question is "Yes" - for further information read "The Royal Navy and the Battle of Britain" by Anthony J Cumming - there's a review of it here

there's also this paper - "The Air Marshal versus the Admiral: Air Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding and Admiral of the Fleet Sir Charles Morton Forbes in the Pantheon" but you'll need library access to see the full version.

The reason an invasion would not have succeeded are manifold:

• The Luftwaffe lacked squadrons capable of attacking ships - only one squadron of He111s was practiced in such tactics
• They lacked armour piercing bombs and planned to use modified naval shells to pierce the decks of the RN's capital ships.
• The RN showed, despite the losses at Norway and Crete, that a well handled destroyer is both a difficult target and a formidable anti-aircraft opponent.
• The RN Home Fleet's orders at the time were to remain north of the Wash, and Forbes' stuck to this, but Cummings makes the not unreasonable point that if the invasion fleet launched then no doubt the Home Fleet would have come charging into the Dover Straits all guns blazing, minefields or no minefields
• The towed invasion barges would have been slow (3 to 5 knots) and they had a low freeboard - meaning in the choppy waters of the Channel many would likely have been swamped, unless the water was flat calm, and even then they would still be very easy targets - a couple of destroyers in amongst them would have wreaked havoc
• As the Allies proved in 1944, even with their superior technological development, crossing the Channel, getting a shore and establishing a beachead was very difficult - the German Army viewed a potential invasion a river crossing on a broad front, so its quite possible that any planning based on this faulty concept would have been disastrous.

Even if the Germans had crossed, landed and established themselves it's still doubful that the outcome would have been a successful one in their favour. The plan (like Overlord) depended on capturing a major port within 24 to 48 hours of landing to allow their forces to be adequately supplied - but as the Germans demonstrated later in the War, it doesn't take long for a skilled team of engineers to completely wreck a port and render it unusable.

Unless they totally destroyed the Home Fleet there would still be elements of it, including its submarine force, capable of disrupting the flow of supplies. Also, the invasion barges would need to be returned pretty quickly to the Continent to allow the flow of supplies to continue up to the coast for any trans-shipping - therefore any major loss of barges would have slowed the future supply of materiel.

Finally, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Churchill was quite prepared to use poison gas on any invasion beach.

Jawgap

Snickers Man wrote: »

It was the Soviet Union who won WWII, not the British Army. That should be self evident, but it's to be expected that the average Briton experiences a bit of cognitive dissonance on that point.

WWII was not just fought in the European Theatre - even Stalin acknowledged the part played by the Brits - in his view, they (the Brits) provided the time, the Americans provided the money and the Soviets provided the blood!

getz

Jawgap wrote: »

Didn't read through all the postings but the short answer to the OP's question is "Yes" - for further information read "The Royal Navy and the Battle of Britain" by Anthony J Cumming - there's a review of it here

there's also this paper - "The Air Marshal versus the Admiral: Air Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding and Admiral of the Fleet Sir Charles Morton Forbes in the Pantheon" but you'll need library access to see the full version.


The reason an invasion would not have succeeded are manifold:

• The Luftwaffe lacked squadrons capable of attacking ships - only one squadron of He111s was practiced in such tactics
• They lacked armour piercing bombs and planned to use modified naval shells to pierce the decks of the RN's capital ships.
• The RN showed, despite the losses at Norway and Crete, that a well handled destroyer is both a difficult target and a formidable anti-aircraft opponent.
• The RN Home Fleet's orders at the time were to remain north of the Wash, and Forbes' stuck to this, but Cummings makes the not unreasonable point that if the invasion fleet launched then no doubt the Home Fleet would have come charging into the Dover Straits all guns blazing, minefields or no minefields
• The towed invasion barges would have been slow (3 to 5 knots) and they had a low freeboard - meaning in the choppy waters of the Channel many would likely have been swamped, unless the water was flat calm, and even then they would still be very easy targets - a couple of destroyers in amongst them would have wreaked havoc
• As the Allies proved in 1944, even with their superior technological development, crossing the Channel, getting a shore and establishing a beachead was very difficult - the German Army viewed a potential invasion a river crossing on a broad front, so its quite possible that any planning based on this faulty concept would have been disastrous.

Even if the Germans had crossed, landed and established themselves it's still doubful that the outcome would have been a successful one in their favour. The plan (like Overlord) depended on capturing a major port within 24 to 48 hours of landing to allow their forces to be adequately supplied - but as the Germans demonstrated later in the War, it doesn't take long for a skilled team of engineers to completely wreck a port and render it unusable.

Unless they totally destroyed the Home Fleet there would still be elements of it, including its submarine force, capable of disrupting the flow of supplies. Also, the invasion barges would need to be returned pretty quickly to the Continent to allow the flow of supplies to continue up to the coast for any trans-shipping - therefore any major loss of barges would have slowed the future supply of materiel.

Finally, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Churchill was quite prepared to use poison gas on any invasion beach.

the poison gas bit was not that big a problem,every soldier would have had a gas mask,as did every man woman and child in the UK did.mine was a donald duck one, the setting of the channel on fire bit, was the horror

Jawgap

getz wrote: »

the poison gas bit was not that big a problem,every soldier would have had a gas mask,as did every man woman and child in the UK did.mine was a donald duck one, the setting of the channel on fire bit, was the horror

It was only a non-problem if it didn't drift and cause British casualties and - it's a big AND - the Germans didn't retaliate and escalate the situation by, for example, dropping gas on cities.

Also Churchill's reputed weapon of choice was mustard gas - if the Germans had responded in kind with that, no doubt giving its persistence and blistering qualities (gas mask wouldn't protect all exposed skin) the civilian medical services would have been overwhelmed with casualties.

Churchill's argument was based on it's use in the First World War, but then it was largely confined to the front - presumably with air superiority and better bombers, the potential for civilians being gased was greater.

Thankfully we'll only ever have to discuss this in the abstract!

Stovepipe

@jawgap, then I guess the Stuka and Ju88 squadrons must have learned how to destroy ships on the job. The cruiser, HMS Fiji, survived dozens of air attacks but was destroyed by two ME-109s with standard bombs, so it could be done. I'm not entirely convinced that the RN would succeed in smashing an invasion force without incurring their own heavy casualties.
Stretching it, imagine if Rommel got ashore, at a South Coast landfall, with his "Ghost Division" and enough Panzers, 88s and 105s? He'd be at Bristol inside two days and threatening London. It'd be a hell of a job to shift him, then.

regards
Stovepipe

jonniebgood1

bwatson wrote: »

I think you become frustrated when any Briton, be they an academic or just somebody with interest in the topic, expresses a sense of pride or gratitude towards their nation's actions during the war. This may come about through a sense of shame at your own nations inaction or a desire to see the destruction/humiliation of the British state, however with that I am now speculating.

Being neutral in wartime is not something to feel 'shame' about. Particularly a war with so much tragedy and deriliction of morals as took place in WWII.

Jawgap

Stovepipe wrote: »

@jawgap, then I guess the Stuka and Ju88 squadrons must have learned how to destroy ships on the job. The cruiser, HMS Fiji, survived dozens of air attacks but was destroyed by two ME-109s with standard bombs, so it could be done. I'm not entirely convinced that the RN would succeed in smashing an invasion force without incurring their own heavy casualties.
Stretching it, imagine if Rommel got ashore, at a South Coast landfall, with his "Ghost Division" and enough Panzers, 88s and 105s? He'd be at Bristol inside two days and threatening London. It'd be a hell of a job to shift him, then.

regards
Stovepipe

The Stuka force was withdrawn within a week of Eagle Day and almost a full month before any proposed invasion took place.

Yes, the sunk some shipping during the Channel Phase of the BoB, but it was mostly merchantmen in slow moving coastal convoys and in the case of HMS Foylebank, a moored anti-aircraft ship.

In the week or so around Eagle Day they suffered 20% casualties, that's not learning on the the job, that's being target practice:)

Even during Operation Dynamo the Luftwaffe 'only' managed to sink 3 of the 9 destroyers sunk, the other falling to E-boats, U-boats and mines.

HMS Fiji was sunk after she had expended all her anti-aircraft ammunition and as she was participating in the evacuation of Crete, she was operating in a relatively defensive role. Her situation and sinking are not comparable to a naval force moving offensively with freedom to manoeuver.

In Bungay's book - "The Most Dangerous Enemy" he shows how a destroyer moving at flank speed provides a 1.25 second window within which a dive bomber must release it's bombs, if attacking from astern, to score a direct hit. This time window reduces considerably if the ship is manoeuvering aggressively and unpredictably or if the attack is delivered from a quarter, beam or bow-on direction.

Don't believe everything you read about Rommel - such a move assumes the Germans could have transported, off-loaded and supplied an armoured force that would have freedom of action once it assembled.

For France and the Low Countries, the 7th Division, like all the German formations, was able to assemble, organise and attack in a benign environment at the end of short and secure supply lines against a badly handled, largely unco-ordinated enemy force who had no idea of the type of warfare they were facing into and who retreated in disarray.

getz

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Being neutral in wartime is not something to feel 'shame' about. Particularly a war with so much tragedy and deriliction of morals as took place in WWII.

irish goverment neutral yes,irish people no,70,000 irishmen and woman joined the british army,also countless others joined the canadian,american and south african armed forces,over 200,000 irish citizens went over to the UK to help in the war effort,

Jawgap

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Being neutral in wartime is not something to feel 'shame' about. Particularly a war with so much tragedy and deriliction of morals as took place in WWII.

We - as in Ireland - had a neutrality guaranteed by the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force in the first instance. If we didn't have these to "hide" behind we probably would have been subject to the same fate as Denmark.

I'm not sure if shame is the right word to use in connection with the government's initial stance in the conflict, but Dev offering his condolences on behalf of the Irish people on the death of Hitler should certainly be a matter of some disquiet, if not shame - and it is not excusable by saying he was only following protocols.

The real shame lies in how those who fought and were lucky enough to return alive - how they were vindictively hounded by officialdom and how former Defence Forces personnel who effectively "deserted" to fight with the Allies were court martialled and, in many cases, discharged with ignominy.

Stovepipe

@jawgap,
Certainly the Stukas were withdrawn but the 88s weren't and continued to carry out both level and divebombing attacks to the end of the Battle. While they weren't routinely trained to dive against ships, they learned on the job in Poland, France and Norway. Any accounts I've read of Dunkirk and the war in the Med is rich with accounts of fighting against Stukas and how afraid the RN was of them. I used the example of HMS Fiji as an example of where simple non-dedicated fighters were used as fighter-bombers and sank a large vessel with two bombs, which apart from anything else, is incredibly efficient bombing. Apart from that, the RAF couldn't be everywhere and the radar wasn't as good as claimed. Rommel was overrated but he was a dab hand at achieving good results with scant resources. If he had got ashore, he would have frightened the daylights out of the British.

regards
Stovepipe

getz

Stovepipe wrote: »

@jawgap,
Certainly the Stukas were withdrawn but the 88s weren't and continued to carry out both level and divebombing attacks to the end of the Battle. While they weren't routinely trained to dive against ships, they learned on the job in Poland, France and Norway. Any accounts I've read of Dunkirk and the war in the Med is rich with accounts of fighting against Stukas and how afraid the RN was of them. I used the example of HMS Fiji as an example of where simple non-dedicated fighters were used as fighter-bombers and sank a large vessel with two bombs, which apart from anything else, is incredibly efficient bombing. Apart from that, the RAF couldn't be everywhere and the radar wasn't as good as claimed. Rommel was overrated but he was a dab hand at achieving good results with scant resources. If he had got ashore, he would have frightened the daylights out of the British.

regards
Stovepipe

this is what happened,to HMS fiji, she had expanded all of her ammunition fighting off numerous attack for over two hrs,she was hit by several bombs from messerschmit bf 109s, before a aircraft jagdeschwader 77 dropped a bomb close alongside and blew in the fijis bottom plates,she was then hit by three bombs dropped by a junkes ju 88, thats a lot different than your story,she was a sitting duck that could no longer fight back.

Jawgap

Stovepipe wrote: »

@jawgap,
Certainly the Stukas were withdrawn but the 88s weren't and continued to carry out both level and divebombing attacks to the end of the Battle. While they weren't routinely trained to dive against ships, they learned on the job in Poland, France and Norway. Any accounts I've read of Dunkirk and the war in the Med is rich with accounts of fighting against Stukas and how afraid the RN was of them. I used the example of HMS Fiji as an example of where simple non-dedicated fighters were used as fighter-bombers and sank a large vessel with two bombs, which apart from anything else, is incredibly efficient bombing. Apart from that, the RAF couldn't be everywhere and the radar wasn't as good as claimed. Rommel was overrated but he was a dab hand at achieving good results with scant resources. If he had got ashore, he would have frightened the daylights out of the British.

regards
Stovepipe

Sorry, I don't think I'm explaining myself well.

A large capital ship such as a cruiser, battleship, battle cruiser and even down to a light cruiser is a juicy target and because of it's size is relatively easy to hit.

The early stages of WWII, and the destruction of HMS Fiji, along with the sinking of Royal Oak, Hood, Repulse, Prince of Wales, the Battle of Taranto, Pearl Harbor, Battle of Mers-el-Kébir, the various battles in the Pacific etc showed how large capital ships were vulnerable to attack from the air, the sea and from below the sea.

What the Pacific Battles, Norway, Crete, and even Dunkirk also showed was that a well handled destroyer free to manoeuver is very difficult to hit and, because it can shoot back, is dangerous to attack. Also, it's even more difficult to attack at night.

If the invasion barges had launched then it would have taken them at least 8 hours to cross the Channel at it's narrowest point - that would be a long 8 hours if the RN's Home Fleet was bearing down on you, and difficult for the air force to provide protection unless the crossing takes place during daylight hours.

Simply put, the RN didn't neet to meet the invasion fleet with it's capital ships, they could have quite happily met their opposite Kriegsmarine numbers and slugged it out. All it needed was for a couple of destroyers and MTB boats to evade the German air and naval forces to get among the invasion barges and it would have been carnage. The incident at Slapton Sands in 1943 when E-boats attacked a D-Day training exercise gives some idea of what could have happened if small fast boats got in among any prospective invasion fleet.

Finally, the RN had four destroyer flotillas in the Home Fleet - some were in Gibraltar, but around 25 were available for action or already deployed - it's doubtful the Luftwaffe, the Kriegsmarine and the minefields would have taken out all 25 before at least some of them reached the invasion fleet. They also had 5 submarine flotillas to hand.

Another point I missed earlier, which underlines the paucity of planning from the Germans, was their intention to land at high tide - their logic was to get their landing forces as far up the beach as possible. This logic was later displayed in their placing of beach obstacles along the Atlantic Wall at the high water mark.

The problem with landing at high water is you are landing on a falling tide which increases the risk of landing craft beaching and not being able to move until the next high water - it was one reason why the Allies landed at low water and rising tides in nearly all their amphibious operations, so their boats could float off the beaches easier.