Theoretical invasion of England

[turkey]

Pretty much like the real thing then?

[witpqs]

[Begin obligatory WITP relevance post]

Of course, if Sealion was even launched (regardless of success) that would have had a significant impact on the British Empire's role in the WITP.

[End obligatory WITP relevance post]

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

[Begin obligatory WITP relevance post]

Of course, if Sealion was even launched (regardless of success) that would have had a significant impact on the British Empire's role in the WITP.

[End obligatory WITP relevance post]

Did they have much impact the first two years other than losing POW, Repulse, hundreds of aircraft and thousands of soldiers that became POWs? [;)]

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

The RAF could never have been destroyed, if loses were becoming critical, squadrons would have been withdrawn to bases North of London. German un-escorted bomber attacks in daylight could not succeed and night bombing would do no major damage to tactical targets. During the BoB the Germans tried one attack from Norway expecting that there could be no RAF fighters in the North, they were wrong, they didn't attempt it again. The Bf 110 failed as long range fighter escort, so no German fighter escort available North of London, until invasion captures airfields in England. Therefore, the RAF cannot be defeated, result - no airfields no invasion, no invasion no airfields. Checkmate.

Although airpower became king later in the war, especially in the Pacific, this was not the case in 1940 Europe. The plain hard evidence is that the Luftwaffe, whatever they achieved later, could not stop the RN operating in the English Channel in the summer of 1940. The fact is, that nearly 350,000 men were brought across this water, in everything
from DDs to rowboats and, despite inflicting loses, the Germans could not stop them completing that mission. Not assessment, not assumption, not maybe. It's a fact.

[:)][:)]

One can't say that airpower would not have been important over the channel in 1940 because that idea was never tested. Historically, one would suspect that air power to play a major role because it did in most other theaters at the time.

Could the RAF have retreated North, probably, what does that mean? If they're based in Scotland than Spits or Hurris wouldn't have the range to provide CAP over the fleet. Whether the RAF is destroyed or merely forced to a location where they can have little impact on invasion and supply is not important.

Didn't say that airpower wasn't important, expect the RN would have serious losses, just like Crete and Malta Convoys, but the job would still be done.

Idea was tested, say it again, RN operated in the Channel for days during Dunkirk Evacuation, whilst the Luftwaffe was specifically tasked to stop them. Goering had promised Hitler, but they still failed.

In later theatres of war there were specialised anti-shipping units, not in Luftwaffe 1940. Some He111 could drop torpedos, but see what happens to torpedo bombers without full air supremacy. Ju 87 dive bombers, although not trained for anti-shipping strikes might be some use, but they were withdrawn during BoB.

RAF would not have retreated to Scotland, didn't need to, 12 Group airfields just North of London was far enough. From there all of Southeast England was easily in reach, as shown by 12 Group participation in BoB, flying from Duxford.

Just as in the Battle in France, Dowding would have conserved his fighters and withdrawn in good time and only as far as necessary, and that is not very far. He was ready and able to confront any political pressure to do otherwise, he had done so before.

[:)]

[bradfordkay]

"Idea was tested, say it again, RN operated in the Channel for days during Dunkirk Evacuation, whilst the Luftwaffe was specifically tasked to stop them. Goering had promised Hitler, but they still failed."

I think that this is the most relevant post: Goering had promised that the Luftwaffe would stop the evacuation and it failed miserably when it had all the advantages.

[turkey]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

The RAF could never have been destroyed, if loses were becoming critical, squadrons would have been withdrawn to bases North of London. German un-escorted bomber attacks in daylight could not succeed and night bombing would do no major damage to tactical targets. During the BoB the Germans tried one attack from Norway expecting that there could be no RAF fighters in the North, they were wrong, they didn't attempt it again. The Bf 110 failed as long range fighter escort, so no German fighter escort available North of London, until invasion captures airfields in England. Therefore, the RAF cannot be defeated, result - no airfields no invasion, no invasion no airfields. Checkmate.

Although airpower became king later in the war, especially in the Pacific, this was not the case in 1940 Europe. The plain hard evidence is that the Luftwaffe, whatever they achieved later, could not stop the RN operating in the English Channel in the summer of 1940. The fact is, that nearly 350,000 men were brought across this water, in everything
from DDs to rowboats and, despite inflicting loses, the Germans could not stop them completing that mission. Not assessment, not assumption, not maybe. It's a fact.

[:)][:)]

Apples, oranges and other asundery of things...

One can't say that airpower would not have been important over the channel in 1940 because that idea was never tested. Historically, one would suspect that air power to play a major role because it did in most other theaters at the time.

Could the RAF have retreated North, probably, what does that mean? If they're based in Scotland than Spits or Hurris wouldn't have the range to provide CAP over the fleet. Whether the RAF is destroyed or merely forced to a location where they can have little impact on invasion and supply is not important.

There is no correlation that can be drawn from the D-Day invasion in '44 and Operation Sealion. They are completely different points in time.

The question I think to ask is could Germany scrape together enough torpedo bombers to neutralize home fleet capital ships and could Stukas carry ordance that could damage the RN.

I supose North would have been 12 Group, or for that matter 10 Group in the west, anywhere beyond a line about 120 miles inland from the SE coast, 150 miles from the French coast and within operational radius of Spitfire and Hurricane plus well within range of the RAF Bomber Command bases.

At the time the Nazis had the HE115 which had reasonable range, but was slow and lightly armed. Wiki says they had 3 squadrons, say 30 to 50 aircraft, and as it happens they were nearby in N orway. The torpedo was a problem. It probably sank around 7 or 8 merchantmen during 1940. (Claims were much higher). They also produced the superior DO 22, very few made all sold for export and from time to time used agianst them and they produced 12 Fi 167s designed for the Graf Zeppelin, but discontinued and used for patrol duties out of The Netherlands

Very hypothetical: Its only an opinion but I reckon, that the landing and logistics would have been a nightmare to the point of imposible, is a given. However, had they got a decent force ashore with supplies, I wonder how well they would have fared breaking out across S and SE England? Assume forward air bases in Kent, but they have limited resupply capacity due to shipping losses. The terrain lends itself to defence and was prepapred in depth, not just right on the coast.

An easier breakout would have been from the beaches of East Anglia, inland was flat,with fewer defences and they would have been nearer to the industrial heartland, but then the landing would have had to happen without fighter support.[:-] I reckon the battle inland from the sea into SE England would be interesting had it happened, and by no means a forgone conclusion either way.

Worth adding - defending London is not the objective, Gov has gone to Scotland, industry is north or west, London is the last line of defence - the largest urbanised area in the 1940 world.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"Idea was tested, say it again, RN operated in the Channel for days during Dunkirk Evacuation, whilst the Luftwaffe was specifically tasked to stop them. Goering had promised Hitler, but they still failed."

I think that this is the most relevant post: Goering had promised that the Luftwaffe would stop the evacuation and it failed miserably when it had all the advantages.

Thanks, just to emphasis the point, this 'test' included pleasure steamers, paddle ships, fishing boats, etc.. Apart from the RN and French DDs the rest were slow and unarmed. In the combat area they were tied up loading in harbour, or stopped off the beaches. It doesn't get any easier than that and still the Lufwaffe couldn't stop them. This is not to denigrate the Luftwaffe, they were excellent flyers and very competent, but they were asked to do a job they were not trained for. The RN warships heading in to attack an invasion fleet would have been much more committed, dangerous and probabily working at night.

[:)]

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: witpqs

[Begin obligatory WITP relevance post]

Of course, if Sealion was even launched (regardless of success) that would have had a significant impact on the British Empire's role in the WITP.

[End obligatory WITP relevance post]

Did they have much impact the first two years other than losing POW, Repulse, hundreds of aircraft and thousands of soldiers that became POWs? [;)]

Managed to divert 3-4 Divs from a "Seelowe" type invasion of the Sandwich Islands, or an attack on Australia. Who says the British Empire is a waste!

[Andy Mac]

Assuming they got ashore and could be supplied with a decent force I suspect it would be tough for them say 3 -5 Inf Divs an Armoured Div and a Para Div even a force of that size would struggle IMO unless you believe they could pull off a second invasion into the teeth of the RN. (or credibly threaten one)
 
There were enough forces to contain a force that size and stop it cold as they would know the axis of advance - i.e. land north of the Thames you run into 18th Div, 2nd London, 55th Div and 15th Scottish plus the county Div forward deployed - so thats 1 first line Territorial Div and 3 Second Line Territorial Divs plus a county Div none of which were in France so although under equipped and low on mobility they did have equipment
 
Backing them in ready reserve 2nd Armoured Div, 1st Canadian Div, 43rd Div and 52nd Div plus 44th Div of these 2 of the Divs were newly back from France but two of them plus the Armoured Div were never in France so again they have equipment.
 
South of the Thames 6 Divs at or near the coast of which 3 were in France (but one of them is Monty's 3rd Div that is probably the best trained Div in the army at this stage) again short of equipment in reserve the 2 ANZAC Bde Gps and 1st Armoured Div (rebuilding after France)
 
They would need a port quickly and the big ones are all covered by the stronger forces they are static and immobile because they lost a lot of MT in France and have little AT weapons but dug in south or north of the Thames they are facing a hard fight for a port
 
Not to mention in the Midlands another 5 or 6 recovering ex BEF or 1st/2nd line territorial Divs
 
Unless they could keep the British convinced about another landing was possible - i.e. that they could tie down British forces the way the allies tied down the Wehrmacht with FUSAG in 44 the British problem becomes easier once they are ashore - the Werhmacht is now committed to attacking a stronger force on its own ground with at best a shakey logistics chain on a single axis of advance - land in the south forces are diverted from East Anglia land in East Anglia forces are diverted from the North and South.
 
And every day the British get stronger as more weapons are built in the Midlands or shipped in from the US
 
Thats my view on the military angle - so suspending disbelief that they could get a force that size ashore and keep it supplied I don't think its enough to do the job as strategically its a one shot deal they cannot stage 2 invasions that size - thats beyond credible so after they commit they are committed (so to speak to one line of advance)
 
Now what this doesnt analyse is what happens in the British Govt - RN has screwedup Wehrmacht is ashorel, RAF is covering the Midlands and North - island Britain is invaded would the politicos have folded - I dont think so but I am probably less certain of that than I am of a successfull military campaign
 
I guess my conclusion is even allowing for some extreme presumptions re the landing and ongoing support either the Wehrmacht needs the Kriegsmarine to be able to do a second landing (or credibly threaten one) to tie down enough force to make it an even fight or the British Govt has to cave in for me to believe it is even possible for sealion to work.
 
I personally dont think either would happen but I wasnt there so I may be wrong.
 
ANdy

[Tiornu]

Assuming they got ashore and could be supplied with a decent force

Now that you mention it, it occurs to me that assumption may be the only process capable of getting them there.

[DuckofTindalos]

Well, I suppose they could have tried voodoo...[8|]

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: witpqs

[Begin obligatory WITP relevance post]

Of course, if Sealion was even launched (regardless of success) that would have had a significant impact on the British Empire's role in the WITP.

[End obligatory WITP relevance post]

Did they have much impact the first two years other than losing POW, Repulse, hundreds of aircraft and thousands of soldiers that became POWs? [;)]

[X(]

[DuckofTindalos]

You seem shocked. That sort of post is par for the course for this guy.[8|]

[turkey]

Agreed. I guess the Churchill Effect would have been a big factor.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

My tuppence worth for what its worth

Could the Luftwaffe have forced figther command out of south of England - YES
Could the Luftwaffe have destroyed the RAF - NO (Unless Dowding makes a catastrophic error)
Could they have landed 2 - 3 Divs (minus heavy equipment) and a couple of Para Divs in SE England - MAYBE IF THEY GOT LUCKY AND ACHIEVED SUPRISE
Could they have kept them supplied and landed heavy equipment in face of RN and RAF retaliation - ALMOST NO CHANCE IMO BUT OTHERS MAY DISAGREE
Did they have the shipping to sustain the supplies even if they managed to keep some afloat - NO

The British Deployments below the Thames in Summer of 40 had major ports covered by 3rd, 4th and 50th Divs (being brought up to strength quickly - 3rd was in good shape the others less so but they were in defence mode in and around major ports almost no mobility other than by foot but they were their and dug in)

1st London and 2 or 3 other Territorial Divs were on the coast as well in less critical areas as they had not been in Frnace they had some heavy equipment left - not TOE and obsolete - hated Hotckiss MG's rather than Brens but still MG's, 18 Pounders rather than 25 Pounders but still Arty, very few AT Guns but its unlikely they will be facing armour, 3" AA Guns rather than modern 3.7" but still AA guns - the British Army may have been denuded of MODERN equipment but it was not defenceless.

In reserve below the Thames in Corps reserve the rebuilding 1st Armoured (some tanks and A/C not many even in July 40) and the Australian Bde Gp and NZ Bde Group neither of which were in France

North of the Thames - 1st Can Div was concentrated and about 3 or 4 other Divs in various states of rebuilding and recovery

I agree 99.99% ! [;)]


But what do you exactly think under "Could the Luftwaffe have destroyed the RAF - NO (Unless Dowding makes a catastrophic error)"?

What is destruction of the RAF? Fighter Command? Bomber Command?


IMHO the RAF would be very very seriously hit if Germans had attacked just a few factories: Rolls Royce Merlin, Hurricane and Spitfire!

There were just a few of those factories, extremely vulnerable and all were in range of German bombers which had necessary equipement, accuracy and could attack at night when nothing RAF had could have stopped them!


Leo "Apollo11"

[niceguy2005]

An easier breakout would have been from the beaches of East Anglia, inland was flat,with fewer defences and they would have been nearer to the industrial heartland, but then the landing would have had to happen without fighter support. I reckon the battle inland from the sea into SE England would be interesting had it happened, and by no means a forgone conclusion either way.

This thought occurred to me, but I think realistically, the only way to pull off an invasion for Germany would be over the shortest part of the channel. What little I have read though tell me they planned on landing upwards of 9 divisions, including armor. Of course, they would be bottled up. I would almost be tempted to split my landing force. Send a force across the channel and around to East Anglia. Any favorable outcome for Germany would have to rely on speed. If the German army became bogged down I think it would be a blood bath....assuming the crossing wasn't one already.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

An easier breakout would have been from the beaches of East Anglia, inland was flat,with fewer defences and they would have been nearer to the industrial heartland, but then the landing would have had to happen without fighter support. I reckon the battle inland from the sea into SE England would be interesting had it happened, and by no means a forgone conclusion either way.

This thought occurred to me, but I think realistically, the only way to pull off an invasion for Germany would be over the shortest part of the channel. What little I have read though tell me they planned on landing upwards of 9 divisions, including armor. Of course, they would be bottled up. I would almost be tempted to split my landing force. Send a force across the channel and around to East Anglia. Any favorable outcome for Germany would have to rely on speed. If the German army became bogged down I think it would be a blood bath....assuming the crossing wasn't one already.

I talked about this earlier. Problem is that with what the German's were planning to use as "landing craft" they couldn't risk anything but the shortest crossings. A river barge is a very unseaworthy craft, and even an hour of bad weather such as the Allies landed in in 1944 would have drowned most of the landing force. Channel weather being what it is, their choice was get over quickly, or don't get over at all.

[Rasputitsa]

Has anyone here been to East Anglia, it is flat, but it is also wet. There are miles and miles of canals, waterways and ditches with raised roads and few ways to turn into the fields, with very little cover. It is an anti-tank gunners paradise and some of the worst ground for a mechanised army, unless there is almost no resistance.

[:)]

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

Has anyone here been to East Anglia, it is flat, but it is also wet. There are miles and miles of canals, waterways and ditches with raised roads and few ways to turn into the fields, with very little cover. It is an anti-tank gunners paradise and some of the worst ground for a mechanised army, unless there is almost no resistance.

[:)]

It's also where the RAF would have been hiding, less than an hour from most of the RAF's bomber bases [:D] and is a lot closer to Scapa Flow and other potential (likely) RN bases than most of the South coast.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

You seem shocked. That sort of post is par for the course for this guy.[8|]

noone is shocked by the usual post of this guy anymore though...[8|]

but... I guess I shouldn´t call you "guy"...[8|]