Matrix Games Forums

There was a debate here in the UK a couple of years back after three RUSI scholars presented the heretical view that the BoB wasn't decided by the RAF alone. Tory press - or its readers rather - reacted in predictable fashion, fx comments in the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1527068 ... scuss.html

After the dust settled, the RUSI lot restates their case:

http://www.rusi.org/research/militarysc ... D604EF124/

http://www.rusi.org/research/militarysc ... DAE3AB61C/

http://www.rusi.org/research/militarysc ... E034F182D/

http://www.rusi.org/research/militarysc ... E2591AE95/

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: timtom

There was a debate here in the UK a couple of years back after three RUSI scholars presented the heretical view that the BoB wasn't decided by the RAF alone. Tory press - or its readers rather - reacted in predictable fashion, fx comments in the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1527068 ... scuss.html

After the dust settled, the RUSI lot restates their case:

http://www.rusi.org/research/militarysc ... D604EF124/

http://www.rusi.org/research/militarysc ... DAE3AB61C/

http://www.rusi.org/research/militarysc ... E034F182D/

http://www.rusi.org/research/militarysc ... E2591AE95/

Thanks Thomas! [:)]


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S. [EDIT]
The 4 last links are not working...

P.P.S. [EDIT]
Strange... now they seem to work... in one case I get only the main page of "RUSI" and the next time I get the commentary (as I should)... strange...

ORIGINAL: timtom

There was a debate here in the UK a couple of years back after three RUSI scholars presented the heretical view that the BoB wasn't decided by the RAF alone. Tory press - or its readers rather - reacted in predictable fashion, fx comments in the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1527068 ... scuss.html

After the dust settled, the RUSI lot restates their case:

I remember that, being on an RAF squadron the result was, predictably, total indifference [:D]

EDIT:
The Battle of Britain was won by the RAF, but it was the Royal Navy that saved us from an invasion. The entire point of the BoB was to defeat the RAF so that they would be unable to protect the Royal Navy when they went into battle. If the Royal Navy hadn't been capable of protecting us then the BoB wouldn't have been needed and Ze Germans would probably have come anyway.

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: timtom

There was a debate here in the UK a couple of years back after three RUSI scholars presented the heretical view that the BoB wasn't decided by the RAF alone. Tory press - or its readers rather - reacted in predictable fashion, fx comments in the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1527068 ... scuss.html

After the dust settled, the RUSI lot restates their case:

http://www.rusi.org/research/militarysc ... D604EF124/

http://www.rusi.org/research/militarysc ... DAE3AB61C/

http://www.rusi.org/research/militarysc ... E034F182D/

http://www.rusi.org/research/militarysc ... E2591AE95/

Thanks Thomas! [:)]

Leo "Apollo11"

P.S. [EDIT]
The 4 last links are not working...

P.P.S. [EDIT]
Strange... now they seem to work... in one case I get only the main page of "RUSI" and the next time I get the commentary (as I should)... strange...

Hrmph...from the main menu, click Research -> Military Science -> Military History Circle -> Commentary.

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

In my opinion it could have worked (with enormous losses, but hey, that would have been a decisive victory, the end of the war, kaput: a last supreme effort should be part of the equation). Thanks the Big Manitou it didn't [:)]

Major amphibious landings don't just happen, they are the result of vast planning, huge logistic effort and considerable time. I don't doubt that if several Panzer divisions and sufficent supplies, provided through a shipping effort that could be maintained, had landed in Britain, Germany would have won the War. However, my point is that this could not have happened.

The Germans could not have got to Britain with enough force (and maintained it), especially as Hitler was a cautious commander. He mainly took risks because usually he wasn't aware of the what the risks were. He said that he would never have attacked the Soviet Union if he had been aware of the true strength of The Red Army, especially the number of tanks. The attack on France was not planned as a blitzkrieg, Hitler had a much more cautious plan, turned into blitzkreig by his disobedient panzer commanders. Only after it became a dazzling success did Hitler take the credit. Hitler was fully aware of the risks of a seaborne invasion and he would not have done it, as in fact history confirmed.

The Dunkirk Evacuation had just demonstrated that the Royal Navy had full command of the Channel and could operate in the face of large German air power. Most damage was done to ships tied up in Dunkirk harbour, or stopped off the beaches full of troops, and still they did the job. What would have happened if the Germans had met this force in the open sea and the gloves were off. The German preparations for 'Sea Lion' were pathetic and could not be seen as a serious proposition, but merely bluff.

The seaborne component of the German invasion of Crete was decimated by the Royal Navy, despite the serious loss of British ships. The German paratroops would not have survived without immediate air support. Over Crete the Germans had absolute air supremacy, over Britain they would not.

I stand by the words of a British admiral in a different age, when the French Grand Armee was massed at Bologne - 'I don't say that Napoleon can't come, I just say that he cannot come by sea'

[:)][:)]

ORIGINAL: Dixie

ORIGINAL: timtom

There was a debate here in the UK a couple of years back after three RUSI scholars presented the heretical view that the BoB wasn't decided by the RAF alone. Tory press - or its readers rather - reacted in predictable fashion, fx comments in the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1527068 ... scuss.html

After the dust settled, the RUSI lot restates their case:

I remember that, being on an RAF squadron the result was, predictably, total indifference [:D]

Heh, one of my senior lecturers at Uni (in Denmark) was one of the prime movers of the socalled "2nd generation" of historians of the Occupation 1940-45 whos work challenged the cherished public consensus of one nation in unified and effective resistance against Nazi occupation specifically and generally. He liked to entertain us over lunch with stories of how concerned members of the public reacted to their iconoclasms. Think dog excrements through the mail and such.

Good thing we don't see that kind of thing around here, eh?

There's another question to solve, too.
 
Suppose the Luftwaffe "won" the Battle of Britain, that the RN's threat was eroded (by air power or french/italian fleet), that the Evacuation of Dunkirk failed to bring back over 300.000 personnel, that the OKW had pre-thought plans for Seelowe, and that they had enough barges and assets in the 1940 summer.  Which are, I believe, the very minimal conditions for even attempting Seelowe.
 
In such conditions, is it not more plausible that Britain would have sought a negociated armistice ?  Would William Donovan still have reported to Roosevelt an optimistic assessment of the british situation ?
A successful invasion of Great Britain would not have been guaranteed once the RAF and RN were brushed aside (complete destruction is not realistic), but it still meant bigger losses for the UK, maybe it would have been enough, combined with lesser prospects of getting USA's help, for Winston (or a replacement...) to accept a negociated settlement.
So, even if all conditions for attempting Sealion were met, there're still some doubts that it would have been necessary...
 
Discuss.[;)]

ORIGINAL: timtom

Heh, one of my senior lecturers at Uni (in Denmark) was one of the prime movers of the socalled "2nd generation" of historians of the Occupation 1940-45 whos work challenged the cherished public consensus of one nation in unified and effective resistance against Nazi occupation specifically and generally. He liked to entertain us over lunch with stories of how concerned members of the public reacted to their iconoclasms. Think dog excrements through the mail and such.

Good thing we don't see that kind of thing around here, eh?

Oh no old chap, we're far more civilised here in the British Isles. We just get the Daily Mail and Telegraph to write articles about you and then their readers get angry and write letters to the Mail and Telegraph [:D]

"Their Finest Hour" - One of GDW's Europa series is really good.

I got it for Knavey last year(?) for his birthday. We used to play it when we were teenagers.

The Europa series is amazing (and insane). All of Europes Western and Eastern fronts in battalion-sized units.

Thier Finest Hour at BoardGameGeek.Com

-F-

Ah, who does not remember the dream of "Grand Europa" where player could tie all the maps together in a large field house and play out the whole war in Europe. And of course, forego any simblance of having a real life....[;)]
 
However, real historians know that in the end the Germans sucessfully invaded and went all the way to the US.
 

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

The Dunkirk Evacuation had just demonstrated that the Royal Navy had full command of the Channel and could operate in the face of large German air power. Most damage was done to ships tied up in Dunkirk harbour, or stopped off the beaches full of troops, and still they did the job. What would have happened if the Germans had met this force in the open sea and the gloves were off. The German preparations for 'Sea Lion' were pathetic and could not be seen as a serious proposition, but merely bluff.

The seaborne component of the German invasion of Crete was decimated by the Royal Navy, despite the serious loss of British ships. The German paratroops would not have survived without immediate air support. Over Crete the Germans had absolute air supremacy, over Britain they would not.

I stand by the words of a British admiral in a different age, when the French Grand Armee was massed at Bologne - 'I don't say that Napoleon can't come, I just say that he cannot come by sea'

[:)][:)]

While I think the degree of "full command of the channel" is too strong, I agree with most else here.

The earlier stated notion that the RN would back off after serious losses is just total bunk. Only a strategic decision to evacuate and continue the war from elsewhere - made by political leaders - would have resulted in any backing off from an invasion of Britain. All that I have read and seen of history about or touching on the RN over hundreds of years has one very consistent theme. If you had to pick just one defining characteristic of the RN it's this: THEY FIGHT!

The biggest problem for sealion would have been the lack of adequate landing craft and sealift. Even if all other obstacles had been overcome in any semi-realistic way (no, complete eradication of all British warplanes was not realistic, etc.), the lack of the needed appropriate sealift would have been a show stopper or, at the very least, made the landings a small affair.

What of the politics? Would a defeat of RAF during BoB, making an invasion much more likely, have resulted in some commitment of US forces for the defense of Britain? The possibility must be considered. The rhetoric that was bandied about and the actions taken in real life can not accurately reflect what would have happened in such a turn of events.

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

There's another question to solve, too.

In such conditions, is it not more plausible that Britain would have sought a negociated armistice ?  Would William Donovan still have reported to Roosevelt an optimistic assessment of the british situation ?
A successful invasion of Great Britain would not have been guaranteed once the RAF and RN were brushed aside (complete destruction is not realistic), but it still meant bigger losses for the UK, maybe it would have been enough, combined with lesser prospects of getting USA's help, for Winston (or a replacement...) to accept a negociated settlement.
So, even if all conditions for attempting Sealion were met, there're still some doubts that it would have been necessary...

Discuss.[;)]

This is a much more difficult issue, as there is very little evidence in the public domain and all the senior players are dead, having not revealed any major secrets. Winston Churchill was adamant that Britain should fight and strangely, having been an arch imperialist, ensured that the war would proceed, which led to the emptying of the British treasury, destruction of much of our industry and housing and the eventual dismantling the Empire after the War. There were reported to be elements including the other prospective wartime prime minister, Lord Halifax, who thought that to avoid these costs Britain should seek a negotiated settlement. The abdicated King Edward VIII, then Duke of Windsor, was implicated as a possible replacement monarch, after such a settlement. Did Rudolph Hess fly to Scotland as part of this process, why was he alone held in Spandau until death, or murder, when he was not part of the worst Nazi attrocities in the later part of the war.

The British are often depicted by Hollywood as useless tea drinkers getting in the way of fighting the War, but this is not the case. In 1939 Britain was getting ready, albeit nearly too late, to wholeheartedly confront the totalitarian dictatorships. There were only a handfull of demoracies in the World in 1939 and by 1940 several of them had been occupied. The USA was trying to maintain an uncomfortable neutrality. Britain was prepared to confront Germany and Italy, with Japan and possibily Spain in the wings and if that were not enough, was preparing to take on Russia as well, to help Finland in 1940. The landing force that attempted to save Norway was hampered, as the ships were loaded for the expedition to help Finland. The force had the wrong material, loaded in the wrong ships, for the revised units. No sign of backing down at this stage and this is with Neville Chamberlain (forever marked as an appeaser) still prime minister.

On the opening of the War, plans were enacted to move 3 million people out of the major cities, although only half agreed to go, this major movement was complete as the declaration of war was issued to Germany. All this indicates that the British Government fully understood the gravity of the situation and was prepared to take any action. There is no indication that they intended to talk their way out, Britain meant business. The time for talking ended at Munich.

Did the defeat of France change their minds, I don't think so. There was a curious relief that Britain was now alone and the country willingly accepted laws and controls needed for the war effort, which would put many dictatorships to shame. Germany did not invoke a 'Total War' economy until 1943, way too late.

There is evidence that Italy offered to help start negotiations, but they could not get even to the point of asking for the possible terms, as that might be seen as weakness and embolden Hitler. Churchill was playing for a win and not interested in a draw.

Could Churchill have been overthrown to permit negotiations. After the ship of state had been set on a course for victory, or nothing, it is difficult to see how any group, or individual, could have changed that course, any more than any group could have done the same thing in Germany.

[:)][:)]

ORIGINAL: Japan
I prefere to liston to the ones who have the actual knowlage etc etc etc

An interesting series of articles can be found at the Royal United Services Institute website:

http://www.rusi.org/research/militarysc ... DAE3AB61C/

EDIT: D'oh, just read timtom's post!

The official history 'The Defence of the United Kingdom' also has much to say on the defences available, though as a history its author, Basil Collier, doesn't stray into the realms of might-have-beens.

The British Army was rapidly re-equipping in the Summer of 1940. Two pounder AT guns increased from 176 in June to 498 at the end of September for example, by which time the armoured units possessed 240 medium and 108 cruiser tanks, as well as 514 machine-gun armed light tanks. 424 25-pounder field guns had been added since June as well.

ENOUGH ALREADY.   Why not just say that if Chamberlin's spine hadn't been made of cream cheese, the German Army would have done away with Hitler in 1938 and there wouldn't have been any War?  [:'(]

[:)][:)]
[/quote]

While I think the degree of "full command of the channel" is too strong, I agree with most else here.

[/quote]

Agreed, the statement may be too strong, the RN would not have gone anywhere at any time, but as at Dunkirk, would have carried out its task in the channel despite any losses. There is absolutely no doubt that if an invasion started the RN would have responded in full force and although the Germans would have inflicted losses, they would not have been able to stop the RN doing whatever it needed to do, when the stakes were even higher. Again, during the Dunkirk Evacuation the British were able to operate up until the evacuation area was on the point of collapse, with all types of ships from warships to paddle steamers and more, without the Luftwaffe being able to stop them. Invasion a few months later in the same seas would have met with the same response.

[:)][:)]

...or there would have been a war in '38, albeit much different.

ORIGINAL: Japan


Eisenhover

Who's that? [:'(]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ENOUGH ALREADY.   Why not just say that if Chamberlin's spine hadn't been made of cream cheese, the German Army would have done away with Hitler in 1938 and there wouldn't have been any War?  [:'(]

I don't think that trying to negotiate out of what was going to be the most destructive war in history has anything to do with cream cheese. Where was the US of A while democracy was going down the tubes. The German army was not going to do away with Hitler, as he had given them so much and promised much more. The only way to solve these problem may be boots on the ground, but only after you have tried absolutely everything else.
[:)]

"I stand by the words of a British admiral in a different age, when the French Grand Armee was massed at Bologne - 'I don't say that Napoleon can't come, I just say that he cannot come by sea'" -- Rasputitsa

Well, that was true during the Napoleonic Wars and even in WW1. But you must not ignore the revolutionary changes in WW2: the plane (best cheap ship killer) & the tank that is.

Yamamoto had to make this very choice on june 1942, after his 4 CVs were massacred. "I still have 11 BBs. Should I continue or not?". He didn't.

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Well, that was true during the Napoleonic Wars and even in WW1. But you must not ignore the revolutionary changes in WW2: the plane (best cheap ship killer) & the tank that is.

Yamamoto had to make this very choice on june 1942, after his 4 CVs were massacred. "I still have 11 BBs. Should I continue or not?". He didn't.

Thing is, even if Germany wins the BoB, the UK's airforce would never be completely destroyed. They were building fighters at a prodigious rate, the channel is small enough to provide fighter cover from either side of it and even if initial stages of an invasion were successful keeping it supplied would be a grinder that Germany could not afford. This of course assumes Axis forces possess the sheer numbers of transport craft available for such an operation (which they did not).

I doubt Germany could pull off a reverse Dunkirk in a retreat from England.