Hi Redcoat, Are you of the opinion that the "other" RN ships would not have had a bearing in the short term if the invasion did take place?
My personal opinion is that the strength of the RN in Home Waters was far more than enough to overwelm any German invasion fleet. I take the view that the German invasion fleet didn't have a 'long term' life expectancy. A question. If the RN times its attack on the invasion fleet so that it arrives in the channel at night. How does the Luftwaffe protect it then ????
Gnomey, that site is not a very good look at the situation and is wrought with things that were not necessarily true. For instance he said the Luftwaffe would need to bomb London. Not so. In fact that’s what caused them to lose anyway. They needed to bomb airfields, fuel depots and radar sites. Second it underestimates the air that Germany had. Remember they used a good deal of it at war with Russia and in North Africa and wasted a lot in the BofB. The number of aircraft is not static. Scads of planes were built every day. It was the loss of pilots that was killing the RAF and this loss was mitigated because they were fighting over Britain rather than the channel or German held territory with German Anti-Aircraft artillery stationed on the ground. The RAF was three weeks from destruction when the infamous HE-111 strayed off course and accidentally bombed London. If Churchill had not retaliated on Berlin or if Hitler had stayed the course then they would have finished off the RAF. The Navy is canceled in my opinion as long as there are land based bombers and long range artillery. The subs would have a field day sinking ships in the channel just as they were having a field day sinking them in the shipping lanes. That’s without bombers taking it down. So for all intents and purposes in a near war ships are too vulnerable to the continent. If the Luftwaffe had not been gelded by the time the invasion started, there would have been no way to put ships in the Channel. It would have simply been a shooting gallery where a single bomber may get two or more ships on a single sortie. There was a reason the RN stayed out of the Channel as much as possible. I am not trying to denigrate the Royal Navy. They were as good as any. Maybe even better than the US’s Navy ship for ship. But, the fact of the matter is that navies in WWII had a very limited area of which to operate. They cannot come in close to well defended land areas. Carriers are the only things that had a good chance of surviving but they have trouble with land based fighters which are inherently faster and more capable. Because the ships have to be so far off shore, you have to launch raids from afar giving a lot of warning and limiting the amout of fighting that can be done to defend the bombers. On of the best carrier based bombers was an SBD, which could probably be shot down by a Stuka.
1. Good point and ditto for bomber command however you could guarantee plenty of activity. 2. Okay if the RN knew the invasion day, then again the Germans would have to clear a large number of the mines that they had laid in the channel.
There are several things being overlooked. First the Italians and the Japanese could help with getting things across without having to develop ships to do it. This is how the German Army got the war in Sicily and North Africa supplied and transported in the first place. Logistically it would have been no problem. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that the lack of Higgins-type boats in the German inventory is a major problem. I think the biggest problem with defense is that the Germans would only have to get artillery and AAA across the Channel that is as narrow as 20 miles wide. They had paratroops coming out the ying-yang. This would create havoc on the isle including the sabotage of many of the RAF airfields. Britain didn't have much equipment left. This was before lend lease and before the British had managed to get their production capacities up. After Dunkirk they didn't even have the rifles to defend the island from paras. The RN would be seen in the channel at night. When the big shore batteries opened up, it would turn battleships into submarines, just check what out the shore batteries at Norway did to the heavy cruiser “BLUCHER”. If they can sink a heavy cruiser, they can sink a battleship. What got past the shore guns would run into submarines. 20mm anti-aircraft guns could be carried across in a row boat or dropped in gliders. The British Navy would have a bigger time avoiding the German mines rather than the Germans simply cutting a path in front of their landing craft at a point of their choosing. To stop manufacture of new ships, you simply bomb the shipyards and the ships that are already in the RN inventory are all you have left and they are not allowed in the Channel. The Germans had air superiority. Once on land, the paras could make it air supremacy. I think people are thinking a bit anachronistically here. I think they are viewing what Britain would have by war’s end as what they had at war’s start. The idea that the Royal Navy could have prevented sinking is to ignore what happened when the British fleet tried to hold Narvik. There were many bombing attacks around Dunkirk (both sides) and other areas of France where British warships were sunk by bombers and subs. Air attacks (nothing like they would see in the Channel where they could not escape) effectively drove them out of it as the Royal Navy new they were no match for that and losses were prohibitive. Stop and think about it. Just look at Taranto. Does the fact that those bombers came from carriers rather than larger land based bombers make a difference? Again, I am not bashing the Royal Navy but Billy Mitchell was simply right. Navy games were over in the presence of air. If the RN had attempted and kept attempting to get into the Channel, they would have been gone within a month. The greatest fear of the Normandy Beach invasion was the Luftwaffe because shipping could have paid a heavy price. You can bomb a ship at night. Moonlight is sufficient. Same with artillery and costal batteries not to mention flares. The Kriegsmarine was not going to come out and get the Royal Navy. That would be suicide. They just want the island so attacks cannot be launched against them why Russia is being decimated. Even with the wild card of the US, if the island fell, we are all screwed. The British Isles were everything in WWII. Without the Isles, even the US and remaining commonwealth nations could not have overcome Germany’s foothold on Europe, especially with the Japanese fighting them on the other side of the continent.
The Japanese were neutral at this point in time, and the Italian were too busy getting beaten up by the RN in the Med, to have been able to spare any ships, and even if they had spare ships they wouldn't have been able to get them past the British naval base at Gibraltar anyway. Logistically it would have been no problem. Don't fool yourself into thinking that the lack of Higgins-type boats in the German inventory is a major problem A fine a piece of wishful thinking as I've ever read. Of course its a major problem, without this type of vessel, supplying the army from the beaches is almost impossible I think the biggest problem with defense is that the Germans would only have to get artillery and AAA across the Channel that is as narrow as 20 miles wide Its 26 miles at its narrowest . They had paratroops coming out the ying-yang. This would create havoc on the isle including the sabotage of many of the RAF airfields. Britain didn't have much equipment left. This was before lend lease and before the British had managed to get their production capacities up. After Dunkirk they didn't even have the rifles to defend the island from paras. Thanks to your nice kind USA government, the British bought at a knockdown price, - 785,000 .30 cal. Lee-Enfield rifles, - 130 million rounds .30 ammo. - 6 million rounds .30 cal. machine gun ammo. - 900 75mm field guns - 1,075,000 75mm shells - 308 3" Stokes mortars - 97,680 Stokes mortar shells - 87,000 machine guns (various types) - 25,000 BAR's - 21,000 revolvers - 1,000,000 revolver cartridges These were supplied just after Dunkirk The RN would be seen in the channel at night. Unlikely. Its at night. i.e its dark you can't see anything :? Even if it was bright moonlight, and there might have been a danger it could be seen, the fleet could have been covered by a smokesceen. a common naval tactic. When the big shore batteries opened up, it would turn battleships into submarines, just check what out the shore batteries at Norway did to the heavy cruiser "BLUCHER" The Blucher was in a narrow fjord, she was moving slowly past the battery at a range of a few hundred yards Not travelling at high speed in a channel which at its narrowest point was still 26 miles wide . The British Navy would have a bigger time avoiding the German mines rather than the Germans simply cutting a path in front of their landing craft at a point of their choosing. A precondition of Sealow was that the Luftwaffe had to gain complete air supremacy over the channel for a period of two to three weeks, in order that the naval could safely remove the British defensive minefields and lay their own. Also the width of the beach-head was 50 miles across To stop manufacture of new ships, you simply bomb the shipyards Almost all the major shipyards are in the north of the country. They could only be bombed at night, and we all know how effective that was . I think people are thinking a bit anachronistically here. I think they are viewing what Britain would have by war's end as what they had at war's start. The idea that the Royal Navy could have prevented sinking is to ignore what happened when the British fleet tried to hold Narvik Yes please, lets do that, lets look at Narvik Well first of all, despite the attacks of the Luftwaffe, the Royal Navy came along and sank every German vessel in the area, including half the total number of German destroyers in existence, they then landed the invasion force and drove the German land forces out of the town. The landing was only withdrawn with the collapse of France There were many bombing attacks around Dunkirk (both sides) and other areas of France where British warships were sunk by bombers and subs. Air attacks (nothing like they would see in the Channel where they could not escape) First of all, Dunkirk is a port in the Channel, and despite being under constant attack for over 10 days the Royal Navy was able to remove the vast majority of the British Army and a large number of French troops successfully, for the loss of just 7 destroyers. So you have just quoted two examples of why you think the RN couldn't attack the invasion fleet, yet in both cases the RN successfully completed its objectives. if the RN had attempted and kept attempting to get into the Channel, they would have been gone within a month. They didn't need a month, just a few hours would be enough to totally wreak the invasion. . Just look at Taranto. Does the fact that those bombers came from carriers rather than larger land based bombers make a difference? Yes, they were highly trained naval pilots, pilots who had been trained in the art of attacking ships, unlike the Luftwaffe pilots of this period who had received no training in attacking ships. It must be also pointed out, the Italian fleet was stationary in harbour, and the British used flares for illumination.
(redcoat @ Dec 13 2005, 06:10 PM) [post=43102]A question. If the RN times its attack on the invasion fleet so that it arrives in the channel at night. How does the Luftwaffe protect it then ???? [/b] Exactly how does the RN know where the two hour attack is going to take place? Why do you assume it all has to happen at once? Britain's island defense was not exactly the Atlantic Seawall. The time and place are up to the Germans. You could not and would not want to fill the channel with RN ships. Otherwise the Germans would have been the first country to use mulberry harbors.
(jimbotosome @ Dec 14 2005, 01:44 PM) [post=43133](redcoat @ Dec 13 2005, 06:10 PM) [post=43102]A question. If the RN times its attack on the invasion fleet so that it arrives in the channel at night. How does the Luftwaffe protect it then ???? [/b] Exactly how does the RN know where the two hour attack is going to take place?[/b]Two hours????? The invasion barges which carried the bulk of the invasion force had a average top speed of 5 knots. Some of them (taking into account the speed of the tide) would take up to 30 hours to get to the beach-head, and even when they got to the beach-head it would still take them many hours to unload. A high ranking German general was asked post war about Operation Sealow, his reply was ' The fact that the invasion fleet would travel slower than the Romans did during their invasion in 55 BC, did not inspire him' Also the fact that the first units might land OK is not really that important, as long as the RN smashed the invasion fleet. Without re-supply the invasion was doomed.
(jimbotosome @ Dec 13 2005, 07:09 PM) [post=43091](Colonel Gubbins @ Dec 13 2005, 09:43 AM) [post=43081][/b] Well, the Germans thought that the RAF was much larger than it was because Fighter Command used radar effectively to coordinated intercepts. If the Germans had taken out radar as you imply then it would have never been discussed as being significant in the BofB. Initially at least the Germans were not aware of how effectively the RAF seemed to intercept their bombers. Radar stations were rebuilt quickly. Not to mention the "de-emphasis" on bombing the radar and airfields to bomb civilian targets. As far as your Higgins boat construction, I would think they could have had a sufficiently large fleet of them in about three months. [/b] J; You misunderstand my mention. I did not 'imply' the Germans had "taken out" the British Radar stations. If I had meant that I would have said it. They did attack them though. Just because I said that doesn't mean the Germans automatically destroyed them all. Previous posts made me think that it was suggested that the Germans left them alone and its a clear fact they didn't. Our radar development was incredibly significant all through the war. The fact that most countries Radar developments followed eachother was due to the war effort pouring billions into the funding because technology always leaps forward in war. Freya in Germany, set up operationally in 1938 was arguably the first but Chain Home in the UK and also developments at the Naval Research Laboratory in the US were also progressing well. Its interesting to note that a lot of the Germans pioneering work was available to the US before they entered the war. Regards MG
I am afraid that the Germans wouldn't have stood a chance. The German Navy wouldn't have helped as it would have been suicide for what little of its fleet to come out. As for the submarines, they would have been a risk, but the Channel is difficult for a submarine to operate in and has never been a happy hunting ground for submarines. Also we had the best A/s weapons, ships and tactics in the world so it wouldn't have been a one way fight. It should also be remembered that working on the basis that the German surface fleet stayed in port then what is to stop the British submarines having a field day against the German invasion forces. Whats good for the Goose etc? The Channel isn't a big river. Its a large body of water with strong currents and large tides and Higgins boats wouldn't have been enough. You know I am sure the size of the vessels needed for the Allied invasion, what makes you think that the Germans could have done the same with anything smaller? That said the German proposed landing ships were to be honest pathetic. I pity anyone in one of those facing a cross channel voyage. We also had good MTB's and patrol boats. The boats were no better than the Germans in fact its fair to say that the German boats were better one against one, but it was a form of fighting which for some reason we were good at and tended to win, a lot more than we lost. An additional 50 Fairmile B boats were fitted with 2 x 21in TT tubes to support the faster boats. At night in home waters these boats would have been very difficult to master. Our ships would have suffered more losses to air attack, of course they would but these would have been losses that we would have prepared to pay. Can you imagine the damage that a couple of cruisers or even a battleship would have done to the German logistics let alone and vessel they found at sea. The RAF was never down to three weeks before it ws destroyed. It may have had to withdraw its squadrons to outside the range of the 109 but that would have left the beaches with no overall control not dominant German control. A lot has been said about mines stopping the Royal Navy, what about our mines stopping the Invasion forces?
(spidge @ Dec 13 2005, 05:52 AM) [post=43042]The projected invasion on Britain included: Army Group A (6 divisions) invading Kent via the areas near Ramsgate, Folkstone and Bexhill Army Group A (4 divisions) invading Sussex and Hampshire via the area around Brighton and the Isle of Wight. Army Group B (3 divisions) invading Dorset via Lyme Bay [/b] These figures are for the so-called 'first wave' of the invasion. However this 'first wave' would actually take a total of ten days to land. The maximum that would have been landed on the first day was a single division on each of the Beach-heads, and a single air-landed division making a total of 4 divisions. These divisions task on the first two weeks would be to secure the beach-heads, it would not be until the third week that any advance on London would take place. During the 3 week build-up phase after the landing, any successful naval attack by the RN on the invasion force supplying the beach-head, which resulted in a sizeable loss of this force, would cause the invasion to fail. After the war in the 50's there were a number of war-games conducted by the British and West German military staff on Operation Sealow, overseen by a number of British and German officers from the period. Even when the war-gamers gave the Germans complete air superiority, the result was always the same. The Germans managed to get the first units across, but within a couple of days the RN managed to destroy the supply-line, causing the invasion to fail.
(redcoat @ Dec 14 2005, 04:55 PM) [post=43145](jimbotosome @ Dec 14 2005, 01:44 PM) [post=43133](redcoat @ Dec 13 2005, 06:10 PM) [post=43102]A question. If the RN times its attack on the invasion fleet so that it arrives in the channel at night. How does the Luftwaffe protect it then ???? [/b] Exactly how does the RN know where the two hour attack is going to take place?[/b]Two hours????? The invasion barges which carried the bulk of the invasion force had a average top speed of 5 knots. Some of them (taking into account the speed of the tide) would take up to 30 hours to get to the beach-head, and even when they got to the beach-head it would still take them many hours to unload. A high ranking German general was asked post war about Operation Sealow, his reply was ' The fact that the invasion fleet would travel slower than the Romans did during their invasion in 55 BC, did not inspire him' Also the fact that the first units might land OK is not really that important, as long as the RN smashed the invasion fleet. Without re-supply the invasion was doomed. [/b] Well, whether it be 10 hours or 2 hours, the Royal Navy not knowing where it would take place could not intercept it, especially with the Channel full of mines and subs and shore batteries probably sinking a ship every half mile down the Channel. Ships are not airplanes, they can't just zip to intercept something. Their primary goal is to keep floating when so many things can take away that ability. The problem I see is not that you are overestimating the Royal Navy but that you are overestimating capabilities of ships. The invasion could occur before the British could react. Germany didn't see the massive invasion coming until they were withing the visible range of the shore. At night that would be pretty close. You can't patrol the Channel with aircraft. Even if gamers grant Germany air superiority they will eventually have to grant them air supremacy. Once you have that game over. Hey man, I am glad Britain was not invaded. I am just realistic about it. A bullet was definitely dodged. It was a testimony to the British that they rallied as well as they did. I sincerely don't believe a well designed invasion plane executed with patience could have been defended. 1944? Yes, easily. 1940-post Dunkirk? No way.
(Glider @ Dec 14 2005, 05:53 PM) [post=43148]The German Navy wouldn't have helped as it would have been suicide for what little of its fleet to come out. As for the submarines, they would have been a risk, but the Channel is difficult for a submarine to operate in and has never been a happy hunting ground for submarines. Also we had the best A/s weapons, ships and tactics in the world so it wouldn't have been a one way fight. [/b] In 1940, the German subs were eating up British shipping. It was a while before anything was developed that could deal with subs and that was not in the presence of shore batteries and channel patrolling aircraft. But this is different. Subs need only move just out of range of the shore guns at Normandy shoot at the British ships and zip back in range of the guns. If British ships not sunk pursued, the shore batteries would take them out. (Glider @ Dec 14 2005, 05:53 PM) [post=43148]It should also be remembered that working on the basis that the German surface fleet stayed in port then what is to stop the British submarines having a field day against the German invasion forces. Whats good for the Goose etc? The Channel isn't a big river. Its a large body of water with strong currents and large tides and Higgins boats wouldn't have been enough. You know I am sure the size of the vessels needed for the Allied invasion, what makes you think that the Germans could have done the same with anything smaller? That said the German proposed landing ships were to be honest pathetic. I pity anyone in one of those facing a cross channel voyage. [/b] I think we are back to that anachronism thing. The Germans had many, many divisions and shore defenses that had been built up for three years. Germany did not need to get heavy forces on the Isle. There was not much armor to oppose them. The fact that the Channel was long means it would be harder to defend from invasion, not easier. As a matter of fact the invasion didn’t even have to happen in the Channel. Germany could have chosen to do it anywhere. That’s their tremendous advantage. They have a coordinated attack that needs only to get a little armor and artillery over. The British could not have withstood much. They didn’t have the armor themselves. Most of it was in Dunkirk in possession of the Germans. (Glider @ Dec 14 2005, 05:53 PM) [post=43148]Our ships would have suffered more losses to air attack, of course they would but these would have been losses that we would have prepared to pay. Can you imagine the damage that a couple of cruisers or even a battleship would have done to the German logistics let alone and vessel they found at sea. [/b] The RN was not large enough to sustain loses from the kind of air Germany would have put up against them. Cruisers and Battleships would have no affect on the invasion fleet. Sunken ships offer no threat. They would never have known when or where the attacks were coming. Germany had the advantage of only having to clear mines in a narrow channel say a half mile wide to get their forces across the water. They only thing they would need to bring across on the water are tanks and heavier artillery. (Glider @ Dec 14 2005, 05:53 PM) [post=43148]The RAF was never down to three weeks before it ws destroyed. It may have had to withdraw its squadrons to outside the range of the 109 but that would have left the beaches with no overall control not dominant German control.[/b] Yes, it was. Read the US Government history of the air power in the BofB. http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Ai...ritain/AP22.htm (Glider @ Dec 14 2005, 05:53 PM) [post=43148]A lot has been said about mines stopping the Royal Navy, what about our mines stopping the Invasion forces? [/b] Again, invasion forces need only cut a narrow lane channel at a specific point of their choosing. The British Navy would never know where the invasion was coming so they could never have reacted to it. They would have to be in place without being bombed or torpedoed. There seems to be a severe underestimation of the effect of air power. Pretty common in WWII history, really. But far, far from the reality of what happened in WWII. He who owns the sky owns the battle. Had the bombs that fell on Britain have fallen instead on the Royal Navy and the invasion areas, we would not be having this discussion in English. I also think people are selling the German ingenuity short. To think they would have trouble traversing the Channel with a bit of armor is not realistic. They would have come up with DUKWs LCTs, LCS, etc. and possibly better solutions. We came up with them quickly planning for the invasion. Necessity is the mother of invention. They never developed such things because they didn’t need such things.
(spidge @ Dec 13 2005, 08:42 PM) [post=43111] 1. Good point and ditto for bomber command however you could guarantee plenty of activity. 2. Okay if the RN knew the invasion day, then again the Germans would have to clear a large number of the mines that they had laid in the channel. [/b] Yes, but the thing you have to remember is that mines are indescriminant and therefore a double edged sword. They will also impede you from free travel in the Channel as well. Germany knowing when and where the invasion will take place and what will be used to do it would minimize their exposure to British defenses. The could schedule air coordination for the invasion to optimize their use of air superiority. That's a lot bigger advantage than the scenarios are making out. Too bad there are no combat simulators that would sufficently model the conditions of WWII. It would be a blast to try to see if you could devise an invasion and then a defense to counter it to prove whether a well planned out invasion would have worked.
"They wanted Russia. Hitler should have known, just chasing them back to their island was not the end of the story. He grossly underestimated their resolve. I think after the ease of success of Dunkirk the Germans had lost respect for Britain’s ability to fight. I think that they thought Britain would capitulate like France did. Perhaps their view of the British was from their dealings with Neville Chamberlain. They should have focused their entire forces on taking Britain, it was far more than a thorn in the side." [/quote] Actually, I don't think the Germans had lost respect for Britain's fighting ability after Dunkirk; certainly not Hitler himself. Remember, "Fast" Hans Guderian was ordered by Hitler to halt his tanks short of the Dunkirk beaches, a move which spared the tens of thousands of troops crammed together there (notwithstanding the repeated Stuka attacks, of course). It was widely thought at the time that Hitler issued the order because he wanted Britain - whose people and empire he respected immensely - to withdraw from the Continent with its dignity - and Army - largely intact. Not only would that leave Britain with sufficient military personnel with which to police its empire, but such a gesture might persuade the militant faction within the British government to lobby for peace.... "I think we are back to that anachronism thing. The Germans had many, many divisions and shore defenses that had been built up for three years. Germany did not need to get heavy forces on the Isle. There was not much armor to oppose them. The fact that the Channel was long means it would be harder to defend from invasion, not easier. As a matter of fact the invasion didn’t even have to happen in the Channel. Germany could have chosen to do it anywhere. That’s their tremendous advantage. They have a coordinated attack that needs only to get a little armor and artillery over. The British could not have withstood much. They didn’t have the armor themselves. Most of it was in Dunkirk in possession of the Germans" The Germans most certainly could NOT have launched an invasion anywhere! Why do you think the Sealion planners - amateurish though their efforts may appear in comparison to the Overlord planners - settled on a plan to launch the invasion across the narrowest part of the Channel - the 26 miles between Dover and Calais? The flimsy barges they had available precluded a long sea crossing, as - in fact - does military good sense. This simple fact would have concentrated the mass of men and barges into a narrow strip that would easily have been decimated by the RN, hence the Luftwaffe's need to establish air superiority: it would then be free to defend the invasion fleet from the predations of the RN without interference from the RAF. To say the RN would not dared have ventured into the channel unless the Luftwaffe had first been "gelded" misses the point: if the Luftwaffe had been "gelded" there would have been no invasion fleet to attack - in fact, that is what happened! "I also think people are selling the German ingenuity short. To think they would have trouble traversing the Channel with a bit of armor is not realistic. They would have come up with DUKWs LCTs, LCS, etc. and possibly better solutions. We came up with them quickly planning for the invasion. Necessity is the mother of invention. They never developed such things because they didn’t need such things. " Jimbo, it took the allies over three years of planning for the Normandy invasion - hardly a quick fix - and so much of the equipment used had to be invented from scratch. Indeed, some of the best scientists, engineers, and military minds worked tirelessley on the problems associated with a seaborne invasion throughout that time. The Germans may well have similarly come up with DUKWs, LCTs, LCS, etc - given the luxury of time in which to do so - but that was a commodity denied them. An invasion had to be launched that summer, if it was going to happen at all that year, and it was already early August before Hitler seriously set about the destruction of the RAF. That latter fact reflects Hitler's view of the whole invasion idea as merely a contingency operation to be implemented if the British people didn't come to their senses and sue for peace. It is also worth remembering that RAF Bomber Command was engaged in attacking the ports where the invasion barges were being assembled. The German's biggest blunder - as you say - was turning its attention on London, but in fact when when they did that Fighter Command was only days away from ceasing to exist - not three weeks as you state! Not for nothing has history recorded that Britain triumphed in the Battle of Britain by the narrowest of margins!
(jimbotosome @ Dec 15 2005, 12:52 AM) [post=43153] Well, whether it be 10 hours or 2 hours, the Royal Navy not knowing where it would take place could not intercept it, especially with the Channel full of mines and subs and shore batteries probably sinking a ship every half mile down the Channel. Ships are not airplanes, they can't just zip to intercept something. Their primary goal is to keep floating when so many things can take away that ability. The problem I see is not that you are overestimating the Royal Navy but that you are overestimating capabilities of ships. The invasion could occur before the British could react. Germany didn't see the massive invasion coming until they were withing the visible range of the shore. At night that would be pretty close.[/b] Do you actually read anything I write ?? I've already explained to you that it didn't matter if the first units got ashore. just as long as the bulk of the invasion force was stopped. Within a day or two the British would know where the landing beaches are, and if they successfully attacked the craft off the beaches supplying the invasion force, game over for the Germans. </div><div class='quotemain'> You can't patrol the Channel with aircraft.[/b] That's odd. Because during the Bob that's what Coastal Command did in real life. Sent out regular patrols over the channel
(adamcotton @ Dec 15 2005, 08:46 AM) [post=43158]The German's biggest blunder - as you say - was turning its attention on London, but in fact when when they did that Fighter Command was only days away from ceasing to exist - not three weeks as you state! Not for nothing has history recorded that Britain triumphed in the Battle of Britain by the narrowest of margins! [/b] I'm sorry, but that is totally wrong. On the 7 th September 1940 Fighter Command had 750 operational Spitfires and Hurricanes, 150 more than they had at the start of the battle in June. Fighter Command also had 1,381 pilots available to it, up 200 on the June figure. The story about Fighter Command being on the point of breaking before the change of tactics is one of the greatest myths of WW2 ( one which Churchill played to the full in order to gain the maximum support from the US )
"I'm sorry, but that is totally wrong. On the 7 th September 1940 Fighter Command had 750 operational Spitfires and Hurricanes, 150 more than they had at the start of the battle in June. Fighter Command also had 1,381 pilots available to it, up 200 on the June figure. The story about Fighter Command being on the point of breaking before the change of tactics is one of the greatest myths of WW2 ( one which Churchill played to the full in order to gain the maximum support from the US )" Well, Redcoat - not sure what source you are using for those figures, but I based my statement on the personal testimony of pilots and commanders on the spot at the time. So many have said: "If the Luftwaffe had carried on attacking the airfields for just a few more days, Fighter Command would have been on its knees..." It was a blessing from heaven when they switched tactics, as acknowledged by Dowding and Park at the time. Certainly the number of Spitfires and Hurricanes available to the RAF increased as the battle wore on, due almost entirely to the driving force of Lord Beaverbrook, who was placed in charge of aircraft production (incidentally, his son, Max Aitken, was a Hurricane pilot with 601 Sqn AAF - the "millionaires squadron" - during the battle). But Fighter Command always remained critically short of pilots to fly them. The "few" - those men who flew at least one operational sortie between July 10th and October 31st, 1940, actually numbered over 3000 pilots in total. But the number available at any one time - the crucial thing - was far, far fewer...
(adamcotton @ Dec 15 2005, 12:49 PM) [post=43166]Well, Redcoat - not sure what source you are using for those figures, but I based my statement on the personal testimony of pilots and commanders on the spot at the time. So many have said: "If the Luftwaffe had carried on attacking the airfields for just a few more days, Fighter Command would have been on its knees..." [/b] But it would be misleading indeed to only go on the personal testimony of pilots in 11 Group. This was not the case in 12 Group, or the other groups covering Scotland and the South West. Even in 11 Group, the situation varied greatly from location to location.
(redcoat @ Dec 15 2005, 11:55 AM) [post=43164](jimbotosome @ Dec 15 2005, 12:52 AM) [post=43153] Well, whether it be 10 hours or 2 hours, the Royal Navy not knowing where it would take place could not intercept it, especially with the Channel full of mines and subs and shore batteries probably sinking a ship every half mile down the Channel. Ships are not airplanes, they can't just zip to intercept something. Their primary goal is to keep floating when so many things can take away that ability. The problem I see is not that you are overestimating the Royal Navy but that you are overestimating capabilities of ships. The invasion could occur before the British could react. Germany didn't see the massive invasion coming until they were withing the visible range of the shore. At night that would be pretty close.[/b] Do you actually read anything I write ?? I've already explained to you that it didn't matter if the first units got ashore. just as long as the bulk of the invasion force was stopped. Within a day or two the British would know where the landing beaches are, and if they successfully attacked the craft off the beaches supplying the invasion force, game over for the Germans. </div><div class='quotemain'> You can't patrol the Channel with aircraft.[/b] That's odd. Because during the Bob that's what Coastal Command did in real life. Sent out regular patrols over the channel [/b] Indeed they did. Coastal Command at that time patrolled with Avro Ansons (among other types) which - though poorly armed - provided an effective recce platform. Moreover, the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm put up patrols of Skuas and Rocs. Where is it written that you cant patrol stretches of water with aircraft? If you can patrol the Atlantic ocean with four engined flying boats and bombers, you can certainbly patrol the English Channel with light bombers and crew trainers, even fighters.
