If the RAF had been defeated in the Battle of Britain
- Thread starter DogFather
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
RCAFson and Dogwalker, the first attempt to land troops on Crete was made by night and was discovered by radar about twenty or so miles off Hania, when within range the Royal Navy turned on it's search lights and basically opened up with every gun it had. This battle lasted for over two hours and only stopped when the Royal Navy had to break off contact in order to retreat from range of the stukas etc before first light. The sound of gunfire and flashes out to sea were close enough to be witnessed by the Allied troops. The second attempt was made by day when the Royal Navy sank a small number of ships before later finding the main convoy which retreated and got away. Both attacks by the Royal Navy succeeded in stopping the seaborne invasion although in the second attack the Royal Navy lost (from memory) two cruisers and at least one destroyer. The Germans eventually landed troops including a small number of panzer 2's and other heavy equipment at a small quay west of Maleme, this landing was not only possible because the Royal Navy was engaged in the evacuation of Crete but also because the tiny port in question had already been captured, it was not an opposed landing and the Germans were not able to land these reinforcements until the final Greek troops had been flushed out of this port.
I would expect that the Germans would not only have to capture a intact port but also capture any points that command it as they needed to in Crete (and as the Allies needed to following their later capture of Antwerp). I don't know how many JU 52's the Germans had at their disposal during 1940 but I can't imagine it would have been anything close to enough to have supplied a bridge head during operation sealion. During the invasion of Crete the allies had no fighter cover and few anti-aircraft guns yet they destroyed many JU52's, of the three airfields the Germans attempted to seize they captured only one, and that only just and at great loss. In the case of the one airfield they did capture this was only held mostly because the Allies did not have radios to organise a counter attack or the transport to move their troops to the required area. Had the Germans won the Battle of Britain then unlike in the invasion of Crete the RAF would have still retained at least a small number of fighters, the British Army would of been able to communicate and move reinforcements to landing areas and would have had at least some heavy weapons while the Germans would had none until they had captured a port to unload them. Together with this and as in Crete the civilians would most likely have joined in the fight against the Germans, I know my own family were clear on this as they had nothing to lose because they understood they would have been amongst the first up against the wall had the Germans succeeded.
I would expect that the Germans would not only have to capture a intact port but also capture any points that command it as they needed to in Crete (and as the Allies needed to following their later capture of Antwerp). I don't know how many JU 52's the Germans had at their disposal during 1940 but I can't imagine it would have been anything close to enough to have supplied a bridge head during operation sealion. During the invasion of Crete the allies had no fighter cover and few anti-aircraft guns yet they destroyed many JU52's, of the three airfields the Germans attempted to seize they captured only one, and that only just and at great loss. In the case of the one airfield they did capture this was only held mostly because the Allies did not have radios to organise a counter attack or the transport to move their troops to the required area. Had the Germans won the Battle of Britain then unlike in the invasion of Crete the RAF would have still retained at least a small number of fighters, the British Army would of been able to communicate and move reinforcements to landing areas and would have had at least some heavy weapons while the Germans would had none until they had captured a port to unload them. Together with this and as in Crete the civilians would most likely have joined in the fight against the Germans, I know my own family were clear on this as they had nothing to lose because they understood they would have been amongst the first up against the wall had the Germans succeeded.
Buffnut, defeatists and Nazi sympathisers were only a very small faction in British politics and were not supported by the King or the people, they wouldn't of had the authority to negotiate on behalf of the British government and probably would have been rounded up before they had chance to open their mouths.
Shortround6
Major General
no, but then we are back to an ongoing battle or race. The mine fields will not spring into place instantly, the British will not know the exact location, the Germans will keep trying to add to (extend and thicken) them without knowing how much or exactly where the British have swept.
only to counter the German planes that can see through fog, smoke, cloud and never, ever miss.
The minesweepers are hardly invulnerable, there are just a lot of them and they are hard to identify. Given that many pilots mis-identified ships ( calling even destroyers battleships on occasions or tankers aircraft carriers) trying to pick out small ships that can be in a variety of locations and look a lot like all kinds of other small ships is not anywhere near a 100% certainty. Even if the Germans sink a few dozen in one month it may not be enough. The British may have more hulls than crews.
Tripoli could not support the Africa Corp on a steady basis, granted a fair amount of supplies got burned up on the way to the front but then the Africa Corp was not 8-10 divisions either. Both sides would have "stock up" for a while before going on the offensive as offensive operations sucked up supplies faster than they could be restocked. Landing on British beaches, advancing a few Km and waiting days to stock up for a further advance is not a good option. Dover is a lousy landing site because not only is there high ground on either side of the town but the ONLY way out (aside from going up or down the beach) is through a narrow valley and past a number of ridges that parallel the beach. If you can google map it, do so and hit terrain.
Things are relative. the areas you need to block off with mines are a lot bigger than 21 miles, and really big mine fields tend not to work very well. The American put 70,000 mines into the North Sea Mine barrage in WW I and sank eight u-boats. 230 miles long and 15 to 35 miles wide. parallel columns of ships 500 yds apart dropping mines every 100 yards in 18 rows at three depths but against surface ships only one depth would be needed. Getting anywhere near even spacing from air drops would be impossible.
buffnut453
Captain
Pattle,
The British people had no choice when Churchill became their Prime Minister. There was no election. Chamberlain went to King George and simply recommended Churchill to be his successor. Why would a replacement for Churchill be any different? Vote of no confidence in Parliament, Halifax stakes his claim as the only viable candidate. Also, bear in mind that a defenceless London would likely be evacuated. With Parliament on the run, who would be in any position to oppose an appeasing faction from taking power.
If you haven't read "Five Days in May", I strongly recommend you do - a most enlightening insight into how many senior politicians and aristocracy were, at best, luke warm to the idea of opposing Hitler. Some were Nazi sympathisers (based, largely, on Hitler's economic miracle during the 1930s) and some were defeatists but a large proportion were simply imbued with a dread of large-scale modern warfare based on experience in WWI. Plenty of the rank-and-file across the country were willing to copy their lead. Even with Churchill's anti-Hitler rhetoric, he and the Royal Family were still booed by victims of the Blitz during his early period in office.
I think there is plenty of justification for my statements once we get past some of the more mythical aspects of Britain's lonely stand from June 1940 until December 1941.
The British people had no choice when Churchill became their Prime Minister. There was no election. Chamberlain went to King George and simply recommended Churchill to be his successor. Why would a replacement for Churchill be any different? Vote of no confidence in Parliament, Halifax stakes his claim as the only viable candidate. Also, bear in mind that a defenceless London would likely be evacuated. With Parliament on the run, who would be in any position to oppose an appeasing faction from taking power.
If you haven't read "Five Days in May", I strongly recommend you do - a most enlightening insight into how many senior politicians and aristocracy were, at best, luke warm to the idea of opposing Hitler. Some were Nazi sympathisers (based, largely, on Hitler's economic miracle during the 1930s) and some were defeatists but a large proportion were simply imbued with a dread of large-scale modern warfare based on experience in WWI. Plenty of the rank-and-file across the country were willing to copy their lead. Even with Churchill's anti-Hitler rhetoric, he and the Royal Family were still booed by victims of the Blitz during his early period in office.
I think there is plenty of justification for my statements once we get past some of the more mythical aspects of Britain's lonely stand from June 1940 until December 1941.
The German Army being cut to pieces by every person in Britain sounds all good and patriotic, but exactly how would the British people have done that? With what weapons? The British army had lost a great deal of equipment in France and in their great wisdom the British government had disarmed their own people. If you want to know how sharp sticks work against an invading army, ask the Chinese how their war went against Japan.
Shortround6
Major General
There is a rather narrow window for this to occur. Just as the sea borne invasion has to take place before the weather gets too bad, A late fall, early winter invasion might not even need intervention by the Royal Navy.
Destroying enough of the Royal Navy to safe guard the invasion can be done, just not quickly or easily. Again, see how many raids the RAF tried against the German ships at Brest.
According to one source : Scharnhorst - The History - The Scharnhorst at Brest, France
" a series of operations that had already expended 3,413 tons of bombs (compared with the 20,202 that had been dropped on the whole of Germany) and which had cost Bomber Command 127 aircraft."
This was by the end of Dec 1941, more bombs would be dropped by the time of the Channel Dash.
Granted a good deal of the attacks were at night but in some cases they were done by up to 100 4 engine bombers in one night.
buffnut453
Captain
And those raids against Brest were against defended airspace. Per my original comment, I was making the assumption that the RAF was no longer capable of defending Britain...a most unlikely scenario. However, I'll play along...how much damage would be done to port facilities? How many RN vessels would be capable of any form of effective operation, particularly en masse as would be needed for the valiant defence you're proposing.
Irrespective, I still believe the most likely scenario would be the collapse of the Churchill Government to be replaced by one more willing to seek peace with Germany. Under those circumstances, the whole invasion problem disappears. Hitler doesn't need to invade because he now has a friend on his westernmost flank...he can throw all his resources against the USSR (although I still think he'd fail there, but that's another discussion).
Irrespective, I still believe the most likely scenario would be the collapse of the Churchill Government to be replaced by one more willing to seek peace with Germany. Under those circumstances, the whole invasion problem disappears. Hitler doesn't need to invade because he now has a friend on his westernmost flank...he can throw all his resources against the USSR (although I still think he'd fail there, but that's another discussion).
silence
Senior Airman
Don't forget the U-boat force when you talk about ways to counter the RN. It could be a very significant factor depending on how its used.
I doubt that, simply because of the small number of them, the fact that they were largely coastal types and the really bad torpedoes the Germans had. The biggest crisis facing the Kriegsmarine at the start of the war and for the first year and a half was the fact that its torpedoes were malfunctioning or at worst did not work at all.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
En masse.........valiant defence????
The only defense the German invasion fleet has is the Luftwaffe, some mines and a some subs operating in shallow water. I have already listed the available German surface ships at the time in question. Go ahead and add the Prinz Eugen for a 3rd heavy cruiser. Her dash down the Channel can be her shake down/1st training cruise for the crew. One of the 3 light cruisers available is the Emden, roughly equivalent to a "D" class Cruiser, she is being used as a training ship in the Baltic.
How many German surface Combatants were south of Amsterdam in Sept 1940?
BTW British subs had done a fair job on the German Navy in year leading up to the BoB. Torpedo hits had sidelined the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, the Lutzow, the Leipzeg ( turned into a training ship short one boiler room), the Nurnberg might have been repaired in time from her torpedo hit to take part in the invasion. The Karlsruhe was sunk as was the Sloop F9 by sub torpedoes and the 933 ton type 1924 torpedo boat Luchs was also a victim.
Attempts by the Kriegsmarine to move en masse to a position to support the invasion may very well have seen them suffer a fair degree of attrition.
If the Luftwaffe is trying to bomb the crap out of the RN it is NOT bombing London.
oldcrowcv63
Tech Sergeant
I cannot imagine any realistic scenario wherein the RAF would be so depleted at the close of the BoB that it had NO fighter capability remaining or production and training had ceased and all veteran pilots had disappeared. I would expect the RAF to be in considerably better shape than the USAAF Far East Air Force defending Bataan peninsula in early 1942. It is a poor analogy for many reasons but a handful of P-40's equipped with bombs completely disrupted Japanese attempts to perform amphibious assaults on the peninsula at a time when Luzon airspace was essentially completely controlled by the IJA. The point here is that it doesn't take much of an air force to wreak havoc on an amphibious assault force. At Normandy the Luftwaffe was conspicuous in its near total absence. Winning the BoB by any reasonable measure, would not translate to the complete destruction of the RAF capability to disrupt an amphibious attack. Defending southern Britain is not the same mission as staging a focused and escorted air attack on surface vessels crossing the channel. I should add that the very few landings that did occur on Bataan by trained veteran IJA infantry were dislodged after bitter fighting by USAAF ground crew and navy cooks, untrained and lightly armed. If the Germans had 'won' the BoB (in what would have been close to a Pyrrhic victory) and then attempted to invade Britain in 1940, I believe ww2 would have been over a lot sooner. JMHO
I also believe the RN would have barely broken a sweat as the bulk of the work would have been done by the beaten RAF in what would have been a slaughter in the channel. Payback is a bit*h.
I also believe the RN would have barely broken a sweat as the bulk of the work would have been done by the beaten RAF in what would have been a slaughter in the channel. Payback is a bit*h.
Last edited:
If the Germans could have invaded in July 1940 they would have had a much better chance of success, but by mid September the UK defenses were much stronger, with the Army being largely reequipped with new output from UK factories and bolstered by several Commonwealth divisions.
I agree that the first invasion attempt was timed to land at night, but it was spotted in daylight by recon aircraft after it left port:
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
For me, the crucial question of Sealion is not whether the Royal Navy could have defeated the Channel crossing (which I believe they comprehensively would have, purely on weight on numbers) but the logistics of the whole operation.
A German light infantry division consumed around 150-200 tonnes of supplies per day and around 400 tons while in heavy combat. A motorised/mechanised division consumed around 300 tons per day, a German armoured division consumed around 300 to 350 tons of supplies. An armoured division could consume up to 700 tons per day if it was in heavy combat.
For the Germans to supply the nine infantry and 2 airborne divisions put across in the first wave they have to land somewhere between 2200 tons per day (assuming 200 tons per day for light combat) and 4400 tons per day (assuming 400 tons per day for heavy combat).
In their anti-invasion preparations, the British thought that the Germans would have to bring across around 3300 tons per day, a round figure of 300 tons per division.
The port capacity in the Sealion invasion area was around 1400 tons per day, when at full capacity. The British plans were to wreck the port facilities in the event of a landing, which was expected to have the effect of cutting capacity to around 150 tons per week (one twentieth of estimated supply needed) in the first week, increasing to about 800 tons by the end of the second week.
Even if the German army achieves a coup de main and captures the port facilities intact (a highly unlikely scenario), it is still required to land somewhere close to 1900 tons (assuming the mean figure of 3300 tons per day) over open beaches without port facilities. Without the British Army, Royal Air Force or Royal Navy interfering. Or the weather.
To think Sealion has a reasonable chance of success, even with Fighter Command reduced to almost nothing, is wilfull denial of the evidence of the highest order.
A German light infantry division consumed around 150-200 tonnes of supplies per day and around 400 tons while in heavy combat. A motorised/mechanised division consumed around 300 tons per day, a German armoured division consumed around 300 to 350 tons of supplies. An armoured division could consume up to 700 tons per day if it was in heavy combat.
For the Germans to supply the nine infantry and 2 airborne divisions put across in the first wave they have to land somewhere between 2200 tons per day (assuming 200 tons per day for light combat) and 4400 tons per day (assuming 400 tons per day for heavy combat).
In their anti-invasion preparations, the British thought that the Germans would have to bring across around 3300 tons per day, a round figure of 300 tons per division.
The port capacity in the Sealion invasion area was around 1400 tons per day, when at full capacity. The British plans were to wreck the port facilities in the event of a landing, which was expected to have the effect of cutting capacity to around 150 tons per week (one twentieth of estimated supply needed) in the first week, increasing to about 800 tons by the end of the second week.
Even if the German army achieves a coup de main and captures the port facilities intact (a highly unlikely scenario), it is still required to land somewhere close to 1900 tons (assuming the mean figure of 3300 tons per day) over open beaches without port facilities. Without the British Army, Royal Air Force or Royal Navy interfering. Or the weather.
To think Sealion has a reasonable chance of success, even with Fighter Command reduced to almost nothing, is wilfull denial of the evidence of the highest order.
That's more or less what the Germans were hoping for.
Sealion was a bluff. Whether the coalition government would have collapsed or not is a moot point. Churchill may well have been replaced but even that doesn't necessarily mean that the same government, with a different Prime Minister, would start negotiations.
It was Germany's best chance of levering Britain out of the war. Luckily the Luftwaffe lost (yes, lost whatever some might write today) the Battle of Britain and we'll never know what might have happened. The one thing I'm sure of is that the Germans would not have launched an invasion across the Channel.
Cheers
Steve
Dogwalker
Senior Airman
Was operating in an IDEAL situation of this scenario. Pratically no surfaces enemy forces. Landing forces composed of slow and unadapt boats (they didn't even had a single radio equipement onto them), no mines, but hadn't the air cover.
Result, RN held contact with the enemy for two days, facing heavy losses, and then Cunningam had to decide if the remaining units had to loose the contact in a orizontal direction or in a vertical one.
Not only. For these two days the performances of the RN appeared to be very sub standard. A force of three light cruisers and four destroyers wasn't able to deal with a single torpedo boat at 700m distance. A cruiser was damaged by a near miss of a torpedo, the RN ships even shoot themself, and two third of the flotilla was safe.
A second force of three cruisers and four destroyers gave up to act against the second flotilla, escorted by a single torpedo boat.
What happened? All the clueless of the RN had gathered in Crete? Or having to operate under very difficult conditions had degraded the performances of sailors who, in other circumstances, would have given the usual excellent proof of the RN?
Cause you think that in may 1941 all the German forces were were at Creete?
"turned the tail and run away"? At what speed they "run away" exactly? Three cruisers and four destroyers wasn't able to pursue some wooden fishing boat? The second landing attempt suffered light losses cause the C Force gave up to pursue them under the bombings.
Two of the 5Th Destroyer Flotilla, sent to attack boats off the Cretan coast, were sunk without coming in contact with the targets on 23 may, then the flotilla withdrew. At that time the Germans had only partially seized an airfield. The evacuation order was issued only on 27 may.
On may 23 Cunningam informed it's superiors that daylight operations could no longer continue, but they refused (but at that point the bulk of his forces was already steaming to Alexandria). They would have taken different decisions in 1940? Or they would have sent the Home Fleet to certain destruction in full daylight?
The Lupo wasn't your typical S-boat being more like destroyer-escorts.
ype: Torpedo boat
Displacement: 795 long tons (808 t) standard
1,020 long tons (1,040 t) full load
Length: 83.5 m (273 ft 11 in)
Beam: 8.1 m (26 ft 7 in)
Draught: 2.55 m (8 ft 4 in)
Propulsion: 2 steam turbines, 2 shafts
19,000 hp (14,200 kW)
Speed: 34 knots (39 mph; 63 km/h)
Complement: 116
Armament:
• 3 × 100 mm (3.9 in) guns
• 10 × 20 mm (0.79 in) anti-aircraft guns
• 2 × 13.2 mm (0.52 in) anti-aircraft machine guns
• 4 × 450 mm (18 in) torpedo tubes
• Up to 20 mines
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
At last someone mentions logistics. The Heer could have been landed but within days would have been reduced to throwing rocks, eating whatever food they could find in the area and drinking from streams.
Dogwalker
Senior Airman
Cause You think to sweep enough for the Home Fleet to pass with 5% of the sweepers?
To deal with the smaller units don't need even bombing. Strafing is sufficient.
Was 500 km away from Sicilian basis, not 50.
The famous rough terrain of south England? Come on... and remember that the defenders had to operate under the bombings and strafings by day. So had their supplies to move. Do you really think that the Germans of 1940 had problems in seizing a pair of shallow hills versus the British of 1940 having the air superiority? At Crete the British had far mor experience, and fought well in a worse terrain, but...
have I ever said "21 miles"?
Far bigger areas were effectively mined in WWII in worse conditions.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
