I'm honoured that'd you'd all leave it to me.
Operation Sea Lion couldn't be achieved because:
A) The Germans had no seafaring craft capable of taking the brute force of the English Channel. The Royal Navy could have sent a few minesweeps past the invasion force and the wash would have sunk most of their vessels.
B) The Luftwaffe never achieved air superiority. The RAF defended the British skies perfectly, defeating the Luftwaffe in open conflict. The reasons are many, and a single mention of "Luftwaffe switch to cities" as being the only reason will make me laugh.
C) The Kriegsmarine had no way of stopping the Royal Navy. At every point in the war, from start to finish, the German High Command feared the Royal Navy and with good reason.
There's just three reasons why Operation Sea Lion would fail.
On to Crete;
Crete was invaded by a numercially inferior force of German troops, correct. However, the Luftwaffe ruled the skies. The RAF had not one single aircraft on Crete, the last Hurricane leaving some days before. The AA defence on the island was minimal with a maximum of three light AA battalions defending the entire island, and that's if I'm being generous.
They lost the entire first wave of naval invasion, including the Italian destroyer 'Luzo' - where was the Luftwaffe to destroy the Royal Navy then?
The Fallschirmjager lost up to 50% casaulties against a force of British and Commonwealth troops that weren't even equipped properly. There were 40,000 troops on Crete, but don't be fooled by the numbers. Most of those were Greek soldiers who had been evacuated from Greece, a vast majority had no weapons. Crete was a staging post to move those forces even further back and ultimately into North Africa. A staunch defence was never intended, yet the German forces lost so many that an airborne assault was never again considered.
The Germans won the battle for Crete, but at high cost and the island had no tactical position whatsoever. It was a waste of manpower and resource. The Germans landed on that island with no risk of an enemy airforce and little enemy AA defence, the prime time to land airborne.
------------------
"British Isles were a much larger prize," too damn right they were. And larger prizes cost more. The German forces needed for this larger prize would have been ten-fold of that needed to take Crete. The Germans just didn't have the vessels to invade.
I am pretty sure the Luftwaffe couldn't have eliminated any air power by using Fallschirm to capture RAF airfields. The Fallschirm were used to capture bridges and airfields for the Germans own use, not to hamper the enemy. The Luftwaffe had to gain a local air superiority over any drop zone that would be used by the Fallschirm. This they would have never achieved over Britain and the Ju-52 carrying the much feared Fallschirm would have been shot out of the sky over the Channel.
How do you plan on landing armour across the Channel in the first place? The Royal Navy could have stopped the first assault waves, they wouldn't need to cut off any German troops because none would make it ashore.
If, however, some panzers made it ashore and were then cut off from home resupply British fuel dumps would not supply them. Any fuel dump that was in risk of capture would be set alight, depriving the panzers of any fuel.
You can't fly ammo over if the enemy is shooting down your transport planes. And you cannot supply an entire army from the air. The British High Command were skeptical when Wingate proposed the idea of supplying a Corps strength force from the air ...but that did work. How did it work? A massive supply of C-47 'Dakota' and a massive fighter force to help them there and back. On top of that, the Army engineers built airfields behind enemy lines so the 'Daks' could carry more and land it in.
You don't need armour to stop armour. But that said, the British and Commonwealth forces in Britain could have gathered enough armour to crush any German beach-head gained. The Matilda II was in all-out production and the Germans couldn't stop that tank with anything they had except the FlaK 18 36 88mm.
'Flying artillery' isn't nearly as effective as real artillery. It's no where near as versatile or quick reacting. Plus, since the RAF had the air, what's going to bomb us? Those sitting ducks called Stukas?
I don't know whether I should laugh at such blatant ignorance or be annoyed by your anti-British sentiments ...and overwhelming stench of idiocy you possess.
Norway; the British landed forces with the objectives of capturing Narvick and opening a land route to support Finland against the USSR. They landed with no heavy equipment. In the first naval encounter, the Royal Navy came out clear winners. Capturing a few supply ships and destroying some more with no loss to themselves.
The British land forces met an enemy with artillery, air support and tanks. None of which they had themselves. It is no wonder the British (and French) forces decided it was best to retreat than waste the lives of many good men.
The British kindly sent over 350,000 troops to France to aid in the defence of Europe. Not something it had to do but did nevertheless. The Wehrmacht assaulted France on the 10th May, 1940 with 3.3 million troops. The BEF had a total of 350,000 ill-equipped fighting soldiers with little armour and artillery that was going to quickly run out of shells.
Despite this, the British handed the Germans their only set-back on the fields of France at Arras. This quickly prompted German High Command to send out the message; "Beware; these British have teeth ..." - from then on the Germans knew they weren't dealing with untrained and unencouraged soldiers. The retreat from Arras, and to Dunkirk only occured because the French had collapsed to their south and they ran the very true risk of encirclement.
This portion on the North African campaign made me laugh the most. You're right, the Germans did have a smaller army than the British ...but the Axis didn't. You seem to forget that Italy attacked the British first with an over-whelming superiority of 6:1. The British defeated them capturing 120,000 to a loss of 1,200 dead and wounded. When the Afrika Korps arrived the British were over-stretched and had just given up their best forces for Greece.
Later on, the British again pushed the Axis forces back. Their best forces were then sent to Malaya, over-stretching the British forces and leaving them open to attack from Rommel. When Rommel was defeated at El Alamein, it was all over. The Anglo-American landings at torch were a mere formality to the outcome of the African campaign ...it had already been won by the combined efforts of the Desert Air Force, Royal Navy and 8th Army.
The U.S forces were extremely impressed with the heart and courage of the British forces in North Africa. Many thought that British men were naturally insane ...and during those first few combats for the very green U.S soldiers, they were extremely glad to have us 'limeys' by their side.
Everyone were crushed by the Japanese in the opening stage of the war. Even the U.S had to face it's own ignorance when that ignorance slapped it in the face. However, all those who had been shocked quickly recovered and fought back. The British halted the Japanese at the Indian border and pushed them all the way back through Burma, the longest advance in British history.
Heavy artillery and tanks don't matter in a jungle war, it's an infantry war, not an armour war. Get some basic knowledge.
Worst record? Britain lost, at most, 1.2 million people during World War 2. And besides Germany, they were in it the longest.
This is an amazing example of your stupidity ...and don't expect me to avoid personal insults when you have insulted my country so obviously.
You honestly think that the A6M would have won the war for the Luftwaffe? Honestly!? No, the Spitfire I was superior to the A6M in a dogfight and the Hurricane was probably equal. The A6M had the range but it didn't have the speed to combat the Spitfire on equal terms. They would have been dead meat, with no armour or self-sealing fuel tanks ...the eight .303cals would have ripped them to pieces.
I see, Churchill has been over-rated? For what? For being the only person in Europe willing to stand up to Hitler? For being the only person in the world to have some guts and open the fight against Germany? For using much needed violence instead of diplomacy? For saving Britain? For being the only one that had sense enough to realise that Hitler and Stalin were threats?
The British forces fought all over the world. From Abyssinya to Burma, from France to Iran and you think they didn't do any fighting? Come over to Britain and enjoy the kicking you receive when you say that in public.
Do you know why the those talks failed? It was because Hitler hated Communists. Have you never heard of the Anti-Comintern pact? It's anti-Bolshevik ...anti-Communist ...it means Hitler was planning the destruction of Communists all along.
And the Red Navy!? Hahaha! The Royal Navy was the largest in the world and the Red Navy was nothing but target practice. The Royal Navy would have blasted it out of the water with ease. The Red Navy didn't even have a single aircraft carrier!
And the Soviet Union attacks India from the hills ...with their massive armour ...in the jungles ...where armour can't roll? The Red Army would have been slaughtered in the jungles ...they hadn't a clue how to fight in them and would have suffered justly. Then, even if they did win ...there would have been a clash between Japan and USSR - which would end in Red Army defeat in jungles.