The Invasion of Britain

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

BombTaxi said:
Had the Germans got ashore, they would have won, no questions asked. The British had virtually no tanks, virtually no artillery and the stay-behind resistance planned would have almost certainly been ineffective.
Click to expand...

Had the Germans got ashore the battle was by no means lost. For the period April 1940 to april 1941 a bunker was completed every 20 minutes. I am not pretending that it was on the scale of the German defences in 1944 but then again, the attack wasn't anything like 1944 either.
We didn't have many tanks but had sufficient to send a an Armoured Brigade to the Middle East at the height of the BOB, not a decision that was taken lightly.
As for Artillery, this is one area where we were not that badly off. The Army wasn't fully equipped but there were a good number of 25 pounders in the UK and a lot of ex WW1 18 pounders were readied.
 

It is now September and the weather is becoming foul. With no opposition it would be difficult to supply an army in September October with flat bottomed boats, one storm could wipe the whole lot out. It is the easiest thing in the world to deprive someone of a harbour, just sink a big ship in the mouth of it. If the german army had landed they would soon be left with no air cover and no supplies.

After D Day one of the mulberry harbours was swept away in a storm, and that was in the summer. I think, as someone has already said, some in the high command saw it as a glorified river crossing but others who knew the channel whispered in their ears.
 
BombTaxi said:
Had the Germans got ashore, they would have won, no questions asked. The British had virtually no tanks, virtually no artillery and the stay-behind resistance planned would have almost certainly been ineffective
Click to expand...
To echo the points you yourself made
what difference would our lack of tanks have made? The Wehrmacht had no way of getting their own across, let alone ashore, getting up the cliffs at Dover was the smallest of their problems.

If the Germans had invaded, they WOULD have got ashore, the coastal defences would have been breached eventually at any point along which they were attacked but the delay incurred on the Geman beach head would have bought the Brits time to get something more weighty behind the defences.
 
Last edited:
I have to disagree with a number of people, I think the Germans could have successfully invaded Britain at the time as they had already had a successfull large scale invasion in April of 1940 done without 100% control of the sea and managed to transport and land the heaviest tanks they had until the Panther came along (Neubaufahrzeuge V). The key would have been to invade Britain as soon as France fell as IMO that's when Britain was at her weakest and most uncertain. The Battle of France had cost her over 1,000 aircraft and almost 2,000 airmen and most of the Army's heavy equipment was left in France. While the RN was 2nd to none, having them try to stop an invasion in a narrow area without 100% control of the air would have been suicidal. The one wild card would have been the RAF - while greatly weakened it was still a fighting force.
 
The RN could still deploy a sizeable battleship force, while the Germans had nothing bigger than Scharnhorst/Gniesenau. Those two could not have stood up to a British BB squadron, and given the state of German naval leadership throughout the war, they probably wouldn't have put up a determined flight - the standard KM response to RN BBs throughout the war was to turn tail and run, two BCs against even the elderly QE and R class BBs would have been a suicidal fight. Had the Germans run, this would leave the invasion force at the mercy of the 15 and 16in guns of the RN, which would have no means of defending itself other than CLs and DDs. Think of the chaos caused by a few E-boats during Operation Tiger, then imagine the effect of a night raid by RB DDs against the fleet, followed by the BBs attacking in the morning. It would be a massacre. Even if the LW intervened, the loss of a few old BBs would have been an acceptable price for smashing the German invasion fleet. Sea control is 100% vital - again think of Samar and what would have happened to the American invasion force if Taffy 3 hadn't turned the Japanese back.

As TEC has pointed out, supplying the Wehrmacht by sea, in winter, with a bunch of river barges is also a non-starter, the weather alone being enough to entirely cut off that supply line. And more to the point, getting the troops there in the firsts place with such unsuitable craft would have been a nightmare task. It would be well into winter before coastal defences were neutralised and the RN driven far north enough to keep them out of the crossing. By then the weather will be an insurmountable obstacle to getting the troops across
 
The Germans could have put man and material on British soil...of course they could....

But putting a tank on a beach...ok so what about its spares and fuel and ammunition and logistic support...and bang goes the invasion.

The Germans would have been fighting the British, weather, the channel and thier own inexperience.

Plus the kriegsmarine took heavy losses during the Norway campaign.

The invasion needed plenty of planning and the right weapons...making it up as you go along is bad medicine.
 
Hello
IIRC at least Gneisenau was docked during the BoB because it was torpedoed by RN sub Clyde on 20 June 40, and Scharnhorst most probably also, it was badly hit by a torpedo from RN DD Acasta on 8 June 40.

On the other hand, IIRC correctly, weather around Channel was fairly good during most of the Oct 40.

British army had at the beginning of Sept 40 500 A/T guns and 350 tanks armed with 2pdr, which at that time had adequate armour piercing capabilities and over 500 light tanks which were rather useless against panzers but not against infantry. During the summer army had got 425 more 25pdr field guns etc.

Operating in Channel would have been costly but not suicidal for RN and it would surely done that and it had capacity to cut the German sea links to the continent.

Juha
 
The probable invasion was discussed on a series of TV programmes a few months ago. The following is from Wiki but was the findings of the programmes mirrored the wargames that were held at Sandhurst in the 1970's and the Wiki summary is accurate.

I should add that German wasn't given total air superiority but the RAF was deemd to have withdrawn out of effective range of the Me109's based in France. So both sides could take control of the skies for limited periods.

In wargames conducted at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in 1974, which assumed the Luftwaffe had not yet won air supremacy, the Germans were able to establish a beachhead in England by using a minefield screen in the English Channel to protect the initial assault. However, the German ground forces were delayed at the "Stop Lines" (e.g. the GHQ Line), a layered series of defensive positions that had been built, each a combination of Home Guard troops and physical barriers. At the same time, the regular troops of the British Army were forming up. After only a few days, the Royal Navy was able to reach the Channel from Scapa Flow, cutting off supplies and blocking further reinforcement. Isolated and facing regular troops with armour and artillery, the invasion force was forced to surrender.[

Persoanlly I would expect an invasion to have a similar ending.
 
And there's always the question of what happens if the Brits wreck their port facilities, and hold them for "x" number of days and deny their use to the Germans.

Not a good thing for the Germans who lack the logistics capability and experience.
 
I don't think the RN ships would have had such a free range as they would have had to also deal with the U-Boats which were to be strung as protecting both flanks of the invasion and unless the RAF was able to provide 24 hour protection over them, the Stukas would have had a field day esp since the RN would have been operating in a confined area. Again IMO the key would have been to invade as soon as France fell before the British could regain their strength, reorganize and prepare defensive positions.

The biggest concern I would have on the German side is were the troops exhausted by this point.
 

U Boats ave never had much success in the English Channel. The water is very tidal, currents strong and if the RN played their cards right large parts of it are too shallow for Uboats.

As for the Stukas they were not at this stage of the war that effective against shipping. Later they received special training and in the Med they were lethal. There would have been losses and no doubt serious ones but not enough to stop the RN who would know that it was make or break time. Losses would have been secondary.
Its worth looking at the BOB thread and look at the attack on the Pewitt convoy. The convoy had heavy losses but the key thing is that this was over a number of days, against slow (approx 5 kts) almost defenceless colliers escorted by about four destroyers and still some got through. A RN attack would be a far more difficult target.

In addition they could have come by night. No one knows the waters around the UK shore better than the RN, the Stukas would have been usless and any U Boats almost useless due to the lack of visibility. RN Coastal forces would also have been free to play and they had about 70 MTB's in the area.
 
I don't know about the Stukas. After the early part of the BoB they were held back just for strikes like that needed for any invasion. If you have the RAF occuppied with the larger bomber forces and the Bf 109 escorts over the mainland, there might be success among the Stukageschwader in attacking the RN.
 

Its easy to speculate about what a stuka or the luftwaffe in general may have done to the RN. However the germans were used to fighting with close air support. The stukas were withdrawn from the BoB due to heavy losses and maybe to preserve them for Sealion. To suggest they could devastate the Navy and support the German landings is stretching things a bit. Germans landing in south england would be in a worse position than the BEF in Dunkerque.
 
The stukas weren't necessarily "removed" but held back for attacking convoys and supporting the invasion by strikes on the RN and other pinpoint missions. Whether they would have been successful in these operations is left up to conjecture.
 
Njaco said:
The stukas weren't necessarily "removed" but held back for attacking convoys and supporting the invasion by strikes on the RN and other pinpoint missions. Whether they would have been successful in these operations is left up to conjecture.
Click to expand...


Njaco

Like I said the stuka was a part of blitzkrieg as used up to the fall of France, If they were attacking the RN they couldnt support the landings, they would have to be supported by Bf109 escorts which leaves the German troops facing every plane in the RAF that can carry a gun or a bomb and almost no air defence.

Similarly for Submarines the U boat was a ship with a capability to go underwater only about 100 miles max. That is OK in the Atlantic but they would be in trouble in the channel
 
I agree with the subs. But my point is this: If at the point of mid September, with He111s, Do17s and Ju88s with heavy Bf 109 escort attacking land targets and the invasion started with support from Ju87s and Bf 110s, how many RAF fighters would be available to protect the RN? I think its a possibility the Ju 87 could have been used effectively. or maybe not.
 
That sounds like the documentary I saw
although I seem to remember it being one programme rather than a series
 

I thought that the LW had suffered more than the RAF by the end of September the LW had only about 400 Bf109s (I may be wrong). In the event of a landing all available aircraft from all groups would be available thats about 6to 700 hurricanes and spitfires and all others like whirlwinds gladiators blenheims fairy battles etc. IMO the for LW to attack the RN whilst protecting the landing and supply ships while protecting and supporting the WM advance all from over the channel is an impossible work load. Whatever way it went it would have been a bloodbath.
 
Hello
IMHO FC would have given RN all the support it could. The RN attack would have had strategic importance that a couple days bombing of land targets didn't have. No doubt that at least some Stukas would have got through with help of 109s but when one looks the cost of Dunkerque evacuation to RN one see that it was costly but the cost wasn't crippling. Ju 87s would have been slightly more effective than during the Dunkerque but not so effective than in Med in 41-42 (at dunkerque Ju 87 pilots found out that they needed more training in attacks against naval targets). And IIRC RN BBs worst enemies in Med were fighter-bombers and Italian torpedo-bombers, not Stukas.

Juha
 
A large scale invasion without a single landing craft would require the capture of a major port INTACT. Tanks rolling off river barges (lined with concrete) onto beaches followed by waves of troops paddling inflatables? It's all pie in the sky.
The objective was to convince the many doubters in the British government,and military, that an invasion was imminent and thereby force a political settlement with Britain and her Empire. This would free nazi Germany to concentrate on her true political and idealogical objectives which lay in the East.
They had some success with the first part of the plan,my grandmother lived in Kent at the time and was convinced,like everybody else,that the Germans would arrive at any moment. They utterly failed to force a"negotiated" settlement.
This is the true significance of the Battle of Britain. Like many great battles its outcome had profound political rather than purely military repercussions.
Incidentally there was a psychological impact on the British people which should not be underestimated. Many civilians say that after the BoB they KNEW that the Germans could be defeated,something many had doubted up until then.
Cheers
Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Long term viability of the USA's warship museum ships?
Replies
13
Views
1K
GreenKnight121
The Rise and Fall of the Nazi War Machine
Replies
5
Views
1K
pbehn
P
Aviation Concepts: Pterodactyl And The Origins Of The Tailless And Flying Wing
Replies
1
Views
503
Gnomey
Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress Aircraft Gunner from the series: "Masters Of The Air"
Replies
2
Views
1K
The Stannum Liberator
Nazi Germany, logistics, Allies advance (and the lack of it) etc
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register