History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum Lockedcould the nazis have invaded England?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234
Author
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Status: Offline
Points: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Apr-2008 at 22:06
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

 
Or maybe your own post should be reread - by you! Apology accepted.


Entente and Allies are not the same... Tongue
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: London
Status: Offline
Points: 8795
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Apr-2008 at 22:11

Just admit you made a mistake =P - you referred specifically to the allies of WW2 and the British were a constituent of this alliance (to which I referred) and therefore transferred their expertise and experience from WW1 to the WW2 alliance as a whole.

 
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4232
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2008 at 01:44
Originally posted by Paul Paul wrote:

Originally posted by Temujin Temujin wrote:

and how much experience did the allies had prior to D-Day?
 
Pachino, Siciliy, Taranto, Salerno, Dieppe, Operation Torch........ Enough?
 
How about Guadalcanal, Betio, Makin, Tarawa, New Guinea (numerous landings), Kwajelein, Eniwietok.  All before June, 1944.
 
Pacific warfare lessons were also learned with Allied blood.  Knowledge is transmitted among commanders and troops who speak the same language.  The theory behind modern amphibious warfare had been developing since Gen. J. A. Lejeune had been Commandant of the Marine Corps in the 1920s.  The reality developed with war time industrial production and with experience.
 
I don't understand this concept that continental land powers like Germany and Russia had some kind of handle on amphibious warfare.  The 20th century manual on amphibious warfare was written by the United States navy and its 500,000 marines.  Those lessons were put to work, with local knowledge and local physical realities, at Normandy in June, 1944.  No experienced marines, but that made it all the more amazingly successful.
 
 


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 08-Apr-2008 at 02:02
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 994
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2008 at 01:56
Originally posted by Temujin Temujin wrote:

  if i'd get an Euro everytime soemone says "xy had no experience in amphibious operations".... the German Army in 1918 conducted two sucessfull ambhibious operations against Finland and Georgia. and how much experience did the allies had prior to D-Day? ...
 
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Gallipoli, apart from the massive training exercises which took place for a year before D-day.
 
Gallipoli wasn't very relevent with regard to D-Day.  For one thing there was only one improvised 'landing craft' (the River Clyde) and the rest being towed to shore in lines of row boats tied together.  On the other hand Jubilee, Torch, Husky, Avalanche, Slapstick are highly relevent. 
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 994
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2008 at 02:04
Originally posted by Paul Paul wrote:

 
One of the reasons for the delay was the higher than predicted damage done by the Luftwaffe by the French. Add this to the unexpected damage done over Dunkirk, the Luftwaffe had to recuperate, this was part of the reason for the delay. If Guderian had gone for Dunkirk the Huricanes would have inflicted an awful lot more damage on the Luftwaffe. Could an early channel crossing even been thinkable after that. 
 
Sorry, I don't see why the Luftwaffe would have suffered more heavily at the hands of the RAF fighters if Guderian had been given the go ahead to take Dunkirk.  In any case, even the 'early' invasion attempt I am hypothesizing about would have been in July, 2 months after the capture of Dunkirk I am suggesting.  Furthermore, the Luftwaffe would have been better off fighting the RAF over Dunkirk than over SE England.  Even if the Luftwaffe had taken somewhat heavier losses, the RAF would have as well and under circumstances more likely to result in the loss of pilots (i.e. over France).
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 994
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2008 at 02:21
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:


Yes and my inclination is that even with the annihilation of the BEF a Nazi invasion could have been fought off.  A Nazi Invasion would not be a surprise attack like Omaha etc were - its landing location would be predictable.  And I don't know whether you have seen the Kentish coastline or not, but it's not the most hospitable to amphibious assault.   The RAF could provide enough air support  to keep the Luftwaffe busy and the Royal navy would pummel the Germans in the channel.

German paratroop planes would get intercepted by the RAF and/or the troopers would land - occupy some town or village, get surrounded and destroyed while their supporting amphibious forces would barely make it to any beach.
 
Of course it is all speculative.  However Kenneth Macksey wrote an interesting 'alt. history' book, "INVASION:  The German invasion of England July 1940" in which he decided upon a German victory.  Where I disagree with him is that he has the RN ultimately deciding to preserve it main force in order to continue the struggle, whereas I believe they would have accepted much heavier losses in order to intervene in the Channel.  However, the main problem for the British was that the bulk of their forces were left with limited mobility after having lost so much of their motorized transports.  The British would have been hard pressed to react quickly with unengaged forces to German landings, and likely unable to contain any German breakout.   I doubt that the Germans would have been landing in Kent regardless, although historically the British were still concerned enough to defend it.
 
IMHO you are viewing this as rather too 'easy' for the British.  If you consider the dire straits RAF Fighter Command was in at the darkest moments in the historical Battle of Britain, it is not likely that it would have been so easy to intercept German forces and provide 'cover' for the RN operating in the Channel.  Nor am I suggesting that it would have been 'easy' for the Germans.  The loss of the 225,000 'veterans' at Dunkirk would certainly have made things much tougher for the British.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Peteratwar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 579
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peteratwar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2008 at 14:51
Basically, Germany had only one chance of invading Britain and that required that the RAF be totally defeated  and that the BEF had been destroyed.
 
The RAF were in some difficulties in the South of England BUT those stationed north of the Thames were fine (see what happened to the abortive raid on the North). The German fighters were at the extremem edge of their endurance.
 
The BEF was poor in heavy equipment but not in skilled and trained soldiers who had held off direct assaults by the Germans. By September/October the armaments were improving and the UK had started to send a quantity of their armour to the Middle East.
 
Given those 2 problems with the time-scale involved, the Germans had no realistic chance of a successful invasion.
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Status: Offline
Points: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2008 at 20:03
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

Originally posted by Paul Paul wrote:

Originally posted by Temujin Temujin wrote:

and how much experience did the allies had prior to D-Day?
 
Pachino, Siciliy, Taranto, Salerno, Dieppe, Operation Torch........ Enough?
 
How about Guadalcanal, Betio, Makin, Tarawa, New Guinea (numerous landings), Kwajelein, Eniwietok.  All before June, 1944.


yeah Ok, but no one cared to explain why you need experience in the first place and why the Japanese and Germans (in case of Blitzkrieg) lacked it and yet were still very sucessfull at it while they haven't done something similar before (= no exp)?
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4232
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2008 at 22:38
Well having experience is better than not having it.  At Guadalcanal, the necessity for purpose built landing craft in very large numbers became obvious.  The design features of those benefitted from the experience in the Solomons.
 
At Tarawa, the reefs in the atoll were not well known at all.  Landing craft and amphibious vehicles became hung up 4 or 500 yards out from the beach, and the marines had to wade in there under fire.  Who the hell had ever been to Tarawa, anyway?  The necessity for advance knowledge of the landing ground became imperative.  Missions by UDT (modern SEALs) and raids like Dieppe before Normany were instituted to get as much information as possible about what to expect, and what needed to be prepared for...equipment; specialized personnel, etc.
 
Any military force is better if it is experienced, and can improve on needed materiel and technique.  The Germans were better in France because of Poland.  The Russians were better after Moscow (for a number of reasons). 
 
I think the Japanese showed initiative in Malaya, and that was impressive, but their experience there should have taught them more than they showed in New Guinea where the terrain was somewhat similar, and the distances from landing to objective shorter.  Once the Australians stopped them, amphibious lessons learned in the Solomons were put to use, they were outflanked time and again, chased further away from their supply lines coming from Rabaul, and they never recovered.
 
Was Malaya just Yamashita's genius, or didn't they absorb experience?  I don't know that.  The US got better at what they did; the Japanese mounted banzai attacks and kamikaze missions. 
 
So, Anzio was a mess, but the Allies learned from it.  Dieppe was tragic, but things were learned from that as well.  The use, design features and construction of adequate assault ships, landing craft and how to assess the obstacles and neutralize them all were encountered in spades in the Pacific.  Without a lot of that, Overlord may have had to go in at Calais where the Germans thought it would.
 
    


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 08-Apr-2008 at 23:25
Back to Top
The Cosmic Fool View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 09-Apr-2008
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Cosmic Fool Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Apr-2008 at 09:38
Without getting too much involved in logistics and semantics; I don't think it's possible.

Even if Hitler and Stalin honored the pact, there would probably be enough reason for both sides to continue having a large military buildup on their respective borders. Those are key troops and the German military was already stretched across France and the Balkans.

If you were Nazi Germany, you'd need a substantial military force to break open Britain. They've been preparing for countless months for an invasion. Not to mention, trying to get past or destroy the British Home Fleet would have been impossible. They're still the foremost naval power at this point. Basically, in the end it would require immense manpower and logistics, and that only applies if you can get around the naval problem.


"The future is dark, the present burdensome. Only the past, dead and buried, bears contemplation."
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 994
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Apr-2008 at 14:05
Originally posted by The Cosmic Fool The Cosmic Fool wrote:

Without getting too much involved in logistics and semantics; I don't think it's possible.

Even if Hitler and Stalin honored the pact, there would probably be enough reason for both sides to continue having a large military buildup on their respective borders. Those are key troops and the German military was already stretched across France and the Balkans.

If you were Nazi Germany, you'd need a substantial military force to break open Britain. They've been preparing for countless months for an invasion. Not to mention, trying to get past or destroy the British Home Fleet would have been impossible. They're still the foremost naval power at this point. Basically, in the end it would require immense manpower and logistics, and that only applies if you can get around the naval problem.


I agree if you are considering the invasion in the longer term - i.e. a much better prepared German invasion against much better prepared British defenses.  However,  I still maintain that there was a window of 'vulnerability', which the Germans mostly let 'close' when they stopped Guderian's planned attack on Dunkirk before the BEF was there in force.  If you combine a possible 'capture' of the bulk of the BEF with earlier German preparations and invasion by July 1940, the equation is much different because the British defenses are much weaker (although admittedly so are the attacking German forces). 

Regarding the RN, keep in mind that it would have suffered heavy losses from air attacks in the Channel if it had tried to maintain 'standing' patrols.  In order to sortie 'into' the Channel, it would have had to get past mines and u-boat 'screens'.  Also note that it would have been easier for the Germans to replace their losses of infantry and converted river barges than it would have been for the British to replace their RN ship losses.  I'm not saying that the RN couldn't or wouldn't do it, just that it would have been a definite 'trade off' in effectiveness 'defending' the Channel vs. ship losses.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
The Cosmic Fool View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 09-Apr-2008
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Cosmic Fool Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Apr-2008 at 21:37
You're right. There were windows. But even then the Nazis would have had to compound on their own successes in order to win. Being able to use one victory to compound on another is really what wins wars.

So even if the Nazis succeeded in damaging the Home Fleet, there are lots of other logistical nightmares to be solved. And you have to remember in this hypothetical situation, we're assuming both countries had their respective generals. Given Hitler's passion for stonewalling his own generals, the British come out on the end strategically.

Finally, remember that defenders always have the advantage! ;)
"The future is dark, the present burdensome. Only the past, dead and buried, bears contemplation."
Back to Top
sammysnake View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 31-Jan-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sammysnake Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jan-2009 at 19:46
Without a doubt Germany could have initially invaded Britain. But at huge cost.

Initially using a land force in a shallow harbor speed would have been the essence of the attack. Paratroopers would have been used in an attempt to secure small towns villages in between the south downs and London.

The attempt would have been a disaster within 2 weeks though. As we all know now Britain had been developing a very sophisticated defence strategy in which any attack  would have made Leningrad look like a trip to the park for the Germans.

The 100,000 troops landing would have lost 30% on the beaches, leaving the remaining 70,000 to battle it out with the every increasing numbers of British amour and soldiers blocking any move toward London. The retreat back would have been costly not only for the Germans but also for the civilian population of the south, who would have been using every tactic possible to annihilate and hinder any German advance or retreat

The disaster then lay in the sea, by which the British Navy would have left scapaflow and made easy work of the German navy and troop carriers. It would have been highly plausable to expect very few German prisoners to be taken due to the level of venom against any German at that time. The RAF would not have take pity of troop carrying ships either.

All in all. Britain was no France, Hitler knew it.


Back to Top
pakhtun--gurl View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 26-Jan-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pakhtun--gurl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Feb-2009 at 04:57
Yes they could have, if they did not attack USSR (current Russia) Then they might have won and deafeted Britain and captured it :) The Russians would be on their side
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.