Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Theories: Could Germany Captured Britain?

Discussion in 'World War 2' started by P5, Jan 9, 2007.

  1. Quillin

    Quillin New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,313
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ghent, Belgium
    via TanksinWW2
    I wonder how long that guerrila would have lasted once the germans started with the usual repraisals like burning villages, shooting innocent people, etc.
     
  2. dave phpbb3

    dave phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,626
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bristol, England
    via TanksinWW2

    A long time I think, They guerilla units were told to kill anyone who found out anything about them, including any British civilians so civilians death would be no problem to them. But thats my opinion though.
     
  3. Siberian Black

    Siberian Black New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,097
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Hunting Panzer IV's
    via TanksinWW2
    So in a nutshell, they might have been able to get troops on there but they would have been repelled with relative ease?

    Of course, there was the RN and the RAF to get passed......
     
  4. P5

    P5 Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    When the German air campaign switched focus from the airfields and the fighters to bomb London, the British were loosing 4 times the airplanes they were producing, and had the Germans continued, which they could have, one month latter there would be no more RAF. No RAF means open skies to the Navy.

    The Germans had more planes to start with and were keeping pace with their losses, pilots were the difficult part but their losses were not high enough to cause a loss. Even the British historians admit this. (Duel of Eagles)

    The problem with the hole Operation was the Royal Navy. They had to go inorder to allow Sealion.
     
  5. P5

    P5 Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    The Luftwaffe was not trained or equipped to sink warships. And don't forget the RAF will be flying top cover for the RN. (From Ricky)

    Rep: The same way the Brits sunk the Bismark. the only difference between the two is, the Germans would have more planes more subs but no aircraft carrier of cruisers I think 30 planes per ship along with 3-4 subs would be sufficient... ( the Germans had more then enough Luftwaffe to cover this margin )

    But if the RN sinks their ships? Are they all going to swim across? (From Ricky)

    Rep: If the Luftwaffe sinks the Royal Navy, then the German might as well swim across, as they will not be in any danger other then drowning or sharks. the coastal defences would be taken care off by the luftwaffe.

    Obviously the first step for this would be take care of the Royal Airforce, which the Luftwaffe was on the verge of doing and would hace accomplished this task if it had not been for Hitler's change off tactics to bomb cities, in response to an accidental drop of bombs on a German city by confused Royal Airforce bombers
     
  6. Siberian Black

    Siberian Black New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,097
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Hunting Panzer IV's
    via TanksinWW2
    But the British had the training and equipment to deal with the Bismarck. The Swordfish was a dedicated torpedo bomber. AKAIK the Luftwaffe didn't have any aircraft that could carry torpedos expect the JU-88 (which was engaged with destroying the airfields of the RAF and the cities) and the FW-190 which wasn't in production at the time.
     
  7. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Firstly as has already been pointed out, the Luftwaffe was not trained or equipped in anti-shipping operations at this point, unlike the FAA Swordfish that attacked Bismark and the channel is far from ideal operating grounds for submarines being both narrow and shallow. No Luftwaffe units had recieved or been trained to use aerial torpedoes, only KM coastal units, they did not have any armoured piercing bombs which would be necessary to sink major warships and at this point they had not operated against a fleet manouevring at sea.

    Germany was nowhere near dealing with the Royal Air Force, they had brought Fighter Command in the Southeast close to breaking point true, but even fighter command stations elsewhere were fairly rested, and most if not all stations in the 12 group were basically immune from daytime attack. Fighter Command could have conceded the air over Kent and withdrawn to the midlands relatively easily and there would have been little the Luftwaffe could have done to them at that point.

    Lastly your history is off, it was an accidental drop of bombs over London by lost Luftwaffe bombers that brought about a reprisal from Bomber Command, which in turn brought about the mass reprisals from the Luftwaffe.
     
  8. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Not true, Fighter command was at no point even remotely short of aircraft.

    I will repeat, the Luftwaffe was not even attempting to destroy the RAF and it was beyond their abilities to do so. They could not launch daylight attacks north of London so a large part of Fighter Command was beyond reach. In any case the Battle of Britain left Coastal Command, Bomber Command and importantly for any naval battles the Fleet Air Arm basically completely unaffected.
     
  9. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    About the same as everywhere else they tried it - it makes people more determined to resist.
     
  10. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2

    The comparison does not work for a whole host of reasons.

    1) The Germans did not have a dedicated anti-shipping plane in 1940/41, nor the trained pilots for anti-shipping work, nor sufficient specialised equipment like aerial torpedos and armour-piercing bombs.

    2) The Bismark was one ship, and took a fair-sized chunk of RN and FAA resources to track down and finish off. The Royal Navy's Home Fleet is significantly larger than the entire Kriegsmarine.

    3) Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bismark was sunk by RN ships. FAA aircraft (the swordfish torpedo bomber) helped out by slowing it down and damaging its rudders, but it was still capable of fighting and was actually sunk by other warships.

    4) Submarines do not work well in shallow water, as they have nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. The English channel is not very deep.

    5) FAA and RAF planes are still flying top cover. (see Simon's posts above)
     
  11. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    How about the way the British failed to do any damage at all to Scharnhorst, Prinz Eugen and Gneisenau during the channel dash?
     
  12. Ebar

    Ebar New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,006
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    On a space station in geosynchronous orbit above y
    via TanksinWW2
    I wouldn't be so confident on that point. Churchill wouldn't have been paniced into conceeding but there is no guarentee he would stay in power. Remember that this point the British Army is retreating with its tail firmly between its legs. France is in the process of collapsing with the powerful French army in disarray. All of this is taking place on Churchills watch. If ever there is moment he is vunerable this is it. If Germans can get even in small numbers get a shore and even more so if they fend off the first attempt to dislogde them, there is the possiblility that Churchills government will fall. If that happens then a pro peace administration is the only likelihood. Later on the country has had time to take breath, take stock and rally around the leadership.

    I don't offer this as any kind of sure-fire, guarenteed-to-work, thank-god-for-GB-I-wasn't-Hitler master plan, I just offer it as a possibility.
     
  13. redcoat

    redcoat Ace

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,523
    Likes Received:
    142
    via TanksinWW2
    Its true that it was beyond the capabilities of the Luftwaffe to destroy the RAF, However that is exactly what they were attempting to do, and as you would expect, they had failed even before the change to attacking London.
     
  14. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Not really, although to be fair during the Battle of Britain the as Luftwaffe as a whole lacked a set of clear-cut, consistent objectives. As to whether they were trying to destroy the RAF as a whole, I'd say they weren't, the only attacks made against any part of the RAF except fighter command were largely made in error. Fighter Command was the target during the BoB not the RAF as a whole.
     
  15. Lone Wolf

    Lone Wolf New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    788
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Merseyside, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    From some of the comments above I get the feeling that some of us don't even appreciate what the English Channel actually is. ie - it is 21 miles at its narrowest point and prone to high seas, tides and bad weather - this is no river crossing.

    Perhaps some people should check this out -

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Channel

    :cool:
     
  16. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Indded, up until fairly recently (18th Century or so) it was actually considered quite a risky crossing...
     
  17. Lone Wolf

    Lone Wolf New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    788
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Merseyside, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    There's a big difference between a channel "dash" and the kind of sustained and much more vulnerable presence that an invasion would have necessitated.
     
  18. Lone Wolf

    Lone Wolf New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    788
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Merseyside, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    They were under strict instructions to ignore German reprisal tactics - no matter what it cost - these were very focused, dedicated and dangerous individuals and I have no doubt they would have followed their orders to the letter. This demonstrates the total war philosophy re defence of GB as well as anything.
     
  19. Lone Wolf

    Lone Wolf New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    788
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Merseyside, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    As has been said the importance of subs in the Channel is questionable and the relative numbers of subs is irrelevant as the main enemies of the sub were the destroyer and the warplane - but as a side note - did Germany actually have more subs than Britain at the time of the fall of France ? I'm not so sure - anyone ?
     
  20. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Precisely, this was the point I was trying to make, the counter attack by the RN would be much more like the channel dash during which the FAA which were equipped and trained for the task failed to do any damage.
     

Share This Page