Friday 2010-06-25 Dev. update and Discussion Thread

[philip.ed]

Well, it certainly is quite interesting stuff. Then there's the idea of whether the USA would have stepped in or not...

[Zorin]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

Well, it certainly is quite interesting stuff. Then there's the idea of whether the USA would have stepped in or not...

Doing what? With no base east of the Atlantic, sending any ships would have been pure suicide.

[philip.ed]

Maybe sending reinforcement over? Additional air support? I don't know really
It's all speculative.

[Asheshouse]

I don't think there can be any doubt that the Royal Navy would have annihilated any invasion fleet and it would probably have suffered severely in doing so. If anyone questions whether they had the will then read some WWII naval history. The Royal Navy proved time and again that it was prepared to suffer severe losses to get the job done. (examples: Dunkirk, Crete, Malta, Arctic Convoys).

[philip.ed]

There was something a historian once said, and it is something that I agree with, and that is that RAF victory against the Luftwaffe was essential from a morale point of view, but realistically it was never 100% essential to stopping an invasion (unless of course Britain chose to throw in the towel before-hand)

[zapatista]

its uncertain the navy could have been a decisive factor in blocking the invasion, however valiantly it would have tried to delay it

once the germans had air supremacy over the south of england (and most of the rest of england presumably therefore), any major shipping action by the British in the channel would have been easy prey to torpedo attack and dive bombers

whatever glorious action the British navy had in the previous locations mentioned (except for dunkirk which was a special case, because the germans largely delayed their final push including massive air commitments on channel shipping and evacuating troops on the beaches), the British navy in those other events was able to have those success only because neither force could have a significant permanent number of planes over their enemy, or have exclusive air dominance)

iirc wherever navy action was a dominant in ww2, it almost always meant it was far out of reach of enemy lands (except of course in the pacific where the aircraft carrier strategy was decisive in naval battles, but even there yet again whomever had air supremacy or dominance over enemy shipping, it could pretty much sink them at will)

i more or less concur with the current main view of history, Brittan might have "won" BoB, but it was largely because of german mistakes (not constantly targeting radar, switching from enemy airfield targets to civilian terror attacks etc..). the 6 months delay it caused in a potential invasion also allowed the evacuated troops to get reorganized, and then potentially be able to repel the invading forces (also uncertain, but more plausible then the navy doing it on its own).

[Asheshouse]

Originally Posted by zapatista

the British navy in those other events was able to have those success only because neither force could have a significant permanent number of planes over their enemy, or have exclusive air dominance)

At Crete the Luftwaffe had total air superiority yet failed to stop the destruction of the sea borne invasion fleet by the RN. The Luftwaffe and Italian Air force had total air superiority for much of the time during the Malta siege but failed to prevent Malta being resupplied and re-armed.

The Luftwaffe could effectively keep out naval forces during daylight but could not stop action during hours of darkness. Naval forces kept north of the Thames and west of Isle of Wight would have been out of effective reach during the day but still close enough to intervene off the invasion beaches at night. Forces based at Harwich would take 2hrs to reach Dover at 25knots (depending on tides). Any German attack on Harwich would be outside of range of effective fighter cover.

[Zorin]

Originally Posted by zapatista

its uncertain the navy could have been a decisive factor in blocking the invasion, however valiantly it would have tried to delay it

once the germans had air supremacy over the south of england (and most of the rest of england presumably therefore), any major shipping action by the British in the channel would have been easy prey to torpedo attack and dive bombers
.....

Agreed.

Once German air supremacy would have been established, all the Navy would have done is dash out off any British harbours in reach of the Luftwaffe and run for save havens in the US. There would have been no point, apart of being stupidly heroic, to stay and be bombed to bits.

Additionally, I would say it is save to assume that if BoB had been won by the Luftwaffe, the carrier projects would have been finished and therefor the Atlantic and especially Iceland would have been no save place for any US or joined US/British efforts of establishing a foothold there.

[Il2Pongo]

Originally Posted by zapatista

its uncertain the navy could have been a decisive factor in blocking the invasion, however valiantly it would have tried to delay it

once the germans had air supremacy over the south of england (and most of the rest of england presumably therefore), any major shipping action by the British in the channel would have been easy prey to torpedo attack and dive bombers

whatever glorious action the British navy had in the previous locations mentioned (except for dunkirk which was a special case, because the germans largely delayed their final push including massive air commitments on channel shipping and evacuating troops on the beaches), the British navy in those other events was able to have those success only because neither force could have a significant permanent number of planes over their enemy, or have exclusive air dominance)

iirc wherever navy action was a dominant in ww2, it almost always meant it was far out of reach of enemy lands (except of course in the pacific where the aircraft carrier strategy was decisive in naval battles, but even there yet again whomever had air supremacy or dominance over enemy shipping, it could pretty much sink them at will)

i more or less concur with the current main view of history, Brittan might have "won" BoB, but it was largely because of german mistakes (not constantly targeting radar, switching from enemy airfield targets to civilian terror attacks etc..). the 6 months delay it caused in a potential invasion also allowed the evacuated troops to get reorganized, and then potentially be able to repel the invading forces (also uncertain, but more plausible then the navy doing it on its own).

I largely go by the evidence of Norway, Create and Malta. Invading Norway, that bastion of naval power, destroyed the surface fleet of the Germans.
What where they going to do the first night of the invasion when the Royal Navy hit their transports at the beaches?
Britain was never in any danger of being invaded, they were in danger of capitulation, which was the only chance that Germany ever had to win the war.
People capitulating. Once countries decided to fight for real. The germans and the japanese were going to lose. And not lose gentle, like the other time. This time it was going to leave a mark.

[Ernst]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

There was something a historian once said, and it is something that I agree with, and that is that RAF victory against the Luftwaffe was essential from a morale point of view, but realistically it was never 100% essential to stopping an invasion (unless of course Britain chose to throw in the towel before-hand)

I think it was a draw, not a victory. Germans simple decided to not go on. In a moment the RAF was almost depleted and ll not survive another day until Hitler 'geniality' decided to stop attack RAF facilities and start to attack citties and civilians. This give a breath to the almost dying RAF.

Another strategic failure was not capture Malta and deny allies of resconstitute their forces there. In the end I think that luftwaffes had not the effective to battle in so many fronts.