Let's Put this Battle of Britain thing in Historical Context..

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

Would Germany have been able to keep the Wehrmacht supplied for any length of time, considering the ability of the RN to disrupt any seaborne supplies carried through the Channel?

Indeed. It wasn't the D-Day landings which won the battle for Normandy. It was the ability of the Allies to keep their armies supplied. The Germans could never have done that in 1940. Especially after the Royal Navy sank all their transports.

[Al Schlageter]

It would take the German invasion fleet 1 to 3 days to reach the invasion beaches (depends on their start points for each sub-fleet). The invasion fleet had a speed of ~3Kts. The tides in the Channel could be at least twice that speed.

The RAF was continually monitoring the invasion assembly ports.

The Royal Navy would attack the German fleet at night! Stukas and other German bombers would have a hard time bombing the RN as it decimated the invasion fleet.

Any resupply of any German troops that managed to get ashore would take at least 3 days to return to the beaches.

RAF BC would not be sitting idly by letting RAF FC do all the fighting. They would be attacking the beaches, the barges in the Channel and the ports in France, Belgium and Holland. The LW would have to dilute their fighter force to cover these threats.

[MikeC1980]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

RAF BC would not be sitting idly by letting RAF FC do all the fighting. They would be attacking the beaches, the barges in the Channel and the ports in France, Belgium and Holland. The LW would have to dilute their fighter force to cover these threats.

That's why Hitler decided the Luftwaffe should wipe out the RAF before he would give the command to invade Britain. When the battle took longer than expected, and the favourable weather/season passed, Hitler's attention turned elsewhere.

Here are some good points I found elsewhere:

Germany couldn't defeat the British Air Force to the degree where they could have air supremacy. Invading a country without it is suicide.

Originally Hitler targeted only British airbases. Things were going well, at one point the English air force was down to only 200 planes.

Then a flight of German bombers accidentally bombed London. In retaliation Churchill ordered Berlin bombed. Hitler wigged it and ordered the destruction of London which gave the beleaguered RAF time to rebuild and change strategy.

After suffering heavy losses and causing little strategic damage to the British war machine the Germans finally gave up on the idea of invading England and turned their attention to the Soviet Union's oil fields, as Germany's oil supply was running low.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by MikeC1980

Originally Hitler targeted only British airbases. Things were going well, at one point the English air force was down to only 200 planes.

Where did you find that nonsense of 200 planes.

Number of immediately available fighters, according to "The Battle of Britain" by Peter G. Cooksley (Ian Allan Ltd., 1990)

Hurricanes Spitfires

----------------------------

21 August 615 326

30 August 580 287

8 September 530 275

15 September 472 256

2 October 482 281

18 October 512 285

[Viking]

“Battle of Britain represents a fight between the free world Democracy and Nazi Germany”

Probably not as most countries on both sides where imperialists with little or no desire for democracy in the nations they controlled or tried to gain control over by this war.

Viking

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by MikeC1980

If Hitler had defeated the RAF, he would have given the order to invade Britain. He would have eventually defeated Britain.

That's largely what we're discussing, and most here believe he would not have been able to successfully invade even if he'd won the battle of Britain.

Now here is the bit nobody has thought of.

Without the D-Day invasion, the Russian forces would have had to fight the Nazis on their own... and eventually would have forced them back to Berlin... and beyond.

There is no reason to think the Russians would have stopped at Germany.

The Soviet Iron curtain would have covered the whole of Europe.

The entire history of the world would have been very, very different.

If you read just this thread alone, you'll see that of course people have thought of that. This has been studied the world over, it's not likely we're about to come up with some new breakthrough.

Originally Posted by MikeC1980

That's why Hitler decided the Luftwaffe should wipe out the RAF before he would give the command to invade Britain.

As people have explained here, the Luftwaffe didn't have the range to have air superiority over the north of Britain, so even if they won in the south, the RAF would have been able to keep bombers and fighters in the north which, combined with the navy, would have been too much for a German land invasion to cope with.

Originally Hitler targeted only British airbases. Things were going well, at one point the English air force was down to only 200 planes.

Then a flight of German bombers accidentally bombed London. In retaliation Churchill ordered Berlin bombed. Hitler wigged it and ordered the destruction of London which gave the beleaguered RAF time to rebuild and change strategy.

This is what we were taught at school 30 years ago, but modern research has suggested that Hitler could have carried on bombing the RAF bases and it would have made no difference. There were too many airfields that were too easy to get back into operation - their success was limited to something like 1 airfield out of action for 1 day.

the most appalling thing is that most people forget that "nazi" is an abbreviation in German language fashion for national-socialism, which actually meant a lot of good for the Germans. Germany saw years of incredible recover after the First World War and many remember the pre-war years as times of wealth and happiness.

[Wutz]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger

the most appalling thing is that most people forget that "nazi" is an abbreviation in German language fashion for national-socialism, which actually meant a lot of good for the Germans. Germany saw years of incredible recover after the First World War and many remember the pre-war years as times of wealth and happiness.

Oh oh you really mean that? Want to take a guess how that recovery was financed? People from unions, boy scout organisations, other parties, and of course of jewish background from that time, certainly would not share your opinion, on it being a time of wealth and happiness. Also Nazi is the short form, for the abrevation NSDAP, or national socialist German workers party.
People who try and romatisize that time are not very popular in Germany.

Sorry as a German I find that view a bit offencive!

Originally Posted by Wutz

Oh oh you really mean that? Want to take a guess how that recovery was financed? People from unions, boy scout organisations, other parties, and of course of jewish background from that time, certainly would not share your opinion, on it being a time of wealth and happiness. Also Nazi is the short form, for the abrevation NSDAP, or national socialist German workers party.
People who try and romatisize that time are not very popular in Germany.

Sorry as a German I find that view a bit offencive!

ok then, you try and find a time in history when EVERYBODY was happy... after the destruction and economic damage of WW1 and the failure of the Weimar Republic, the resurrection of the German nation under national socialism was undeniable.. happy times for the nation maybe, but not for all..

I'm not trying and romanticize those years, I'm looking at it under a historic perspective.

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger

the most appalling thing is that most people forget that "nazi" is an abbreviation in German language fashion for national-socialism

The most appalling thing? What, in a war where millions died, the most appalling thing is that people forget what nazi used to mean?