Operation "Sea Lion"

[al Roumi]

The old addage is the "Germans a week away from winning the Battle of Britain, but Hitler made them change strategy" is often mentioned in these discussions.All the attacks on the airfields did was cause disruption in defence - in the end they could have pulled back which would have diluted the ability to defend, but not stop it.

Pulled-back to where? Defence of what? I thought the focus of the first attacks was the RAF itself, not the population centres or even industrial sites yet.

A reverse position, not often discussed was the decision to send 12 squadrons to France in 1939 - a force not large enough to secure air superiority, but large enough to suffer significant losses which were missed in the Battle of Britain. Those 12 squadrons - arguebly the best trained - found themselves in a difficult situation, suffered severe losses and made no real impact on the Battle of France.

Wasn't the expeditionary force the closest thing GB had to a professional army at the time too (not-withstanding the forces in Egypt)?

If Britain hadn't intervened at all in France or elsewhere on the continent at the start of the war, i suspect the diplomatic make up of the rest of the conflict would have been much changed. It may be another popular myth I've swallowed but wouldn't Hitler rather have avoided war with GB? I thought he considered it only right that as GB and France had overseas empires, Germany should have the same, albeit more locally, "out back" or so to speak.

...Not to mention that racist guff about common aerian ancestory (Saxons, Friesiens, Angles et al.)

[King Kurt]

Pulled-back to where? Defence of what? I thought the focus of the first attacks was the RAF itself, not the population centres or even industrial sites yet.

What I mean is that the fighters could have been pulled back to the Midlands, out of range of escorted daylight bombers. That would have left Southern England a little exposed - and caused some political difficulty, but it was an option. The invasion would have had to come by say September/ October to have at least a fighting chance with the weather, and then the landings could be attacked from the air and the sea. Naval attacks would be at night, thus decreasing the effectivness of the German airforce. The air attacks would have been bloody, but you are talking about defending the homeland.

Wasn't the expeditionary force the closest thing GB had to a professional army at the time too (not-withstanding the forces in Egypt)?

If Britain hadn't intervened at all in France or elsewhere on the continent at the start of the war, i suspect the diplomatic make up of the rest of the conflict would have been much changed. It may be another popular myth I've swallowed but wouldn't Hitler rather have avoided war with GB? I thought he considered it only right that as GB and France had overseas empires, Germany should have the same, albeit more locally, "out back" or so to speak.

...Not to mention that racist guff about common aerian ancestory (Saxons, Friesiens, Angles et al.)

Politicaly it would have been difficult not to go to France, and optimism was high with the BEF etc. No one predicted the stunning sucess of the German attacks. However the RAF was not fully commited to France - I think I am right in saying that no Spitfires went to France - but we did loose a lot of planes and pilots. It is the benefit of hindsight to say it would have been better not to go - but isn't that the same as saying the Germans should have continued attacking the airfields? I suppose my point is both options have merit and can be chewed over - but neither happened and history went - possibly- on a different course.

[Pannonian]

Pulled-back to where? Defence of what? I thought the focus of the first attacks was the RAF itself, not the population centres or even industrial sites yet.

Fighter Command were losing trained pilots, but the training they had was outdated, and the experience the survivors were gaining more than outweighed the loss of pilots, who in any case were adequately topped up with new recruits (who had better training than the first batch). What was close to breaking point was the fitness of 11 Group, who were severely fatigued by battle stress. Any more of the same, and the backup plan would be used. That the Luftwaffe was similarly close to breaking point made this moot, but the plan was to withdraw 11 Group to the midlands, to rest and refit. There was an adequate supply of new fighters, so equipment wasn't an issue, and there was an adequate supply of new pilots, so numbers wasn't an issue. All 11 Group needed was a respite from action (which they would get in the midlands, since it was out of range of German fighters), and they would be able to return in strength when the invasion came. With the rate of attrition the BoB saw, if Sealion was actually launched, Britain would probaby have significant air superiority as well as naval supremacy.

As it turned out, as said above, 11 Group wore down the Luftwaffe to breaking point, which was reached when Bader's Big Wings appeared. While they didn't do much more damage than the standard piecemeal method of engagement, they showed the Germans that the British had fresh reserves which they didn't have, and persuaded them the current battle couldn't be won.

[Beirut]

If the Germans did invade, Churchill was going to gas them on the beaches.

If the Germans made it inland, the English had a public campaing planned with posters to be put up saying, "You can always take one with you."

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

which Is why I will always love the British!

[al Roumi]

If the Germans did invade, Churchill was going to gas them on the beaches.

If the Germans made it inland, the English had a public campaing planned with posters to be put up saying, "You can always take one with you."

hmm, "we will gas the on the beaches" doesn't sound as valiant as "we will fight them on the beaches"...

[Jolt]

If the Germans did invade, Churchill was going to gas them on the beaches.

Provided the German army was successful in landing in England, that was probably the dumbest thing Churchill could order. The consequence would probably be retaliating using gas weapons through the whole of England, most certainly against a lot of civilian targets. While France fell quickly and relatively bloodlessly, Hitler would gas his way to Scotland if any such thing was done against his troops. That would imply millions of civillian casualties. I don't think Churchill had the backbone to attempt such a thing, out of fear of the inevitable result such a measure would ensue.

[Yarema]

If Hitler would disembark his army of murderers on the British shores without eliminating the R.A.F., he would be cut to pieces by the Royal Navy and the R.A.F.

Besides, If the Germans would start Seelowe, Stalin would order a full scale attack on Nazi Germany, in which the latter would not stand a chance. The Soviets were technologicaly superior in every type of arms - they had excellent BT and T-38 tanks, they have already begun the production of KV-1 and T-34., they had the Katyusha and magnificent airplanes, and tens of thousends of paratroopers. The Germans, exposed from the east, would be defenseless.

[al Roumi]

Besides, If the Germans would start Seelowe, Stalin would order a full scale attack on Nazi Germany, in which the latter would not stand a chance. The Soviets were technologicaly superior in every type of arms - they had excellent BT and T-38 tanks, they have already begun the production of KV-1 and T-34., they had the Katyusha and magnificent airplanes, and tens of thousends of paratroopers. The Germans, exposed from the east, would be defenseless.

With all respect [a phrase which always announces an intellectual uppercut], I think you've got your dates and details a bit mixed up Yarema... The USSR certainly outclassed the 3rd Reich at the end of the war (having borne the brunt of its military might), but not in 1940.

Even though production of the first T34s started in 1940, the red army was still overwhelmingly using early-1930s equipment and had lost most of it's high command through the purges of the 30s.

The fact that it wasn't as effective a fighting force is most easily demonstrated by what happened when operation Barbarossa unleashed the Wehrmacht on the USSR...

...and I think I've been pretty kind there.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Germany did not have the sealift to perform more than a raid, and had no ability to re-supply across a beach. Translation = epic fail.

Moreover, even if they had had the sealift, they would also have had to radically increase the size of their naval forces at all levels. No European power had the economic strength to build such a fleet, and certainly not Germany. Remember, this is the English Channel and THE homeland. The Home fleet's sole purpose was to defend that, even at the cost of all units and personnel. No naval force existed that could have successfully screened such an invasion force against an all-out effort by the RN prior to the advent of the 1944 US Pacific Fleet.

The Soviets probably WOULD have attacked had Germany committed to an invasion of Britain, but it would have been a limited assault for purposes of acquiring Rumania and some of the other Balkan territories. It has been theorized that part of the "too far forward" deployment that the Germans exploited during Barbarossa was because Stalin was hoping for an opportunity to do just that.