Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually in the battle of Britian the Germans did get close to winning the air battle from what I have read. I read that Britian was getting down to a low number of fighters and when Hitler changed from bombing airfields to bombing cities it helped Britian since the Germans stopped bombing the airfields they were not destroying as many British fighters which did get to a very low and scary number. Course the Germans did not know the Brits were almost running out of having enough fighters for if the Germans had know they may not have changed their tactics. But they did change their tactics and Britian was able to build the fighter force back up to a better number to protect England from the Germans getting air superiority.
Could the Germans have pulled off operation Sea Lion and invaded Britian. I dont think the Germans even had enough boats to land that many men even if they did win the air battle and Britian had the large navy which the Germans did not. Sure Hitler could have tried to invade but without comand of the air Britian could have attacked what few landing craft ships the Germans had with their air force and navy. The Germans could have used their air force to fight the British but since Germany did have comand of the air or the sea I dont think they would have pulled it off.
If Britian was connected to Europe by land then I feel the Germans could have defeated Britian in 1940 but much of Britians strenth is in its navy since its an island and its strong air force which were strong enough to most likely would have stopped the Germans from landing much if any men on their beaches. I believe Hitler felt it was not worth the chance to try an invade Britian without comand of the air as I believe the British army at that time was not strong enough to land in Europe and challenge his land forces while he attacked Russia.
And he was right in that sense as Britian and the US needed time to build their armies up to be strong enough to invade France. Ron
It doesn't seem realistic to me to even give credence to Hitler successfully invading Britain in 1940.
Just consider what the Allies went through in 1944 with the D-Day landings.
They had complete Air and Naval superiority, deception, etc. going for them and it was still quite a difficult feat to pull off... with severe losses on beaches like Omaha.
Actually in the battle of Britian the Germans did get close to winning the air battle from what I have read. I read that Britian was getting down to a low number of fighters and when Hitler changed from bombing airfields to bombing cities it helped Britian since the Germans stopped bombing the airfields they were not destroying as many British fighters which did get to a very low and scary number. Course the Germans did not know the Brits were almost running out of having enough fighters for if the Germans had know they may not have changed their tactics. But they did change their tactics and Britian was able to build the fighter force back up to a better number to protect England from the Germans getting air superiority.
The RAF was not running out of fighters. The number of fighters available and serving increased every month during the Battle of Britain.
Also noted is that by early September, RAF fighter strength actually outnumbered that of the Luftwaffe. And this really cuts to the heart of musperceptions of the Battle of Britain. People think that the RAF was slowly being ground down, and there's this myth that victory was within Hitler's grasp, and then he blew it. In reality, with every passing month the RAF was increasingly gaining parity with the Luftwaffe.
Partly, this misunderstanding is borne by inflating the myth of The Few. The sacrifice of the men in the RAF is made to seem all the greater by suggesting that they were more outnumbered than they in fact were, and is portrayed as greater and more significant when made to seem like they barely held the line against a Nazi occupation. And I don't think this is done intentionally in most cases. After all, it is human ature to glorify heroes, with their heroics growing with each telling. But it does, and has in thise case, profoundly misled.
Over 700 aircraft lost during that one month, along with 499 pilots KIA, POW, MIA.
With things even by September in terms of machines, it was over. Germany needed a substantial mterial advantage because the fight was so much more difficult for them. Over Britain, the RAF had greater loiter time. Damaged RAF craft could make emergency landings, be fixed or parted out, and the pilots could return to battle - and often did the same day. If shot down, the pilot could return to battle even with the aircraft lost. As for the Luftwaffe, any plane disabled, forced down or shot down resulted in a machine and crew lost for the duration.
Look at the comparative aircraft losses for each day - from July 10 thru October 30, on 10 days the RAF lost more aircraft than the Luftwaffe, on 9 days losses were even, and on 94 days the Luftwaffe suffered the most losses. And a closer look reveals that most days where the RAF lost more craft, total losses were minimal and close - 5 aircraft to 2, 9 aircraft to 7, and so forth. But check out the really big numbers. You'll find that they're devastating to the Luftwaffe.
The 6-day stretch from August 13 to August 18 - the RAF loses 103 aircraft, the Luftwaffe loses 258 aircraft.
And the campaign against the airfields, from August 23 to September 15, was still a loser for the Luftwaffe, with 560 losses in this span to just over 400 for the RAF. http://www.brooksart.com/BoBloss.html
In the end, Britain won because they were more than replacing losses in both men and material, while Germany was being bled white in both thsoe categories. The RAF could keep going - the Luftwaffe could not.
And why? Because the UK had aircraft that were just as good, their pilots were just as well trained, because they enjoyed the myriad advantages cited above of fighting on their own aerial turf, and because Hugh Dowding was far more competent than Hermann Goering.
If, but, could have, should have. If my Auntie had a pair of b***s she would be my Uncle. The simple truth is it was / would of been / would always have been impossible for Hitler / Germany to invade the UK. I've heard people argue that it is only because the UK is an island and it has a powerful navy that the Germans couldn't invade? Well duh! I think you will find that is exactly why the British have always concentrated on their navy, if Britain wasn't an island then actually there wouldn't even be a 'Britain' so its completely pointless and a complete waste of time surmising 'what ifs'. So lets look at one simple basic fact - it is VERY VERY hard to invade from the sea, over the years with regards to the UK alone many have tried and many have failed, the Allies only just succeeded on Dday and they had the largest force in history and held every card. It was impossible for Germany to invade the UK in 1939/40 and the longer time went by the more difficult it would have been. Hitlers best hope was that the UK would simply broker a peace agreement (something he was quite sure they would do), unfortunately for him a certain old warmonger from a different era called Winston Churchill was not the kind of man to back down and the rest as they say is history. Would the war have panned out as it did without the US no, would it have panned out the way it did without the Russians no, without the UK, the Canadians, Italian, Australians, Japanese? no to all. The US did not 'save our a**ses' like some obviously take joy in claiming, we wouldn't be 'speaking German' if it wasn't for the US - did the US help the UK? Did the US contribute to the war effort? Hell yes but to simply claim that the US came riding in like some kind of cavalry charge and 'save' Europe is not only wrong but extremely disrespectful to millions of men from other Allied nations who fought Nazi tyranny.
If, but, could have, should have. If my Auntie had a pair of b***s she would be my Uncle. The simple truth is it was / would of been / would always have been impossible for Hitler / Germany to invade the UK. I've heard people argue that it is only because the UK is an island and it has a powerful navy that the Germans couldn't invade? Well duh! I think you will find that is exactly why the British have always concentrated on their navy, if Britain wasn't an island then actually there wouldn't even be a 'Britain' so its completely pointless and a complete waste of time surmising 'what ifs'. So lets look at one simple basic fact - it is VERY VERY hard to invade from the sea, over the years with regards to the UK alone many have tried and many have failed, the Allies only just succeeded on Dday and they had the largest force in history and held every card. It was impossible for Germany to invade the UK in 1939/40 and the longer time went by the more difficult it would have been. Hitlers best hope was that the UK would simply broker a peace agreement (something he was quite sure they would do), unfortunately for him a certain old warmonger from a different era called Winston Churchill was not the kind of man to back down and the rest as they say is history. Would the war have panned out as it did without the US no, would it have panned out the way it did without the Russians no, without the UK, the Canadians, Italian, Australians, Japanese? no to all. The US did not 'save our a**ses' like some obviously take joy in claiming, we wouldn't be 'speaking German' if it wasn't for the US - did the US help the UK? Did the US contribute to the war effort? Hell yes but to simply claim that the US came riding in like some kind of cavalry charge and 'save' Europe is not only wrong but extremely disrespectful to millions of men from other Allied nations who fought Nazi tyranny.
It was just as hard for the Germans to invade Britain as it was for the Brits to invade Germany. The Brits were not capable of invading Europe. The Americans were.
If the Americans would not have carried the Brits or even joined the other side it would be moot. The only question would be if a US backed Germany could have defeated the Soviets.
Britain was not great, it was associated with greatness.
Perhaps not. I can imagine that fuel, particularly aviation grade fuel, might have become a problem if the Battle of Britain had gone on for a lengthy period of time.
yes but it didn't, there was only a window of opportunity for Hitler to invade Britain and when the Luftwaffe could not get "superiority in the skies" the whole plan was shelved.
It was just as hard for the Germans to invade Britain as it was for the Brits to invade Germany. The Brits were not capable of invading Europe. The Americans were.
If the Americans would not have carried the Brits or even joined the other side it would be moot. The only question would be if a US backed Germany could have defeated the Soviets.
Britain was not great, it was associated with greatness.
They were not, not without the other Allies. Where would they have launched from? Also what percentage of the invading force was American I know you probably think it was 98% but you should perhaps look it up? Dday was only just successful, take away any of the Allied forces and it probably would have failed.
They were not, not without the other Allies. Where would they have launched from? Also what percentage of the invading force was American I know you probably think it was 98% but you should perhaps look it up? Dday was only just successful, take away any of the Allied forces and it probably would have failed.
The US was preparing to invade mainland Japan at the end of the war. The US could have invaded Southern France from North Africa given enough time to build up.
You agree with me when you say "take away any of the Allied forces and it probably would have failed." Take away the US and Britain would not have even tried or WOULD have failed if they did.
It was hard getting the Brits to even commit to a second front. They always seemed to have an excuse to get charity and not to fight.
The US was preparing to invade mainland Japan at the end of the war. The US could have invaded Southern France from North Africa given enough time to build up.
You agree with me when you say "take away any of the Allied forces and it probably would have failed." Take away the US and Britain would not have even tried or WOULD have failed if they did.
It was hard getting the Brits to even commit to a second front. They always seemed to have an excuse to get charity and not to fight.
my grandfather landed at the beaches a day or so after d day...he basically worked his way through france, Belgium, Holland, to Germany...and he said the brits his company came across were always trying to get OUT of the fight, to leave it to the yanks...except for monte, none of the brits would take the initiative...ive read similar accounts from others...he didn't say they were bad soldiers, just weren't very motivated to get into it
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
