Logistic Differences Between Invasion of Russia vs UK (WW2, war, bomb)

[krsheely]

In world war two Hitler decided to attempt an invasion of Russia as Oppossed to UK. I know these two places are about as different as you can get and therefore each would present their own set of challenges.

Pros for invading UK

1. Smaller Island with less people
2. Probably not as stubborn as Russia, I dont honestly think the UK could have sustained the type of horrible losses Russia did. Although we really dont know.
3. Proximity from France and Other support locations.

Cons

1. Much more advanced army, and navy and airforce, this is circa 1939-1941 not 1943-1945 when russia closed the techno gap.

2. TRAVERSING WATER---I PUT THIS IN ALL CAPS BECAUSE DOES THAT 100 miles of water or less make that big of difference. I guess it does because whatever force you want to bring to uk has to be brought by boat.


I know there are more I really just wanted to give this topic a start.....I'd imagine UK would be similar to Japan in terms of invading and how much it would take. Also UK did seem to be willing to fight as long and hard as it would take.

A history buff please give a detailed synopsis of this as its always held high interest because the two invasion possibilites would create such contasting problems. ex. size of russia vs crossing water...both huge obstacles......

[Dd714]

Seaborne invasions bring on novel problems not encountered with overland invasions - the reason is for those 50 to 100 miles over the english channel your forces are tremendously exposed. So you need 1.) Control of the air, something the Germans failed at, and 2.) Control of the ocean, something the Germans were never close to succesful at except in Uboat combat against merchant ships, and 3.) You need the proper equipment - landing craft, lots of it, and 4.) You need the weather to cooperate. Well in any invasion you count on the weather, but this is extremely important for sea borne invasions. i.e. - June 6th was one of the few days in the year when the combination of tides (based on moon phases) and weather would cooperate with a successful landing on Dday.

Once an invasion force lands, they are again exposed by supply limitations and by possibly enemy overwhelming force until they establish a beachhead and capture a port. All those are huge obstacles. How the British Island would deal with a successful beachhead landing? That I do not know. No doubt the British would resist ferocously. But you would not have a 4 year campaign as in Russia. Assuming the Germans got a good foothold on the island and was properly supplied - the island would either have fallen, or German forces would have been driven back into the sea withing four months or less i would guess.

An invasion over land is just the opposite, in terms of obstacles. Short term it's relatively easy compared ocean invasions, although you might have an intrenched enemy to deal with. For Germany, Russia was not intrenched and was easily invaded. In the long term was were the obstacles were encountered. Distance limits supply, the enemy has a chance to regroup and rally and counterattack, your forces become exposed to weather, and the enemy uses a scortched earth policy.

So there you have it in a summary (simplified) - sea invasions are logistically difficult in the short term, then get easier. land invasion are logistically easy to implement in the short term, then get difficult in the long term, depending on the distance one's army needs to invade.

[markg91359]

Winston Churchill in his biography was confident that Hitler would never invade Britain so long as:

1. The RAF could maintain air supremacy over Britain;

2. If the RAF had been blown from the skies, Churchill felt an invasion would still not occur until the Royal Navy had been sunk. (However, he also believed that once the RAF was shot down that the demise of the Royal Navy would come quickly)

England had very little in the way of an Army after the Dunkirk evacuation. And, the small army that existed was largely overseas. There were forces scattered in Singapore and the Far East. Churchill made a decision early on to send most of few tanks he had to Africa to fight Rommel. He reasoned that a single armored division would do nothing to stop a German invasion of Britain, but that it could be very useful in North Africa against Afrika Corps. If Hitler had been able to land an army in Britain, German victory would have been virtually assured. Of course the English Channel is a very formidable barrier, and before the allies launched the invasion of Normandy in 1944, they had to deal with all sorts of weather issues that caused at least one postponement of the invasion.

The situation with Russia was far different. The Russian Army was large in size, but poorly equipped at the beginning of the war. Much of European Russia consists of flat plains which is near perfect country for tanks and armored vehicles to fight. When Hitler struck Russia in June of 1941, the Russians were completely unprepared. Within three days all the Russian forces on the frontier were either destroyed or in retreat. The hardest thing the Germans had to do during the invasion was bridge a number of rivers such as the Dnieper. However, they had a most effective engineering corps and this was seldom a major problem for them.

The challenge for the Germans in fighting Russia was that they were outnumbered. In the beginning, when they had superior weaponry and had been able to take the initiative it didn't make much difference. However, as the conflict dragged on Russian soldiers were better equipped and lead. The Germans were simply overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of their opponents.

Good thing, the Germans never did invade Britain. According to William Shirer in "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" the German occupation of Britain would have been savage with many prominent Britons being summarily executed. America would not have had a base from which to invade France. The Germans may very well have won the war.

[krsheely]

I watched the battle of britian and battle of france parts of the world at war on the history channel, the main theme was that as long as the RAF put planes in the sky an invasion wasnt coming? they didnt even have to own the sky just keep sending planes up to confront the germans??

[krsheely]

Would It have been as bad as the occupation of Russia. Example the bombing of london by German Planes While I'm not sure how much effect it realisticaly had on hte moral of the brits do you think they could have withstood the losses russia did. I understand russia had more to start but compare it even by population ratios could the brits have withstood that or would it be like the french seeing refugees flee paris when the germans came made them sue for peace quicker?

[Dd714]

One additional comment because I see us rehasing old ground on this topic that has been discussed before -

I guess I see this as a generic question rather than "England has these forces...USSR has these forces". The problems with invading England vs Russia were the same with Germany in WW2 as they were for Napolean in the early 19th century, and the successful English invasion by the Normans in 1066.

The problems are the same - logistical supply and how to protect troops until they get to the "jump off" point. A body of water is simply a defensive point. And does not require a large army on the defense to inflict casualties on the invader. Rivers can be bridged, and the defender typically destroys bridges and the defender entrenches on the opposite bank. A channel or ocean however, you need to create a bridge, in a manner of speaking, with a massive fleet of landing craft, ships of battle for defense, and supply ships.

Once forces are in the field, this is a different logistical problem. You have to feed, shelther, and rearm your army, replace casualties, etc. This is exponentially made more difficult as you distance yourself from your supply source. This is mitigated by capturing certain points of supply (ports and large cities), or foraging, oand most importantly extending you supply source via road, rail, ships, etc. Then you have to defend your lines of supply. This all sounds simple and obvious, but this is probably 80 to 90% of fighting a war, regardless of enemy size and offensive action. That's what I interpret we are discussing when we talk logistics.

It's interesting how different Armies in history handled it however. Germany was obviously uncessful when their lines of supply streched to the Steppes in WW2, Napolean's army tried to use speed, The russians were beaten in the field, but Russia burned Moscow to deny its use as a base. In both cases the Russian winter and the two seasons of mud was the victor in grinding those supply lines to a halt. The allies handled supply from England to France to Germany by creating a floating concrete pier initially (off Normandy), then creating one-way dedicated roads, virtual conveyor belts of supply, extending from the english channel ports to Germany.

[WIHS2006]

I recall reading somewhere that in the 1970s the British MoD wargamed Operation Sealion and the German invasion was eventually repelled. In the wargame, the Germans were able to make a beachhead but got bogged down at the GHQ Line and eventually the RAF (which maintained air supremacy) and the Royal Navy were able to cut off the Germans and force them to surrender.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by krsheely

I watched the battle of britian and battle of france parts of the world at war on the history channel, the main theme was that as long as the RAF put planes in the sky an invasion wasnt coming? they didnt even have to own the sky just keep sending planes up to confront the germans??

The German reasoning went:

1) The invasion will fail if the Royal Navy is able to intervene in the Channel.
2) Only the Luftwafe could drive off the Royal Navy
3) A Luftwafe engaged against enemy fighters will be unable to attack the Royal Navy ships.
4) The German cross Channel convoys had to be free of RAF interference.
5) No invasion could take place while the RAF was still able to mount a defense over the Channel.
6) The RAF must be destroyed as a precondition.

[noetsi]

Of course given the fact that two warships (the Schwarnhorst and Gneisenau) once ran the channel despite massive RAF efforts to sink them, how the Luftwaffe would have stoped the Home fleet from destroying the small German navy trying to cross the same body of water is hard to say. Or for that matter stop British MTB and subs from doing so. The allies used thousands of ships and planes to do the same thing in the reverse direction four years later. The Germans had a handful of the former and a few hundred tactical bombers.

[Grandstander]

What could be accomplished by bombing seems to have been overestimated by nearly everyone on both sides, before and throughout WW II...at least until we got to the nukes.