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

Hi all,

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

Let's not forget that.

And that the RAF was made up of men from around the world. From memory, over 20% of pilots were not British.

This simulator represents a huge battle. And similar to Stalingrad in it's result.

So let's forget our issues with Frame Rates etc. Just for a moment.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Or one could say that Germany was fighting the spread of conservative rightwing politics

in the west

uhm the term "free world Democracy" is not correct in my opinion. What you probably mean is "Allies vs germany". Its naive to say the brittains brought free world democracy to the countries because its like in every empire they still fight for their own purposes. Lots of ppl lost their lives for whatever reason. We should never forgett em because "whole europe" was war-torn by nazi-germany and we should be happy that today still a german native like me can discuss with someone from Greatbritain in this forum without being discredited.

regards,

MrR0ket0

One could say that, but one would be wrong.

Err what historical context are you attempting to put it in? As i see no historical context in your post.

This game represents a tiny battle nothing like Stalingrad. It was important but it certainly was not huge or even large.

Apparently it was intercontinental warfare as Avro is from England but not Europe...

I say let's get back to framerate issues as this could go bad and is pointless from the start...

Without good FPS I can't help the virtual nazis overcome UK! After the beta is released maybe this thread will have some value.

Please not politics we have enough with FM DM tracers stutters etc!!!!

Wouldn't that be like fighting themselves? Nazi-ism is about as far right as you can go. With Stalin being being the polar opposite (extreme left).
Besides, the vast majority of Germans were not Nazi's. That would be like saying all Americans are Republicans.

Well Stephen Bungay put it very well in his book "The most dangerous enemy" (If you haven't already read it then get a copy, it will make you appreciate the game a lot more too.)

If Britain hadn't won the BOB, then the two likely alternatives would have been.

The entire European continent would have been under Nazi rule, or the more likely outcome would have been that the entire European continent would have been under communist rule, and for a very long time. Not really a good result for humanity in either case.

America could never have entered the war in Europe if it weren't for the island of Britain from which the allies could launch the invasion. What were they going to do launch from New York?

The Battle of Britain is of huge importance don't underestimate it.

WoW, if there is a thread likely to invoke an instance of Godwin's law, this is it! ;)

Nobody can seriously contest that the BoB was an important... well, 'turning point' in WWII. However, even if the battle had been lost by Britain, all hope wouldn't have been gone. With Churchill, Britain certainly wouldn't have given up and German High Command did only half-heartedly prepare for an invasion of England - they were still expecting, pretty seriously, to make peace with Britain.
And, as this wouldn't materialize, Germany would have to invade, challenging the huge Royal Navy and the well-prepared, well-motivated Home Defence. On top of this, there would be inadequate equipment on the German side - river barges as troop transport which capsize in all but the calmest seas, plus the Luftwaffe had already expended nearly half their Ju52 fleet over the Netherlands, so airborne assault troops would be hampered as well.

Additionally, as Churchill stated in his "we will fight on the beaches", at least part of the Royal navy would have carried on "beyond the seas".

If Britain hadn't won the BoB, America would still have been fine, and I'd still be driving a Porsche today. Or at least a KdF Wagen.

BoB was huge, no doubt about it. If Great Britain "lost" the BoB, the government would have fallen and Churchill would be out of a job and GB would sue for peace. Remember Germany and Soviet Union were still allied at this point. No allied threat to Italy. Japan may have realized that they do not have to attack the USA. WW2 would have played much differently.

Because there wouldn't be an US oil embargo?

Because Japan could just get their oil from Majkop and Grozny once Germany had conquered the western half of the Soviet Union and Japan had conquered China? :rolleyes:

Socialism is not far right it on the left

You know just because they were the "National Socialist Party" doesn't mean their politics were on the left. Ever heard of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea? Hint: It's not democratic.

They were fascists in policy and therefore on the far right.

This was actually quite a funny read, to say that GB fought for world democracy is somewhat of a funny notion considering that France and GB went to war because Poland was attacked, last time I looked in any history book Poland wasn't exactly liberated nor a democracy after May 8th 1945, but do correct me if I'm wiong here!! :evil:

Staffan

Don't forget no invasion could have happened without the destruction of the Royal Navy too.. BoB was very important, but don't believe all the war propaganda.

Politics on game forums is always 100% win!

Get a bucket of salt, a group of kids, some angry adults.. every now and then give it a little stir... sit back and enjoy. Perfect recipe for an amusing thread :grin:

(but i'm a little disappointed at the lack such heated behaviour in this thread.. you have let me down! Lets have some rants, flaming and general mayhem!)

Edit: pls apply some of the above salt to this post :)

+1

Sorry to not give you salt ...

This sim, as we play it today, has - for the most people - almost nothing to do with the war itself, or the politics.

For me, it's about cool badass machines with props and guns. As you know, we all like badass machines. And we like them even more if they make a lot of sound and kaboom. That's manly. Very manly.

If there was a sim about flying around pregnant mothers in a medical helicopter transport, I would play it. Because it's about badass machines with rotors that make a hell lot of a sound ...

But you are right. We shouldn't forget about the war, and we should think to ourselves from time to time. Almost everyone in Europe has a very own story of the war in his family, and that should not be forgotten. And it should be looked at rather from the standpoint of humanity, than from any of the political standpoints of that time. Because luckily, the political standpoints at that time don't play a significant role anymore.

Well I don't think the Royal Navy would have been a real thread for a German invasion fleet. There would have been no better present for Hitler and the Luftwaffe than having the Home Fleet doing a parade in the Channel. Every German plane which could carry even something similar like a weapon would have been used for the attack on the capital ships...and if they would have used only small vessels...well they wouldn't have been able to do much against an invasion.

We will NEVER know.

You are right as those thinking of the navy are forgetting the Battle of Taranto
where Swordfish biplanes sunk and destroyed several capital ships, the sinking of the HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse, Pearl Harbour, which clearly showed capital ships had become antique.
Things could have gone both ways, luckely they did not.
But we are at a game site and politics should not really be a topic in my opinion.

Historical revisionism... a very tricky subject.

BoB was very important and it could well be described as the first battle that 'saved' western europe for democracy and freedom. Had the BoB been lost and either (a) Britain was successfully invaded or (b) Britain surrendered then the world would probably be a very different place today. I have been a keen stuent of WW2 for as long as I have been able to read. In my opinion the loss of the BoB could have resulted in two plausible scenarios:


(1). BoB is lost: The Luftwaffe does not need to carry out the 'Blitz' nor are german fighter units required in France in any greater numbers. These can be diverted to bolster the attack on the Soviet Union in 1941.

As britain is out of the fight there is no mediteranean/ north african war to speak of and since the Italians don't meet any decent soldiers (i.e. the British) they don't require rescueing by Hitlers armies in in either North Africa or Greece. Again these forces could have joined the invasion of the Soviet Union. In fact, so could a large number of italian and Hungarian soldiers (they also took part in Barbarossa).

June 1941: Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of Russia: By the winter of 1941 they are at the gates of Moscow, however in this alternate history the Germans have more forces and airpower as they are not fighting britain and her commonwealth anywhere and its quite possible that Moscow is overrun. The Soviets retreat to the Urals.

Without britain in the war for use as a base for convoys lend lease to the Soviet Union does not occur. Without this supply of essential equipmment, aircraft etc etc (and trucks... very important!) The Soviets are unable to eject the Germans out of Russia and a stalemate ensures, leaving Germany and Hitler as the masters of Europe from the channel to the Urals.

Without britain as a base, when germany declares war on the USA they do no decide to concentrate on europe first (as they did in reality) but fight Japan alone. Without an island fortress and without the soviets tying down the bulk of the german forces no D-Day takes place and no american soldiers fight in Europe.

As such Europe, the whole of Europe lives under Nazi tyranny for a long time, perhaps even to today. Think what that would have meant for the holocaust for instance.

Alternative alternative

After the invasion of the soviet union, and despite the extra forces available, the Germans do not occupy Moscow. this leads to a long, bitter war as the Soviet Union ejects Germany from their soil. This would most likely take a lot longer than it did historically given the relative peace elsewhere in the german 'empire'.

This fight could have gone two ways: Either both sides find themselves exhausted and the war descends into an uneasy stalemate with borders roughly as they where in early 1941. As such Europe is still run by the Nazis, the holocaust still rolls on and no freedom and democracy for anyone in europe.

Another alternative is that the soviet union continue their advance throughout europe and eventually destroys nazi germany. Its unlikey they would stop at germanys eastern borders and its probable that they would roll all the way to the channel. And perhaps over it.

Again europe would be ruled by a totalitarian regime without any pity or thought to the individuals rights. No freedom for anyone.

There you are, Flashys alternate history of Europe where the RAF does not prevail in the BoB. Revisiting the past and playing what-if is a favorite pastime of historians, amateur and professional alike. Thats just my take on the situation...feel free to disagree!

I am NOT going to enter into the politcal debate re: Nazism and Socialism. This game is a military game and lets leave it at that shall we?


BTW, so you know where im coming from, im British (english), the germans nearly bombed my granny (had they suceeded you would not have the pleasure of my delightful company!) and my local Auxillary air force squadron took part in the battle as part of 12 group (610 County of Chester Sqn).

except Nazism is far left in many aspects..

nice analogy mate, i agree on this one. Couldnt have said it better myself ;)

*GASP* Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa , are you serious? If Germany took over the UK then they take over the world no question. What other country had any Army at the time even capable of defending against German warefare? China? Japan? No way. The Uk ended up being the key launch pad for the eventual downfall of Hitler.

Even though I am German, I doubt that conclusion very much. Germany would have been with Europe already very over stretched, also the States started rather early with their "Manhatten Project". I would say it would have resulted in some European Hiroshimas. As the German leaders at the time where known for making a lot of big blunders, there is no way I would see that it was even vaguely possible to invade either the southern or northern American continent. I think things just would have gotten a step more uglier.

Wasn't it because of the defeat of Germany that the US was able to finalise the project using those top German scientists? or were they well able just using the scientists they 'collected' from Germany during the course of the war?

On a related subject, does anyone remember the name of the book (might of been 2) the Germans had which listed British subjects they wanted to capture\arrest in case they invaded? Were they the red and black books?

I think the books you are looking for are mentioned here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih5GG...eature=related

uhmmm I dunno fellas, there are a lot of things to keep into account..

Provided the Luftwaffe gained an air superiority on the southern part of England (cos that was the range of the fighters), it would still have been quite a feat to invade the UK from the sea.

Operation Overlord happened 4 years later and with an unprecedented logistic strain, something that the Germans would have never been able to achieve in 1940. Hitler's idea to look for a truce (he slowed down Guderian's advance in France and allowed the brits to leave relatively undisturbed from Dunkirk) was probably in view of the fact that an invasion of the UK was way harder that one might have thought and he was still sensible enough to understand it himself. It was no Operation Merkur, the UK is a big ass island ;)

The only way would have been to use a massive amount of paras, establishing a bridgehead and slowly advance, but the bottleneck of the Channel link would have caused serious disruptions. If they didn't decide to do the foolish mistake of Barbarossa then MAYBE they could have managed an invasion, in hindsight it was easier to keep a truce with the Russians than trying to find a deal with Churchill, but hey, that's all guesswork.. fascinating pub topic though! ;)

When trying to guess what might have happened if a part of history changes, it gets very difficult the further you get away from the original change.... and the BoB is one of those subjects and is especially difficult.

There is so much contraversy with even with the BoB. After all, despite the legend, in reality the Luftwaffe where fighting 11 group in the main, not the whole of the RAF.

Had they destroyed 11 Group would the germans have invaded britain? How determined was Hitler that Britain should be invaded?

Would the Royal navy have managed to destroy the german naval forces as they tried to launch the invasion? The Royal Navy would undoubtably have attacked the invasion fleet no matter what the odds......

Even with air superiority there is no gaurantee that the Luftwaffe would have been able to prevent the Royal Navy destroying or severly hampering the invasion fleet.

In terms of number, especially compared to later battles, the BoB was only a small to medium air battle. During the pacific war there where often much larger air battles with much higher casualties... with the USN fighting off carriers alone!

In terms of its signifcance... who truly knows. I think it was a turning point (one of many admittedly!) but the first victory for the forces fighting totalitarianism and the first battle that ensured at least a good part of Europe has enjoyed freedom and democracy ever since.

Errrrrrmmmmmmm, doubt it. It was the largest aerial battle of the war...look at the stats on Wiki....literally double the numbers involved. "Tiny" indeed....tut :rolleyes:

Plus, it was the last stronghold of Europe (exc Russia) and a morale kick in the b0llocks for the Germans...they finally realised they couldn't trample all over the continent doing what they wanted and getting away with it.

I think alot of 'Germans' already felt that way, it was a kick in the B0llock for Hitler

True true...

Just a few thoughts:


- the defeat of the UK means no British-American alliance

- no British colonies(they would now be German, lol) to protect in Southeast Asia or Africa
[this also means unlimited supply of fuel for the new owners]

- no oil embargo against Japan, no Pearl Harbor, therefore no war between USA and Japan or Germany.
[I'd be easier for the Nips to get oil from Germany than declaring war on the US]

- Japan conquers the better part of China

- without US supplies Stalin's Army is doomed.

- Before 1950 one of the assassination attempts on Hitler is finally successful

Anyone ever read Philip K Dick's book 'The Man in the High Castle'.

A bit random, but an interesting read. :)

The gerat thing about the Battle of Britain and the what if scenarios is that you can look at it in many different ways and come up with a variety of different outcomes. My personal favourite is the likely outcome of the initial airborne invasion.

lol.. when i said the BoB was tiny.. i meant it.. but i was also playing with language..it was very important but it was very small. It only involved a few 1000 personnel, whilst large battles in the East had millions of participants.

It is pure speculation what would have happened if Germany had got control of the skies. They might have invaded they might not, if they did it might have successful or it might not.

Their 'defeat' was a significant turning point in British fortunes and did help the Allies eventually open a western front in Europe.

What do you mean 'no British colonies'? Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, declared war on Germany by themselves.

They would have bombed London into submission, or tried to. (Speculation).

Remember Birmingham was heavily bombed too, and of course Coventry.

Interesting, showing all the countries that participated in the war. More than I imagined.

- Participants in WWII:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partici...n_World_War_II



.

Yes it is also interesting when they declared war some only days before it ended!
But this "what if" stuff I feel is always very thin ice as it easily can get nasty.

Almost every war college in the world had done studies and simulations of the German invasion of South East England.

And in every case the German main force never gets across the Channel in sufficient numbers to create a sustainable beach head. Why? Because of the Royal Navy, and it has little to do with capitol ships. The German invasion "fleet" was well equipped, to cross the Rhine, not to cross the English Channel. The river barges that they were counting on were ill suited to use on open seas. RN destroyers and corvettes racing through the formations of barges basically would not even have to fire on them, as the majority would be swamped by the wake of the much larger ships tearing by at 30+ knots. The German units that did get ashore would be on their own, with no re-supply, little fuel, and no hope of retreat.

It never would have worked.

Allied landing in normandy was succwssful cos' they've practiced and perfected it in north africa, italy and pacific islands. Germs didn't have that experience with such operations, so chances are it would be a massive fail.

Firstly, wow! When I read the start of this thread yesterday I never imagined there would be 5 pages of sensible discussion. Congratulations everyone.The RN was the largest navy in the world, but if the Germans had air superiority, persumably it wouldn't be that difficult to destroy most of the navy and ports?

Germany didn't have the experience, so perhaps they couldn't have invaded in the short term, but what reason is there that they couldn't invade a few years down the line?

That is, more or less, what they tried to do.

No, I'm replying to comments that they'd have no chance even if they won the BoB and had air superiority.

Air superiority is not something you get and have forever.
They planned to invade few years after gaining air superiority? LOL, how they could be sure they will still have it?

I know. You said that if they could not invade in 1940, perhaps they could try later. Essentially, that is exactly what happened.

they tried another time?

No. That was the point. Waiting until later turned out to not be a viable option.

By the way, air superiority over England was never really possible for Germany. If things got too bad RAF Fighter Command would have just moved all it's remaining aircraft out of the range of German fighters. Those aircraft would have provided the Royal Navy all the air cover it needed to repel an invasion.

Actually the question of a german invasion is not simple in any of the details involved. Of course everything we say here benefits from hindsight and knowledge of historical facts none of the people involved could have had at that time. ;)

Please excuse the lengthy blabber. It's just a number of points I'd like to raise ... Under no circumstances I claim to have the holy grail nor do I claim to claim to have a complete picture. I'm just an amateur as well. :)

1.) In an environment where the operations of No 11 and to some degree No 10 Group were considerably hampered or if the RAF infrastructure in the Southeast was becoming unusable then the RAF's ability to counter Luftwaffe operations would be seriously impeded. First it would loose valuable airfields within easy striking distance of the main landing area. Secondly a breakdown of No 11's air defense system would not only lengthen response times from No 12 or No 10's fighters, which would give the Luftwaffe pretty much air supremacy over the coastline and enable their Stukas to pound ground forces at will (with RAF fighter probably showing up far too late), but it will also make guidance towards the german formations pretty problematic. Without the sector controllers at Biggin, Kenley etc the british command would have a lot more troubles gaining an accurate picture of the situation to begin with and gaining it in time to be useful. Without the overall command exerted by the sector rooms the engagements would turn into a wild brawl and given the german numerical superiority the RAF would probably bleed dry in a short time, pilots and machines would suffer from growing fatigue and a lack of proper maintenance (which was also one of the major facets of the sector airfields). Lower and lower readiness numbers would be the result and would increase the speed of the viscious circle the RAF would find itself in.

2.) If Word War 2 made one thing abundantly clear then it's the supremacy of the aircraft over the naval surface units. Pretty much everywhere the aircraft (if operating in sufficient numbers, with the correct weapons and with crews sufficiently trained - or as in some cases a large enough dose of dumb luck) finished engagements with enemy surface fleets as victor (see Bismarck, Price of Wales, Yamato, the ops at Crete etc etc). Under circumstances as described above the Luftwaffe would simply pound the harbor installations on the southern coast both to sink the surface units moored there during the day as well as to damage or destroy the harbor installations, piers, cranes, docks, ammunition depots etc. To operate warships need fuel and ammunition and if neither can be loaded because these goods are destroyed or the means to load them are no longer functional ... The Luftwaffe did have a fripping seven Gruppen of Ju 87 Stukas available for a direct assault on naval units. Even if untrained their sheer number would probably either overwhelm or wear down fleet ops after a while.

The second trump card the germans would have in this situation are the narrow waters of the Channel. It doesn't only limit the potential operational area but it also allows the massive use of mine fields which would not only endanger any vessel trying to enter the crucial area but also allow the Kriegsmarine to concentrate its meager forces for the more important tasks. Because of the german air supremacy RN ops would be confined to the hours of darkness which hampers mine clearing (which is limited to the darkness whereas the germans can lay mines day and night at their leisure). If the RN chose to operate in bright light it would find itself under constant attack which, even if failing to cause damage, would eat up ammunition on a grand scale which would hit the important destroyers and cruisers hard.

3.) While I have my doubts about the actual landing and the sea transport situation I am very much doubtful if the British Army could have taken on even a small german force (two or three divisions initially, to be reinforced by mobile formations soon after) in the field once it had passed a certain point. And to exploit the initial weakness of the landing the British Army would have needed excellent Command and Control facilities, quick reaction times both of forces and commanders ... and on top of it all mobile forces. But the British Army wasn't having any of that in 1940, in fact the Wehrmacht always considered them to be rather slow and methodic (Monty turned that into a form of art :mrgreen: ). It had lost most of its best equipment on the continent, its best formations were still in extremely bad shape, it was almost devoid of battle-worthy tanks, it suffered from an acute shortage of motor transportation, AT guns, artillery and ammunition (to make matters even worse). As a result its numerically strength meant little when the essential mobility, support and logistics weren't there.

IIRC the only armored formation in somewhat battleworthy state was 1st Armored which translates into one good shot at the german lodging - after that it had little more than static infantry to man static defense lines ... and the Wehrmacht had made short work of static lines a lot more formidable than anything the Brits could put up in France, Belgium and the Netherlands.

Most of the issues you bring up would not have mattered. The RAF didn't have to respond to German attacks on the beach defenses or harbors. All it had to do was fly cover for the Royal Navy as it destroyed the German invasion fleet.

It's only conjecture on my part that they'd have a good chance of keeping air superiority if they had it, as they'd be largely free to bomb factories as they pleased.

No, I was saying that if they had air superiority, but were unable to invade due to their shipping and experience, they could try later (having bombed the navy). That's not at all what happened, because they never got air superiorty and never destroyed the navy.

Yes that's an interesting point.

I think you're oversimplifying the issue. The RAF would not have been able to ignore the Luftwaffe (that's a political question as well) nor would it have been able to fly adequate air cover for fleet ops over the Channel (which is where the first line of defense of the RN would be stationed, mostly destroyers and light forces) when its own airfields were north of London. Always remember that getting to a point where an aircraft is useful takes time ... even more when distances grow. ;)

But how could it fly cover for the Royal Navy in the scenario we're discussing: where Britain lost the BoB and the Germans had air superiority over the south of England?

I'm not making it simple. It was simple. The only thing that could reliably stop a German invasion was the Royal Navy. The Brits would have saved enough fighters to protect the Navy long enough to destroy the invasion. They had no other choice, and they knew it. In fact, it is my understanding that they came very close to evacuating several of 11 Group's airfields during the battle.

Once the German invasion started the Royal Navy would have attacked with the remaining RAF fighters flying cover (from bases outside of Germain fighter range). They probably would have taken heavy losses, but there is no doubt that they would have wiped out any attempted German invasion.

The Brits would have based their remaining fighter out of the range of German fighters.

Would have been too little to late I believe.:grin:

Why? They only needed enough fighters to protect the fleet for about 24 hours.

Who says they would have decided for an invasion come hell or high water? If there were an offer for an armistice the German would have accepted at any point.
That was the original plan - what the f*** you want with that island anyway if the tadeoff grants you access to the resources of North Afrika without messing with the Tommies.

It's an interesting hypothesis. I can understand that the RAF could have saved their fighters outside of the reach of German fighters. But the navy would have had to stay at a similar distance from German basis, where RAF fighters could protect it - wouldn't that have been far enough from a German invasion fleet that they could cross before the navy could get to them?

I'm sure the Brits would have had enough warning that they'd be able to get their fleet into position. Keep in mind that the German invasion forces would not have nearly the same capabilities as the Allies had in 1944.

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.

An Island is an aircraft carrier that cannot be sunk.

By having the British Islands the Alies could continue an air offensive in the west and tie up valuable German resources that would otherwise have been used by the Germans in the invasion of Russia.

There is no way that the alies could have begun the Stategic bombing campaign that brought Germanys Industrial might to it's knees without the British Islands

The battle of Britain did have huge consequences.

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

Without a free Britain, there would have been nowhere for the United States to amass forces for the invasion of Italy and more importantly the D-Day invasion of France. An invasion fleet sailing all the way from the east coast of the US to Europe could not have happened in such great numbers. And also Britain was vital as a launching point for years of bombing raids that struck at Germany's manufacturing capability.

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.

Its (almost) all down to those men in their flying machines!

-Mike C

After the defeat of the French and the British Expeditionary Force, wasn't a lot of the UK's equipment left burning on the road to Dunkirk? I don't think the UK was at all ready to fight off the undefeated German army.

That is meaningless if the Germans don't have a way to get past the British navy.

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.

That is what is said but the Brits were not that bad off. A little digging will turn up the statistics on what the Brits had.

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.

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

“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

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.

I do not care about England or RAF but Luftwaffe. I am happy if game runs smoothly. It is pointless to me your post.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

I haven't said that. We were talking about regimes, democracies and their misconception. But thanks for the patronising nugget, it's good to know that we still have such enlightened characters in this forum.. :rolleyes:

You say all of this, but if Germany had won the war we'd all be sat here praising how Germany halted the spread of communism and rid the world of the jewish menace. History is written by the victors. Remember that.

Hmm so you are suggesting just two or three divisions could have established and held a beachhead (bearing in mind they themselves would have had no heavy weapons/tanks etc)? I am sorry but get real. It is true the British Army was in a sorry state in 1940 after the previous decade of disarmament and the BEF disaster in France, however it was still a highly professional, well organized and determined adversary. My father was in that army and he retained no doubt what-so-ever that had the Germans invaded they would have got more than they bargained for. At the time the threat of invasion was a galvanizing force, defences and organization were rapidly constructed and arrangements made.

I think all in all the necessary air superiority achieved by the destruction of the RAF would have made the difference. However it would have been a bloody and protracted battle. Bare in mind this is the British, we love a good scrap.

+1

Well, I think hitler's goal was to make advantageous truce with uk, don't let usa interfere and pound ussr - the main enemy, without the danger of 2-front war. So operation sea lion was never meant to happen. imho. It was just a bogey for uk inteligence.

I think the invasion would have happened if Hitler thought it was possible. But I think he realized from the start that it was not possible.

So what is it that you were trying to say? You think within regimes, democracies and their misconception, that the most appalling thing is that people forget what nazi used to mean. I don't see how it's appalling at all. People use the term to describe the Germany that went to war killing millions, so what if it used to mean something different?