155 replies to this topic

[Comrade Kal]

When we were invaded by those people, we didn't have fortified beaches and air support. If America is a much bigger island this would mean it would have to distribute its forces across it. And they could always push through Mexico.

[Major_Gilbear]

When Britain was invaded in the past, it may not have had fortified beaches and air support, but then the armies that conquered it were quite small, low-tech and didn't have tanks or air suport either. They were successful because Britain was unprepared.
In WW2, Britain was also unprepared; that is why the threat of invasion was so serious. I doubt the Home Guard would have been much use, and I don't think a warning of a full-scale invasion would've saved the UK either. Especially not an early invasion, when UK morale was low, and Germany had experienced much success, as well as having a lot more resources available.

America has a bigger population, and a large (and untouched) industry. The element of surprise would be very modest, if there was any at all. Pushing up through Mexico gives the US a front on which to fight, and allows concentration of force by the Yanks, making it harder still.

Germany would have found invading the US is far, far more difficult than invading the UK.



Sorry, but true.

[Mig Eater]

America may have to distribute its forces more but they had 4x more forces then the UK... :|

[8doczzz1]

how many brits were the war? (the internet has failed me here)

approx. 16,354,000 US soldiers in all branches

[Comrade Kal]

But anytime when an invasion would be most likely Britain had thousands of its own and allied troops within it's shores.

When we were invaded those times, we were barbarians or entirely unprepared. In WW2 we had lots of soldiers and the RAF to fend off a German invasion.

I don't know what you're taught in American history lessons, but from what i've heard its pretty jingoistic, lol, some of you even seem to think you won the battle of britain, or were the main fighting force throughout the war.

And I assure you I have looked at many sources from various countries before stating anything.

[8doczzz1]

were the main fighting force throughout the war

not sure who you're arguing with, but seeing as how I'm one of the lone americans I'll assume its me.

from our perspective? certainly. but we had our own front to worry about, you see. (seems no one across the atlantic is aware of this) In europe we were only a 'major' part. Nafrica perhaps even less. not the only country involved certainly, but you can't deny that the US played a critical part. (as opposed to say.. anyone else except britain and russia really)

as for your jab at the US educational system and my intelligence.. i'll be the bigger man. *cough* *go eat a crumpet* *cough*

seriously though, anyone know how many brits? (in all branches)

[Major_Gilbear]

LK, I'm a Brit, and I think I know a little about this subject

[Mig Eater]

I'm a brit to & I concur with everything MG has said!

[Andre27]

Operation Sealion:
There are several scenarios possible. The main problem was airsuperiorit.
This scenario reflects "Operation Sealion if Germany did NOT have complete airsuperiority http://www.wargamesd...ous/sealowe.asp

However if Germany had gained airsuperiority Operation Sealion had been succesfull.
Keep in mind that after Dunkirk England had a shortage in about every field imaginable. Even small firearms were in short supply. Taking in account that the German armor at that time was supperior to British armor.

If the (Air)Battle for Brittain had been in German favor Great Britain would certainly have fallen to the following German assault.

[Comrade Kal]

What about the British navy? None of us have accounted for that.

[raminator]

german submarines....

[Major_Gilbear]

Well, until RADAR was made narrow wave with the invention of the cavity magnetron, there was no way to detect German U-boats untill it was too late.

The Luftwaffe was also much greater in numerical superiority at about that time too, so considering that they could provide reasonable air cover in the Channel, I doubt the Royal Navy would have been all that useful.

I mention Air superiority, since many of the major Naval successes we has against the German fleet on our own was down to torpedo bomber support. The British fleet that time comprises of ships mostly dating from the early 30's, whereas the German ships were all state-of-the-art (though their crews lacked the confidence and experiance of their British counterparts).
If you look at what actually sunk the Tirpitz and the Bismarck, you'll see that it was aircraft. Also, you'll see how close Britain came to losing, as well as how expensive it was in terms of resources we could not afford to lose.

By the time the US arrived in Europe to aid us, we'd reached a stalemate in Europe, and a war of attrition was proving harder for Britain to win than for Germany. That is partly why Germany attacked Russia when it did.

Patriotism and politics aside, there are many lessons to be learnt from WW2. As many lessons from victories as defeats, and both for the Nazis and the Allies.
Even though the Nazi cause was unjust, Germany was industrially capable, scientifically advanced, and had some of the best military minds at the time. Ironically, if it wasn't for Hitler, we'd prolly be speaking German right now. :|

[Mig Eater]

There is no way Britain would have fallen to a German invasion in 1940...!!! :?

Now I don't give a invasion force that isn't equip for a cross channel invasion a very good chance (they were planing to use fresh water barges to land troops on the beaches that would had sink with anything but a clear & very calm day). They probably would have landed ok & taken Dover but as soon as the RN turned up in full force those barges wouldn't stand much of a chance, the supply route would have been shut & even a superior army cant win with out ammo & food :roll:

Yes the RN probably would have been very badly mauled but Germany probably would have lost a large part of it fleet too

The U-boat issue isn't all that much of a threat considering that there was only about 30-40 U-boats operational at that time & they were spread all over the Atlantic, Europe & Mediterranean

[Andre27]

You describe the situation which would have occured if Germany had not gained air superiority.

Ok the barges were hardly seaworthy, but the luftwaffe was more than enough to repell any British naval assault. But even 10 U-boats spread across the narrow passage of the English channel are a major thread.

And like i already mentioned.. England was i no shape to defend itself if the Germans would have landed. After Dunkirk there was a shortage on ammo, tanks, arty, and even infantry weapons.

So i'd put my money on the Germans.

[s2k]

i have to agree with 8doczzz1, as being an american. i do not think that britin could of survived an attack in 1940 unless they were able to cut off the supply lines.

as for an invasion of the US mainland i see it highly unlikely. first germany didnt have any real way of moving the matierals and supplies for invasion. Japan might have at the beginning of the war, but not past 1943 when us subs began to reck havic on Japan. IF either country was able move the forces required, US intel would of picked up on it in plenty of time to prepare the area that the invasion was going to occur. dont only would they move forces into position in time, they would most likely be able to make some attacks with naval ships and air force bombers.

[Comrade Kal]

You people all speak like Britains ships had no guns, as Mig Eater said, Britain would've vastly outnumbered Germanys landing force, have better positions,, be easily able to cut off German suply lines... do you think we were unable to hit submarines? You talk like the British army didn't have a rifle between them.

The U-Boats would have been destroyed easily, Britain has always had the best navy and there would be no way Germany could match that. After the Battle of Britain, Germany would have lost loads of planes and I don't think the remainder would be enough to sink the British Navy, considering how well-armed they were.

[Andre27]

@LK During the Battle for Britain the british armed forces were in a very poor state after Dunkirk. I don't mean to put britain down, but i am being realistic.

During that period warproduction in the UK had not yet fully started. We're talking about active units being equiped with WW1 material simply because there was nothing else. About makeshift armored cars etc.

Sure Britain outnumbered German Landing forces, but it's all about local numerical superiority and with the Luftwaffe ruling the skies GB would have had great difficulties getting their units at the places where they were needed.
Railways would have been easy targets for the Luftwaffe and Britain lost most of it's militairy trucks at Dunkirk.

I agree that supply lines over see are vulnerable, but wasn't that the case during dday as well? Britain had the best navy in the world, but that same navy was spread out all over the world.
Germany could bring enough vessels into combat at that time to keep the RN at bay. Simply because they had air superioriy.
And with this in mind i'm not even considering the simplest of all options.. Germany mining the ports where the RN was stationed. At that time there was no cure for the magnetic mines germany used.
Remember the 2 battleships sunk in Asia (Repulse and ?) Ships on their own cannot keep up against aerial assault.

Sorry to burst your and MigEater's bubble, but if Operation Seelion had gone through after the RAF had been neutralized GB would have fallen to German Forces.

[s2k]

i do kinda like how we are all fighting over something that never happened.
i do agree with you that the brits had and ahve a very good navy, and i thing us americans would of sent everything that was availible to help yall out.

[Comrade Kal]

I don't thik I had any relatives in Battle of Britain... both grandads were in WW2, one was a captain in burma, liberated the biggest prison camp there, one was in north africa, killed during the british retake of tobruk.

[s2k]

Wow, sry to hear bout that grandfather. I didnt have any grandfathers in the war, 1 was 2 young, the other 2 old. But i did have bout 12 uncles in the war, and luckly none of them were killed, and only 1 was severly injured. 6 of them perticipated in d-day in some way.