Was it ever possible or did Hitler just take too much meth?
It would have been somewhat possible if the Germans had any amphibious landing craft. Their lack of air superiority would have fucked them, though.
The German invasion of England seemed rather half assed. They didn't commit to it long. They just spent some time harassing British citizens and then quit. Committing to an invasion on the scale of Operation Barbarossa might have worked.
With the navy the Germans had? No chance in hell. The RAF also decimated the Luftwaffe.
>paratroopers
nope, the plan is already fucked
>>323722
>They just spent some time harassing British citizens
To deplete their morale and to destroy the nation's infrastructure to force the government to settle for peace lest they wanted to starve the entire British population
But they never got what they wanted because of le trickster spies constantly sabotaging their plans and telling them to shoot their missiles into the sea and bomb the rural areas with nothing but cows and sheep lol
>>323740
German spying seemed kind of incompetent. I know one guy would give the Germans weather reports in England and would often tell them it is often humid and balmy because the spy was actually in France and had never actually been to England despite England rarely being humid and balmy like France.
Question 2: Would Germany have won the battle of the Atlantic if Plan Z had been completed?
>>323751
Spies just crack me the fuck up, they're smart and a lot of them just don't seem to give a fuck
/r/ing a recommendation for a good book on spies and their hilarious antics
>>323761
For a naval rearmament that great, they would have to scale back on otther places.. So nah.
>>323763
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb#Intelligence_reports
>To adjust and correct settings in the V-1 guidance system, the Germans needed to know where the V-1s were impacting. Therefore, German intelligence was requested to obtain this impact data from their agents in Britain. However, all German agents in Britain had been turned, and were acting as double agents under British control.
>On 18 June it was decided that the double agents would report the damage caused by V-1s fairly accurately and minimise the effect they had on civilian morale. It was also decided that Pujol should avoid giving the times of impacts, and should mostly report on those which occurred in the north west of London, to give the impression to the Germans that they were overshooting the target area.
>A certain number of the V-1s fired had been fitted with radio transmitters, which had clearly demonstrated a tendency for the V-1 to fall short. Oberst Max Wachtel, commander of Flak Regiment 155(W), which was responsible for the V-1 offensive, compared the data gathered by the transmitters with the reports obtained through the double agents. He concluded, when faced with the discrepancy between the two sets of data, that there must be a fault with the radio transmitters, as he had been assured that the agents were completely reliable. It was later calculated that if Wachtel had disregarded the agents' reports and relied on the radio data, he would have made the correct adjustments to the V-1's guidance, and casualties might have increased by 50 per cent or more.
>>323801
>all German agents in Britain had been turned
The germans really didnt have it easy
>>323763
check out:
http://intellit.muskingum.edu/wwii_folder/wwiitoc.html
>The most useful and up-to-date bibliography regarding current writing on intelligence, with excellent commentaries on the works it discusses. The standard work for the literature after 1998, and good for previous decades.
the site looks sketchy but it looks like it has a lot of good books on the subject
>>323703
>tfw I would have been invaded and gassed
>>323801
>all German agents in Britain had been turned
lol how the fuck this happen
>>323725
The RAF did not decimate the Luftwaffe. The RAF won but they hardly decimated the Luftwaffe.
Yes, it was possible, OP, but it required a change in German air combat strategy and better intelligence, or proper use of it according to some.
For example, the Luftwaffe lost more single engine fighters than the RAF but not by much. The real losses were the bombers. The fighters did a shit-tier job protecting them from the start. They did not provide close escorts - the thinking was they alone could attract the RAF fighters and handle them and the bombers could stick together and protect themselves. They were careless from their successes in France and Poland.
Goerring also saw it fit to attack cities rather than industry and military installations. You kill 40,000 civilians but you do nothing to detract from the opponents offense. Dumb move.
>>323850
Decimating mean killing one tenth, so they literally decimated the Luftwaffle
>>323885
Where in the hell did you get that definition from?
>>323885
Oh, now I see. You Googled it and misinterpreted the historical definition of it. I see. Carry on.
![goldeneye-publicity107[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/yV3RYgk.jpg "goldeneye-publicity107[1].jpg")
>>323825
British intelligence old boy
>>323850
What if the Luftwaffe had stuck to bombing industry and infrastructure? Would it have made a difference?
>>323703
The only possibility of a nazi 'victory' was the cabinet crisis of may. If Halifax and not Churchill was elected, the germans should have had a chance at at least a ceasefire
>>323988
A big difference. Towards the end of the BoB the Brits were producing more aircraft than they were losing.
The Germans had neither the airforce or navy to carry out Sealion. Even if they had won the Battle of Britain, Britain would have just moved its air bases further north, enabling it to still give aircover to the UK.
Plus, Germany would never have been able to meet the sheer logistical challenges posed by a seas invasion. See D-Day for when the allies did it and the volume of supplies and engineering work that was required.
>>323919
What makes British Intelligence so renowned? Or is that a secret?
Even if the RAF had been beaten the Royal Navy would have disrupted any landing, even if it meant suffering terrible losses.
The only way sealion could work is if both the RAF and RN are neutralized.
>>324049
English is too confusing for Krauts to understand, and thus they can't decrypt our ciphers.
>>323825
Well Germans hired a Spanish that spoke no English (nor German for that matter) as spy in the UK...
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Pujol_Garcia
I have only heard stuff about Germans finnancing what they thought to be double-agents who were actully loyal to their countries.
>>323907
From here i guess?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(Roman_army)
>>324094
yeah sure, but that's just being a pedant and it's annoying
>>324114
Oh fuck off.. the modern meaning of the word is just "terrible losses" or some shit
>>324178
im >>324094
fucktard
And none in my family have died for the corporations, thank you very much
>>324254
Ok reddit
>>324254
wew lad. Great reddit meme you've got yourself right there
The Germans didn't have the sea lift capacity. They were gathering up captured barges in the Netherlands in preparation for it.
There was also the problem of the Royal Navy.
>>323703
No, it was never possible. People have this notion that if the Germans somehow achieved air supriority, they'd be able to land and take over.
It's bullshit. Even if you somehow got air superiority (doubtful in and of itself) you'd have to land, and oh wait, there are quite a lot of British troops waiting around to break your head.
http://www.britishmilitaryhistory.co.uk/webeasycms/hold/uploads/bmh_document_pdf/40.09_Order_of_Battle_UK.pdf
You almost certainly can't lift enough troops to survive the first day's counterattack. It would be a minor miracle to be able to seize an intact port and start ferrying in more troops and supplies. And it's simply a pipe dream to think you can do that uninterrupted before the remains of the RAF support the RN in sending 5 battleships out to cut your sea connection.
The entire thing is stupid, and anyone who thinks it's plausible hasn't studied the matter. Just consider how much preparation, fire support, strategic bombing interdiction, etc went into lifting 5 divisions for d-day. The Germans are trying to do the reverse without any of those advantages.
>>323850
Actually, they did try doing close escorts, but abandoned it by September. Close escorts meant the fighters were vulnerable, and you started seeing a lot of 109 losses rather than Ju 87 and 88 losses.
>>323988
And bombing industry probably wouldn't have worked all that well. The allies tried it in return in 1943 with way heavier bombers; an Avro Lancaster carries roughly 10 times the bomb load as a Ju-87, and while they smashed up lots and lots of factories, it barely slowed the German war economy.
>>324022
A lot of aircraft production was in the midlands and north though. You can reach those with bombers, but only if you fly without fighter escort. How many of them do you think will survive?
>>324280
>Even if you somehow got air superiority (doubtful in and of itself)
At some point Britain had less than a dozen fighters capable of taking off. They were losing them in almost a 1vs1 ratio against Germans who had to deal with ground defenses and came from the continent.
The British were clearly losing the war of attrition. Also the British land army was a massive unprepared joke and a good landing would have been the end of it.
The British might have been able to pull a heroic retreat to Scotland but I doubt they would'nt have surrendered if London was taken
>>324322
>At some point Britain had less than a dozen fighters capable of taking off.
Wrong. FG-11, at its nadir of strength, was about 20 single engine fighters. Unfortunately, FG-11 was not the RAF, it was merely the unit assigned to southern England. If it gets pulled back or destroyed, either FG 12 and 9 make longer flights from their bases, or they get rotated south.
>They were losing them in almost a 1vs1
Planes, yes. Pilots was closer to 3:1 in the British favor, given the much more favorable ejecting conditions around Britain.. Guess which was the bottleneck for both empires?
>Also the British land army was a massive unprepared joke and a good landing would have been the end of it.
At 1:10 odds? With beach equipped landing troops? Fighting under no cover? Get real.
>The British might have been able to pull a heroic retreat to Scotland but I doubt they would'nt have surrendered if London was taken
If. You know how much street to street fighting you need to do to take a city the size of London? If you can land 20-30 divisions (ha!) you'll be lucky if it takes you a month. And extremely so if your supply line doesn't get erased in the meantime.
>>324351
>Guess which was the bottleneck for both empires?
Material planes for an already resource exhausted Britain.
>At 1:10 odds?
You don't get to stack your entire army in one line. The Americans succeeded their landing against an arguably much more capable force. The British land forces were in a deplorable state.
>>323728
Why
>>324366
>Material planes for an already resource exhausted Britain.
Hahahahah. WHich is of course why they cranked out far more planes than the Luftwaffe did, and heavier ones besides, you don't see Germany building anything on the size and resource expenditure of Avro Lancasters.
>. The Americans succeeded their landing against an arguably much more capable force.
The Americans obliterated most of the railroads in France to preclude operational mobility, and then landed with total operational surprise against a stretch of beach that was lightly defended, with enormous air, sea, and artillery support.
The Germans don't have the bomber mass to do widespread railroad destruction, have shit-tier intelligence, and Britain is geographically smaller, concentrating defenses. They don't have a naval or amphibious tradition, and will be trying to land mostly in repurposed river barges.
The whole idea is stupid.
>The British land forces were in a deplorable state.
[citation seriously needed] Especially when standing in a dugout and shooting at people landing off of ships isn't exactly hard, or something you need elite forces for. And the actions in Compass, or Crusader later, showed that the British could and did fight and win on land.
>>323919
you think the british ruled almost all of the world just because they had a navy?
>>324415
>and Britain is geographically smaller, concentrating defenses
They have more coastline to defend
>Britain is geographically smaller
So easier to carpet bomb
>And the actions in Compass, or Crusader later, showed that the British could and did fight and win on land.
Against a wreck and with considerable material support. They performance in France is what was to be expected in 1941.
>>323825
>Capture spy
>offer to execute him or have him spy in reverse for you
Easy choice, and most of them probably realised Germany was fucked too.
What would have hitler done if he actually managed to occupy Britain?
>>323907
From the definition of decimation
Dec = 10. It's simply wrong to say decimated to mean destroyed entirely.
>>324085
Triple agents? How fucking deep do these rabbit holes go?
>>324134
In which case you're still wrong because they did suffer terrible loses.
>>324062
Fucking anglo-navajo.
>>324434
>They have more coastline to defend
But assuming you want fighter cover over your invasion, and considering the tiny range of the Me-109 and the Ju-87, that really limits the German options to the south coast, probably on a stretch between Dover and Portsmouth.
>So easier to carpet bomb
With what? Your Ju-87s carry 450 kg of bombs. They'll barely make an impact. Even the heavier Ju-88s and Do17s carried 1-2 metric tons apiece. That's 1/5th-1/10th the capacity of a 4 engined bomber the Americans and British were using, in a smaller time frame and in fewer numbers. You're not cutting the rail capacity.
>Against a wreck and with considerable material support.
Because a sealion isn't going to be a wreck? WIth no armor or artillery support, and very probably going up against naval, air, and land opposition?
Oh, and I was assuming you were talking about a 1940 invasion. If you wait until next summer, you need to roughly double the British presence, so yeah, even more material support. And by the way, Crusader was 1941, and compass was 40.
>>324280
Yeah, in the 70s the now old British and German commanders got together and did a wargame of their plans to invade. The Germans lost horribly and they all agreed it wouldn't have worked.
>>324480
And they made considerable allowances for the Germans, they gave them roughly 5 times the sealift they actually had in real life, to comport with British worst-case expectations, not actual reality.
>>324459
Fuck up his Russian invasion as usual.
>splitting your forces in two while invading of the largest countries (in terms of men and square miles) on the planet
>not retarded
Pick one.
>>324528
We fully held back Caesar. The proper invasion of Briton only came in the first century.
It's only a logistical difficulty because you're being shot at. If not, it's pretty easy to get a lot of men and materiel over the sea.
>>324554
Even the Vikings never completely took England. Just that Norman bastard coasting off us being battle tired and using a dodgy trick to win.
>>324578
Since when is combined arms and the immense superiority it gives a "dodgy trick"?
>>324578
Scandinavian York.
>>324587
It was a trick. They couldn't break the Saxon shield wall so they pretended to run away, we chased after them and then their cavalry wheeled around and chewed up the loose infantry.
Sneaky fucks.
>>324587
They pretended William had died as a trick to bait the English into a surprise attack.
>>324315
They provided close escorts after it was far too late. It was purely reactionary. Should have clarified. My bad.
>>324608
We were conquered by Rome, no doubt. But we defeated them a few times before they came back, and defeated one of the greatest military leaders in history in the process.
We were sort of defeated by the Vikings. We were pushed back to one Kingdom, which eventually endured and was the basis for England.
We were defeated by the Normans, not doubting that. It was just a shallow victory but I'm not going to deny a victory is a victory.
>>324631
Fair enough.
>>324710
>It was working until they did what they did though. It would have won them the day otherwise.
First off, relying on a battleplan centered around iron discipline when half or more of your forces are a levy is a bad idea.
Secondly, they had no pursuit capability, whereas William had tons. A Saxon loss means obliteration. A Norman loss means pulling back, sacking the countryside from his already prepared fortified positions, raising more cash from the proceeds, and hiring more mercenaries for another go.
Long term, the Saxons are by far the weaker party, and it's evidenced by their conduct in the battle itself. Yes, Hastings was a close-run thing, but that's at a battle where they hunker in a position that's about as good as it can get from their point of view. What would they have done if William simply declined battle and tried to bypass them? You're not going to find hills flanked by woods to block him off everywhere in England.
>We didn't really defeat Caesar, he got bored and left.
That counts as a win in most circles. Otherwise, the British won the American revolution, the Americans won in Vietnam, and the Soviets won in Afghanistan.
>>324710
Caeser was a master of propoganda, its pretty much widely accepted that the story of him landing and then turning back is completely untrue. He took a beachhead and some of the land around it but couldn't really make anything of it. He turned back and claimed it was a recon mission.
Sneaky bastard.
>>324739
Americans do unironically claim that about Nam.
>>324779
Yes, sadly. I call my countrymen that do that "idiots", and throw a copy of On War at their heads.
>>324710
Also, Caesar had to fend off, quite literally, back-stabbing cunts halfways round the known world (under his lordship too, btw). A bunch of Gaulish rednecks without streets, plumbing, writing weren't worth it. Ooga booga.
>>324739
>First off, relying on a battleplan centered around iron discipline when half or more of your forces are a levy is a bad idea.
At Hastings they were all veterans, they'd just fought off the invading Vikings.
William could have pulled back, but the Saxons could have then raised more men. The battle had to be a decisive victory for William, he was not in a good position, so i don't think he was the stronger party.
>>324777
Caesar wasn't "sneaky", you britbong. He was a god among men who whipped country bumpkins into athletes that marched into hell at 40 miles a day. Reverentia et respectus est necessarium.
>>324798
>At Hastings they were all veterans, they'd just fought off the invading Vikings.
They fought off half a force that didn't bother to pack its armor. The Vikings were awful soldiers.
>William could have pulled back, but the Saxons could have then raised more men.
As well as lose the fyrd that had fought said vikings, for what that was worth, their time of service was nearly up.
>The battle had to be a decisive victory for William, he was not in a good position, so i don't think he was the stronger party.
Then why was he holed up before the battle? The Normans land on September 28th, and they don't make any particular moves to force a battle in the 2 weeks between then and Hastings, no, they're seizing fortresses, suborning the local nobility, and raiding for supplies.
It's Harold that's trying to force a battle here, not William.
>>324819
He was indeed a genius and a hero, just a sneaky one. Deception was a part of his brilliance.
>>323703
With what he had at his disposal, he just took to much meth. It required naval superiority in the English Channel, something that was impossible for the Axis to achieve. They had now amphibious landing craft, so they planned to use river barges, which they could only carry 10 divisions with at most.
Some historians say the whole buildup and planning of the operation was just an attempt to scare Britain into surrender, but I think that the Battle of Britain proves this wrong.
>>324841
>which they could only carry 2 divisions with at most.
FTFY.
>>323761
No, Plan Z was too overly ambitious. Besides, the battleships they would have created were becoming obselete during WW2.
To do better in the Battle of the Atlantic they should have built more u-boats instead of wasting resources building the Bismarck.
>>324178
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(Roman_army)#Current_usage_of_the_word
oops (lel)
>>324862
Not him, but winning the battle of the Atlantic and doing well on a sealion are two different things. U-boats would have been near useless for a short distance war where tactically most of their warfleet is on the defensive.
Now, if you want to talk BoA, you're still in trouble, even with more u-boats. It would have given you wider coverage, but once the British start putting together convoys with air cover, you can't really attack them with submarines.
What the Germans really needed was to repeat the PQ 17 success, have a fleet or fleets in being to force convoys to scatter where u-boats can pick them off.
>>323870
the nazis came up with some really wacky shit back in the day
>>324631
>But we defeated them a few times before they came back
> Normans invasion was just a shallow victory
>that level of delusion
>>324474
you're arguing with a naziboo who probably came from /pol/, friend
>>323713
Couldn't they have just shifted their air power from the east to knock Britain out quickly and then redeployed them to the eastern front?
No. Well, maybe if Hitler hadn't gone full fucking retard and invaded Russia, and had managed to somehow knock out the Royal Navy, and had managed to gain even parity with the RAF, and had built enough landing craft to make it happen, and had any goddamn spies, and the British Facists weren't a fucking joke...yeah no it wasn't possible.
>>325131
Not him, but not really. Britain was outproducing the Germans on planes, and fighting over the an island like that means it's way easier for the British to recover pilots in lost craft. Thirdly, having to escort bombers hobbles the German fighters, as they're tied to something slower and more vulnerable than they are.
It really wasn't happening.
>>324049
England has always put enormous amounts of resources into gathering intelligence.
Even during the Irish Rebellion of 1798, most of the leaders were actually British spies, and the ones who weren't (Edward Fitzgerald notably) were caught because of tip-off by British informants.
If the British hadn't had those spies in place, the rebellion likely dragged on for much longer.
>>325279
How strong Is Britain's intelligence services now?
>>325425
Very. We got fucked over in 7/7 and have been a fortress of intelligence ever since. They've stopped a lot of terrorist attacks because of the power of the intelligence. Its considered to be the first line of defense, which accounts for the batshit crazy level of state surveillance.
>>325131
What eastern front? The BoB happened before Barbarossa.
>>323907
Not him, but the definition of decimation means losing one tenth of a number. It was used in roman times to discipline legions.
Its evolved and taken on a wider role now of course, and if we were to stick by the historical definition, decimation could only be self-inflicted.
>>325425
Britain's intelligence service is probably better than the US. GCHQ took the NSA and put it on steroids.
>>323703
>was Operation Overlord even possible
>>324599
>Bretons
Well if you weren't stupid it wouldn't have worked now would it?
>>325950
obviously it was
>>324280
The British troops in England were demoralized and under-equipped though given that they'd left most of their heavy weapons in France. Their defences were also pretty desperate (suicidal Auxiliary Units, tiny one man bunkers etc). Had the Germans managed to land successfully, and that's a big 'if', the British Army wouldn't have been able to put up much of a fight.
>>326107
If we can very briefly forget about the Empire/Commonwealth and the money America was pouring into Britain, Britain's resistance movement would have been much more successful than any continental one because of how easy it would be to fuck up supply lines. No trucks or railways makes for a very different supply line system, take out a port or an airport and their plans are temporarily fucked.
>>326107
60% of the troops in England in September of 40 weren't in France and didn't abandon anything.
They had 3 fucking armored divisions, and nothing stopping them from rolling to the beaches and wiping out a landing force.
they didn't have adequate transport capabilities. did anyone else even come close to mentioning this in the thread?
>>326169
Yes, we all know they were planning on using tourist Gondolas from Amsterdam.
Pretty retarded.
>>326148
They abandoned Singapore for one thing, and their armoured divisions were made up of light tanks that most likely would've been out-fought by the German panzers. Defences in the south of England were also focused more on static fortifications rather than rolling to the beaches, but the fall of the maginot line and Germany's mobile tactics were pretty good evidence that a fortified line isn't going to stop the German onslaught.
>>326107
Over half of the army was still on the islands (as in 'not ever being subject to evacuation or abandoning equipment'), and they would have to face an absolutely tiny force (because of the German naval 'capabilities'). This is still before dealing with the RAF (which the LW was incapable of doing) and the RN (see the Pacific theater for examples of how long a landing force lasts without proper cover against only a handful of ships).
>>326139
That's an interesting point, hadn't really thought about that.
>>326240
Uhhh, what?
The majority of German armored forces in this timeframe were still Pz1 and 2s. And the early Pz3s and 4s were not superior to comparable allied tanks of the time.
Furthermore, what "fall of the Maginot line"? The Maginot line was bypassed, not besieged and conquered.
>>326240
>They abandoned Singapore for one thing
2 years later and in vastly different circumstances, for starters that the bulk of their forces were local Malays whom were indifferent when they weren't actively disloyal; a problem you won't face in England proper.
>, and their armoured divisions were made up of light tanks that most likely would've been out-fought by the German panzers
What German Panzers? You don't actually think repurposed river barges were capable of carrying tanks, do you? No, Germans don't get armor support until they capture a port, fix all the stuff that the British blow up before they leave, and get what real trasnports they have through RN and RAF blockades.
And even when they do, they'll still be out-armored if not outgunned by Matildas, a rather popular British tank whose slowness wouldn't mean much in this theater.
>Defences in the south of England were also focused more on static fortifications rather than rolling to the beaches, but the fall of the maginot line and Germany's mobile tactics were pretty good evidence that a fortified line isn't going to stop the German onslaught.
[citation needed]
>>326243
I was taking the view that if the Germans came to land then they would've already dealt with the Luftwaffe, or else I agree that a German landing without air superiority would've most likely failed.
>>323801
That reminds me of Battle of Algiers, when French intelligence was so inflirtrated in the algerians that they started to bomb their own bases to seem legit
>>323703
hitler had no interest in the mittel englandier, neither did the other guy. Both wanted neutrality but the masters said otherwise hence the slaves fought for their own death so valiantly
>>323703
Nope. The "landing craft" (read river barges) would sink in any sort of rough seas, and took more than a day to cross the channel, which means that the second night fell the RN would murder them without the Luftwaffe able to cover the transports. The RN could literally sail destroyers through the German formation and the wake would sink them.
>>326292
You wouldn't just need air superiority, you would need air supremacy, which is way harder.
Consider, for a sealion landing to have a prayer of working, the Luftwaffe is going to need to
>Support the troops fighting on the beaches in a tactical sense.
>Interdict the roads and railways so that the entire British army doesn't come piling down on you.
>Stop the Royal Navy
>Stop whatever RAF elements are still around.
Really, if any one of those 4 fail, the Germans are in deep shit. You're trying to make the landings and initial supply runs in incredibly fragile non-military boats, many of whom aren't designed for even the rather mild currents you get in the channel. Almost any RAF interference is almost sure to make the entire plan fail, which means complete elimination.
Given the UK's ability to withdraw to the midlands almost at will and only come out once an invasion is underway, this isn't likely to happen.
>>323988
They were bombing airfields for a while and the RAF was getting fucking desperate, then I believe some british bomber went off course in a mission and accidentally bombed berlin.
Hitler got all butthurt as always and responded by changing the strategy to bombing london, given the airfields much needed respite and the rest is history.
One of the germans biggest mistakes was also not bombing the british radar stations that let the brits know exactly when and where they needed their aircraft, which is a fucking massive help in air defense.
>>324990
>I can't read
>>326265
In terms of armor and armament of course German panzers were not superior, but their radios and the way they were employed on the battlefield meant they were much more useful than infantry support tanks like the British were using. I am aware that the Maginot line was bypassed, but it didn't serve it's purpose so whichever way you want to put it it failed.
>>326321
>miracles and magic happen and Germany musters enough naval assets and starts landing troops in britain
>a couple of destroyers just steam into the landing area
>this plays https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-reAahY1GCE
>invasion fails
>>324819
you can't do that without being sneaky
>>326350
>but it didn't serve it's purpose so whichever way you want to put it it failed.
But it literally did serve its purpose. Its purpose was to save money and manpower. Which it did. Its purpose was to prevent a German attack through that part of the border. Which it did.
As for the panzers - what good will the favored German armored tactic of the time, that is a breakthrough of the frontline by an armored spearhead and the exploitation of the enemy's rear... what good will this be with an absolutely tiny number of tanks - because of the limitations of a landing operation - on an island - meaning you have just driven away from the one and only lifeline of the beaches?
>>326336
No, that's a myth. The RAF was constantly outproducing the Luftwaffe in terms of aircraft and pilots. The BoB was a war of attrition that the RAF was at no point during the conflict losing. The LW attacks on airfields had limited success - and if they had truly hurt the southern commands, they would have simply moved some miles north out of the reach of the enemy.
>>326373
Not him, but I would point out that German doctrine reserved armor for exploitation: breakthrough itself was supposed to be done by infantry and artillery.
>german landing craft come in
>british light the beaches on fire with the pipes spewing petrol everywhere they had set up as a defense
Now that would've been a sight.
>>326274
Mmkay I was wrong about Singapore I'll give you that, but remember that if up to the point of landing German plans are going okay, which is what I'm assuming, then the RAF will have a hard time of it although the Royal Navy I agree would have posed a bigger problem, although mining the narrow sea and utilising submarines and u-boats would have meant the cost would be high for the RN. The citation is The Hone Guard - A Political and Military History
>>326331
That's a fair point
>>326401
it would still take only a handful of ships to absolutely wreck the invasion armada though
look at the pacific what can a handful of destroyers do to to unsupported landing craft
>>326425
(same goes for aircraft but this is assuming the impossible happens and raf somehow stops existing for some reason)
>>326386
I've read it in two different books so prove it otherwise.
And it wasn't even just the production of aircraft even (though of course important) They didn't have enough fucking pilots, they could barely get any sleep because they were running sorties all day. There were cases of pilots getting shot down and bailing out, then getting back in a new plane and continuing on in the very same day.
>>326373
I was under the impression that the purpose of the Maginot Line was to help defend against a German invasion full stop. It was based on outdated strategy and miscalculation, I wouldn't call it a success. With regards to the panzers, I agree initial numbers would be small and the British and Germans would have faced each other on more equal terms, but I wonder who would have fared better? The British Army with a supplement of Home Guard troops, or a disciplined, well-equipped, battle hardened German force high off it's victories on the continent?
>>326425
I agree the problems the RN would've caused to the German landing zones could well have been disastrous. It would have been costly for the RN but I believe they would have posed more of a threat than British land forces.
>tfw no series set during England if it had fallen
I once wrote out a plan for a movie based on that, it involved a British Resistance group smuggling in Winston Churchill, who had been dropped in by parachute and escorting him to a safe place.
>>326433
No offense but those must be rather poor books then. "The Few" myth and the actual numbers behind the Battle of Britain are hardly unknown in WW2 historiography.
>They didn't have enough fucking pilots
But they did. Their pilot numbers grew throughout the Battle of Britain. They added more pilots throughout the BoB than they had lost. (And they had built over twice the number of planes than the Germans).
Like I said in the first paragraph, this is virtually in any sensible book out there. It's not some conspiracy theory. The RAF was hard pressed in that it had to endure high losses - but the LW had it worse basically throughout the entirety of the conflict. Off the top of my head everything from Bungay Most Dangerous Enemy, Hastings Inferno, Collier Battle of Britain to Hootons Luftwaffe at War cover it. Like I said it's not a secret.
>>326457
The Maginot line was incomplete - ergo, one cannot actually comment on how good it would have done.
That said, the central Maginot line was strong enough to force the Germans through Belgium again and over land that was impassable for tanks when the Maginot line was conceived. If the Germans had delayed the war, let's remember that their initial timetable was more like '42 or '43, it's quite likely that the Dover to Luxembourg section of the line would have been sufficiently reinforced to provoke an attrition-based conflict.
>>326457
>but I wonder who would have fared better?
The side which could deploy pretty much its entirety at will and not the one limited to a handful of divisions, as in single digits of divisions, whose only lifeline and means of supply and reinforcement would be a beachhead that would be constantly threatened and at risk of being obliterated by a single successful sortie. A beachhead which has now apparently been weakened by the deployment of what few armored assets the invasion force had on a fool's errand of penetrating deeper into enemy territory and far from the beachhead.
>>326499
The actual supposed plan is much more interesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_Units
The fact that these basically highly trained assassins and saboteurs were supposed to blend in with a bunch off old people and fucks up with in the home guard is also kind of amusing.
>>326528
Its kind of a meme that the home guard was all old men, it was mostly farmers, miners, tradesmen, etc.
>>326457
>I was under the impression that the purpose of the Maginot Line was to help defend against a German invasion full stop.
But that is what it did. Its part in the defense of France was to either funnel the Germans northwards, or lock them in and prevent them breaking in force past.
>It was based on outdated strategy and miscalculation, I wouldn't call it a success.
It was based on sound enough strategy. It was the lack of cover past the Ardennes and the cutting off of much of the French mobile strength in the north that set the scene for the fall of France. Not the Maginot line which had done exactly what it was supposed to do.
>>326523
That's interesting, I've never really thought about how the Maginot Line would have fared if the war was delayed. But do you think the new doctrines of armoured, mobile warfare would have broken it? I'm just speculating at this point
>>326546
But don't you think the idea of it, that is, static warfare like World War One, was outdated?
>>326574
Not him, but there were plenty of instances of static fighting even in WW2. Pretty much all land combat in the Pacific theater, the breaking of the Sigfried Line, a lot of the battling up in northern Russia 1943, etc.
Mobile warfare was not done everywhere, only where you had the conditions and supplies to make it happen, and when such did not exist, well, you fought the old fashioned way.
>>325870
That doesn't sound particularly threatening.
The biggest reason historically, that the British Intelligence was so good is that they had to do more with less.
The British had a vast empire of thousands of cultures. It's intelligence services grew out of this expertise at the foreign office. Governing India required people who understood India from the inside, and who were more interested in understanding what was going on than trying to shape events. There control over the region was too tenuous.
Then as the British Empire expanded, they got very good at cranking out such experts, and listening to them.
The problem other nations have is that they don't have an intelligence gathering organization, proper.
America has para-military covert operations organizations.
Russia has something that specializes in subversion.
The NSA on Steroids is still going to have all the problems of the NSA.
>>326574
"Static" warfare with fortifications and trenches and whatnot was a staple of WW2. In Italy, in Russia, in post D-Day Germany/France border and thereabouts.
The idea is never - not in WW1, not with the Maginot line - to turn everything static and just sit there. The idea is to achieve something, for example forcing the enemy to either suffer high casualties and/or reroute elsewhere - in case of the Maginot line, north, where the French would advance and meet the enemy (exactly in order to prevent a repeat of the WW1 scenario).
>>326243
>(see the Pacific theater for examples of how long a landing force lasts without proper cover against only a handful of ships).
I actually can't think of any. AFAIK, both sides realized how stupid that would be, and the Japanese stopped launching amphibious invasions in 1942, and the Americans didn't start until they had local superiority.
>>326523
The Maginot Line was completed.
It was feared that building the line to the English Channel would push the low countries into the German camp.
>>326548
The idea of a breakthrough was not new by any means. Nor was the idea of mobile warfare. It is only the means and their capabilities that changed.
What was novel was the employment of large mechanized formations in exploitation duties after breaking the enemy lines. As opposed to breaking through and "just sort of expanding the breakthrough" but not going deep and hard with an armored thrust.
With that in mind I do not think they would fare particularly well. The Maginot line was massive, and while it could certainly be broken, it would endure. Meaning that yes, the Germans would have gotten past it with their armored spearheads - but what then? Perhaps isolate parts of the line, perhaps engage the enemy, but at the same becoming isolated themselves and exposed to enemy reserves - more numerous and focused on precisely these firefighting duties of combatting breakthroughs with the line finished.
So I don't think the line would be broken in the "new" way you describe. It would be broken - if it would be broken - then instead of panzers roaming free and far, it would be the "old fashioned" way.
>>326609
tanaka's transports at guadalcanal
>>326605
To elaborate on this, the problem France faced in a war with Germany was it was badly outnumbered. France had a population of 60 million, versus a German population of 88 million. And France had a much older population than Germany, one that looked more like post-war demographics.
Achieving military parity with Germany could no longer be achieved through political will, it had to be achieved by substituting manpower with material.
This was the idea behind the Maginot line. Such intense fortifications allowed the French to place far fewer troops in the Alsace-Lorainne region than the Germans, and achieve numerical parity in the North of France. No mean feat.
>>323703
The luftwaffe and kriegsmarine were a lot worse than their british counterparts and without air superiority in the battle of britain thered be no chance
>>325950
>comparing two radically different operational environments and strategic events preceding operation itself
>>326831
>America successfully invaded Grenada
>Therefor, Grenada could successfully invade America.
>>325086
Not either of them but please dont use logical falicies friend, go to pol for a list of them if you need to
>>324096
>abloo bloo bloo I was corrected but don't want to admit I'm wrong
Kill yourself
>>324463
You have no idea
>>326693
Why is everybody saying "without air superiority there wouldn't be a chance"?
Assume Germany achieved air superiority over the southern Britain. That wouldn't nullify the existence of the Royal Navy.
>>323703
If he fired G**ring and kept targeting airbases instead of London, he would have achieved air superiority. RAF was at the breaking point when the targets were changed. After that, the Luftwaffe could strike at naval bases, convoys and warships, allowing for operation Sea Lion. The British didn't have a lot of army stationed in Britain, their navy was their strength, it was always there to protect them. Plus, the invading forces would have complete air superiority. But he didn't. He choose to attack the USSR instead.
>>331570
>and kept targeting airbases instead of London, he would have achieved air superiority
>>331518
Because air forces can fuck up naval bases and warships. Torpedo bombers, son.
>>324413
German Paratroopers were horrible when actually used as paratroops
>>331570
Part of me doesn't think that would have made a difference. Hitler was already thinking about Barbarossa by fall 1940 and had delusions about the British will to fight. Killing Slavs and Jews was much more promising than a drawn out an protracted war against Britain and her entire Empire. Basically, Hitler took the easy way out by half assing the war in the west so he could go beastmode against the supposedly soft USSR.
>>331584
The Luftwaffe was laughably underequipped in both equipment and doctrine for anti-shipping missions.
It sounds like Hitler didn't even want to invade England, that he thought of them as distant cousins and that he would rather fight slavs.
>>331518
Because without air supremacy (more than superiority) they have no chance at all.
Even with air supremacy, it's dicey.
>>331570
>If he fired G**ring and kept targeting airbases instead of London, he would have achieved air superiority.
Air superiority isn't enough; you need to stop the RAF from fucking you up when you invade. And if you target their airbases, they pull the bases back into the Midlands, and then what?
>RAF was at the breaking point when the targets were changed
FG 11 is not the whole RAF.
>After that, the Luftwaffe could strike at naval bases, convoys and warships,
All of which are outside of your fighter escort range. How many of your bombers are you going to send on suicide missions like that?
>The British didn't have a lot of army stationed in Britain,
28 divisions is plenty.
>Plus, the invading forces would have complete air superiority.
No, because once you've committed to the invasion, the RAF would come back south.
>>323703
>Germans arrive
>Navy moves into the channel
>No supplies, no place to withdraw
The would have made it to the outskirts of London
