Summer 1940.
Luftwaffe has full air supremacy over most of the British isles. RAF infrastructure is destroyed, aircraft production is regularly bombed, UK can produce only a few dozen aircraft each month.
Can Germany successfully invade?
Oh look, it's this thread again.
What was the trial they ran during the cold war that simulated different scenarios and concluded Germany was unlikely to ever have been in a position to launch a successful invasion in any realistic WW2 scenario?
If Brits can successfully protect the navy blockade with what little aircraft they have, then no.
If not, gg
>>28343656
>navy moves into channel
>invasion troops surrender within a week because no supplies
Not on fucking river barges they can't.
>>28343681
I think the trial run proved that some fucktards can't read.
>>28343684
This is a real question. How much of a threat would Luftwaffe be in air supremacy scenario.
>>28343656
The British certainly thought so.
You're ignoring the biggest factor in any invasion of Britain since King Henry VIII tho.
>>28343700
Err arty ...? Or navy?
If navy, then the question is how does Luftwaffe deal with them? How sucessfully?
>>28343707
... only the Royal Navy.
>>28343707
They try to Stuka them, and I think the He111 could use torpedos. But they weren't build for that and weren't successful. Just accept it, even with full air supremacy, the royal navy would have wiped the channel with the Germans in case of an invasion.
>>28343742
They performed nice on and around Crete.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Crete
they didn't have the landing craft to do it
>>28343826
That didn't stop Japs from taking all of Pacific.
>>28343773
nice enough that hitler didn't use the fallschrimjager for the rest of the war
>>28343869
We are talking destruction of ships, fucktard.
>>28343881
sorry,crete is a trigger word for me
>>28343656
no but it they kept grinding away at the remnant RAF, attacking any RN ships they can & sinking the supply convoys while dropping 'seriously, we don't want this war' leaflets ovwer the starving population centres the conservatives would have removed churchill and claimed 'peace with honour (honest)'. At least it would buy time to rearm and start buildimg intelligence/insurgency support networks though out the third reich.
>>28343862
What? Compared to the Germans in 1940, the Japanese had plenty of landing craft in 1941-42. The Germans were planning to cross the Channel with fucking unarmored river barges (some powered, some towed by tugs, all slow as shit), which they were also expecting to make repeat journeys so that they could get all the troops inteded for the first landing wave across the Channel (oh, and the Germans also only had enough life jackets for the first wave, so they would need to take theirs off and place them back in the barges for the next troops, a completely feasible idea and not retarded at all).
If even just single RN destroyer gets through and among them, all it has to do is literally drive by and topple as many barges as it can with the wake it produces. It would have been a hilarious shit-show.
>>28343656
>Summer 1940. Luftwaffe has full air supremacy over most of the British isles.
Quite literally impossible considering the effective range of the Me109 variants in German service at this point, but for definitive answer, please take the time to read this old-ass internet page anyway:
http://www.johndclare.net/wwii6_sealion.htm
tl;dr: No, they cannot.
The south east coast of England is a huge marshland ringed with some fairly large cliffs. It is much, much more intimidating than Normandy to land on, and when you did you were faced with trying to get your vehicles and armour through bog after bog after bog.
The Nazis would find an east coast landing easier, but they'd have to brave the North Sea whilst being harassed by the long dick of the Royal Navy.
>>28343974
Can you get out with this BS?
Air supremacy. THAT is a condition. We go on from this point. As in theoretical scenario. Alternate history. Changed conditions/production values. Comprende?
>If even just single RN destroyer gets through and among them, all it has to do is literally drive by and topple as many barges as it can with the wake it produces. It would have been a hilarious shit-show.
I like this point. Even in air supremacy scenario and effective sinking, SOME RN ships might enter the naval part of landing area.
>>28344002
Okay: the answer is still no. German landing capabilities were a joke, their inter-service cooperation was nearly nonexistant, and their military overall completely unprepared and unsuitable for a large-scale amphibious landing operation. Assuming they get even half the intended landing force across the Channel, they will be unable to supply them adequately, and the whole operation will end in an embarrassing surrender of the whole force.
>>28344002
>Can you get out with this BS?
It's more substantial bullshit than yours.
>>28344075
Splendid. Nice answer.
>>28343983
this looks like what happens when minecraft world generation fucks up and it just cuts off from planes to ocean
>>28343742
The Brits showed pretty clearly that their ships weren't fit for surviving against aerial attacks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_Z
So, with all this said, was Battle for Britain basically:
>Yay, we won at Dunqirk
>Brits can and will be crushed, we may even invade
>What's with all the losses?
>We give up
>>28344137
With local air superiority the Luftwaffe destroyed barely 4 out of 40 RN ships at the Dunkirk evacuation.
So a bunch of ships turning up at Dunkirk, sitting there for a bit while gathering retreating troops, then making a low turn to leave and the Luftwaffe could only sink four of them.
>>28344137
>98 bombers specially designed for attacking ships
>still need 2 days to sink 2 ships
>without any air support for the bongs
>>28344137
From swarms of torpedo bombers dipshit, which the Nazis didn't have.
>>28344131
Pretty accurate description of the British Isles 2bh.
It's not like the rest of Europe which is nice and flat. It's basically every conceivable temperate terrain squashed into a tiny space.
You'll be driving through hills and valleys one minute and a few miles later it's FUCK YOU, STREAMS AND MARSHES NOW!
>>28343869
spot the retard
>>28343707
No cats
>>28343773
It's somewhat unlikely the Royal Navy would have sat still in the English channel.
>>28343707
Very successfully, would have given their dive bombers some target practice
That said, an amphibious assault would have been tremendously costly, and attempting to occupy Britain would likely be unsuccessful due to persistent local resistance.
They would have been better off blockading ports, shutting off the Brits supply of oil and hence their ability to fly bombers
>>28344002
>Air supremacy.
Air surpremacy isn't enough. Germans would need total air dominance. They didn't have enough bombers to keep RAF down, RN out of action and factories and shipyards out of operation. They would need to take out both RAF and Royal Navy to be able to conduct major amphibious operation.
>>28344137
>The Brits showed pretty clearly that their ships weren't fit for surviving against aerial attacks.
Near home islands their battleships would have air cover from RAF.
>>28343983
Looks like where they found Danny Latimer's body t-b-h.
>>28344137
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_Z
All the carriers were busy in the med at the time.
"brits showed pretty clearly" what their navy could do against the germans, which resulting was a total naval blockade for the duration of the war.
The germans focused on U-boat production because they knew they could not compete against the british surface fleet, and even then they lost something like 750 U-boats by wars end.
>>28343983
>royal navy
>not shit
>>28346829
The Royal Navy lost 50758 men killed in action, 820 missing in action and 14663 wounded in action.[1] The Women's Royal Naval Service lost 102 killed and 22 wounded.[1]
Kriegsmarine KIA, 9.01.39 - 4.30.45: 65,029
Kriegsmarine MIA, 9.01.39 - 4.30.45: 105,256
Kriegsmarine WIA, 9.01.39 - 12.31.44: 21,002
Kriegsmarine Casualties, 1939-1945: 191,287+
