Originally Posted by MontyB

I don't have any argument with your points but the reality remains that while the Royal Navy remained intact Operation Sealion had no chance of succeeding, now given that the bulk of the German destroyer fleet was at the bottom of Norwegian fjords there was no chance the Kriegsmarine could conceivably gain parity long enough to get sufficient material ashore.

Also the Luftwaffe had no chance of defeating the RAF without a landing as even had they gained air superiority over southern England the RAF would simply have withdrawn to the North of London and continued the fight over friendly territory, the Luftwaffe was a short range support force that followed the army it lacked the long range fighter and heavy bomber force required.

Yes you are correct, however, I still maintain that the defeat of the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain, was a smack in the eye for Herman Goring, who, as is well known, promised Hitler that he would defeat the Royal Air Force within days. Hitler by all accounts was not too pleased with Goring.

Winston Churchill's speech when he said "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owned by so many to so few." It also I believe, convinced America that Britain was not going to collapse as predicted by Joe Kennedy who stated:-

I cannot impress upon you strongly enough my complete lack of confidence in the entire [British] conduct of this war. I was delighted to see that the president said he was not going to enter the war because to enter this war, imagining for a minute that the English have anything to offer in the line of leadership or productive capacity in industry that could be of the slightest value to us, would be a complete misapprehension.

Kennedy ruffled feathers in Washington when he met secretly with German diplomats and made few friends with his anti-Semitic remarks. In the end, his opposition to America’s anti-Nazi policies led to his resignation in disgrace from his coveted ambassadorship and, for all intents and purposes, ended whatever political career he harbored for himself.

If the Germans defeated the RAF, they might have been able to use the Luftwaffe to keep the RN away from southern England and the waters around it. The Japanese were successful with using their air power (Prince of Wales, Repulse). The Americans were even better with using their air power against the Japanese navy.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

If the Germans defeated the RAF, they might have been able to use the Luftwaffe to keep the RN away from southern England and the waters around it. The Japanese were successful with using their air power (Prince of Wales, Repulse). The Americans were even better with using their air power against the Japanese navy.

Good point 13

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

If the Germans defeated the RAF, they might have been able to use the Luftwaffe to keep the RN away from southern England and the waters around it. The Japanese were successful with using their air power (Prince of Wales, Repulse). The Americans were even better with using their air power against the Japanese navy.

Given that the Luftwaffe couldnt stop the RN evacuating troops from Dunkirk, Norway, Greece or Crete what do you think the chances are that they could stop the RN from breaking into the invasion lanes and dealing to the few remaining German destroyers protecting a rather cobbled together fleet of barges delivering troops and supplies?


The Luftwaffe did not have the aircraft or ordinance to take on the RN anymore than the Kriegsmarine did and we still come back to the argument that without the Luftwaffe operating from forward bases in England they could not have subdued the RAF which means they would never have had absolute control over the channel.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Given that the Luftwaffe couldnt stop the RN evacuating troops from Dunkirk, Norway, Greece or Crete what do you think the chances are that they could stop the RN from breaking into the invasion lanes and dealing to the few remaining German destroyers protecting a rather cobbled together fleet of barges delivering troops and supplies?

RAF fighters were fighting inland, which is why troops on the beaches rarely saw any RAF fighters, then complaining bitterly the RAF were not doing their job, when in fact they drew a lot of the Luftwaffe away from the beaches and never given the credit that was due.

Originally Posted by MontyB

The Luftwaffe did not have the aircraft or ordinance to take on the RN anymore than the Kriegsmarine did and we still come back to the argument that without the Luftwaffe operating from forward bases in England they could not have subdued the RAF which means they would never have had absolute control over the channel.

The Luftwaffe and RAF were pretty evenly matched with the number of fighter aircraft, in many was the BF109 was a better aeroplane then both the Spitfire Mk1 and Mk5 as well as the Hurricane.

Originally Posted by BritinBritain

The Luftwaffe and RAF were pretty evenly matched with the number of fighter aircraft, in many was the BF109 was a better aeroplane then both the Spitfire Mk1 and Mk5 as well as the Hurricane.

But this overlooks the different doctrines of the two air forces.
The RAF was designed as a stand alone branch of the armed forces, it was equipped to carry out missions independent of other branches of the military and also in conjunction with those other branches, it was a strategic force.

The Luftwaffe was never designed with independent operation in mind it was always a support branch of the army which is why it performed so poorly over Britain and in relief operations in Russia, it was as is well documented short range tactical air force not a strategic one.

So for the Luftwaffe to win the BoB it needed to operate from bases in England, for it to have bases in England the wehrmacht would have to be on the ground in England and for that to happen the Kriegsmarine have to have put them there and that couldn't happen because the RN still controlled seas around Britain.

Originally Posted by MontyB

But this overlooks the different doctrines of the two air forces.The RAF was designed as a stand alone branch of the armed forces, it was equipped to carry out missions independent of other branches of the military and also in conjunction with those other branches, it was a strategic force.

The Luftwaffe was as is well known, a well oiled part of the Blitzkrieg doctrine of air support for ground forces which worked very well in 1940, they were also experienced in air to air combat as shown during the Spanish civil war as well as in the invasion of Poland and during the early part of the Battle of Britain. RAF pilots at the start of the Battle were very inexperienced, many pilots dying on their first sortie against the Luftwaffe. Lessons were thankfully learned as RAF pilots (I include US Eagle Sqdns, Czechs, Poles as well as commonwealth crew) which began to show to take on the Luftwaffe on their own terms.

Originally Posted by MontyB

The Luftwaffe was never designed with independent operation in mind it was always a support branch of the army which is why it performed so poorly over Britain and in relief operations in Russia, it was as is well documented short range tactical air force not a strategic one.

I agree with that

Originally Posted by MontyB

So for the Luftwaffe to win the BoB it needed to operate from bases in England, for it to have bases in England the wehrmacht would have to be on the ground in England and for that to happen the Kriegsmarine have to have put them there and that couldn't happen because the RN still controlled seas around Britain.

I agree to a point, the Japanese as well as US Navy aircraft have shown what damage air power can do to surface fleets.

They certainly took a toll on the RN during the Dunkirk operation, but if you look at the huge number of ships & material needed for Neptune/Overlord it seems unlikely the Germans could have pulled it off.

It's hypothetical, but if the Luftwaffe was able to establish air supremacy over the English Channel and parts of southern England, they may have been able to invade England. The English Channel doesn't provide with a lot of space for the RN to maneuver. The Germans might have experienced problems with getting the supplies and mechanized forces across the Channel. It also depends on how the Kriegsmarine had deployed its U-boats. Would they continue to try to reduce the convoys or would they support the amphibian assault and contribute to the effort to keep the RN out of the English Channel and south of England.

I don't think it had been enough for the Luftwaffe to defeat the RAF fighters, it needed to take out the RAF Bomber Command and the Costal Command as well.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

It's hypothetical, but if the Luftwaffe was able to establish air supremacy over the English Channel and parts of southern England, they may have been able to invade England. The English Channel doesn't provide with a lot of space for the RN to maneuver. The Germans might have experienced problems with getting the supplies and mechanized forces across the Channel. It also depends on how the Kriegsmarine had deployed its U-boats. Would they continue to try to reduce the convoys or would they support the amphibian assault and contribute to the effort to keep the RN out of the English Channel and south of England.

I don't think it had been enough for the Luftwaffe to defeat the RAF fighters, it needed to take out the RAF Bomber Command and the Costal Command as well.

Deploying Uboats to the channel in 1940 would have been a really quick way of removing the Uboats threat, it wasn't until August 1942 that Germany could field 100 operational U-boats do you really think it would be a good idea to stick the ones they had in a relatively shallow enclosed space to take on the home fleet?

As a quick comparison:
British and French ships (home fleet) 1940 ~200 (does not include fleets outside British and North Atlantic waters)
German ships and submarines (total) ~90 ( this includes pocket battleships at sea in the Atlantic)