Originally posted by Bardock42
They had the ability to destroy your fleet, and eventually with the right strategy and without the aid of the US and Russia england miught have been in trouble. I agree though that a Blitzkrieg surely wasn't an option.
Actually no, they didn't have the ability to destroy the British fleet, which was one of their problems.
Meanwhile, Germany totally lacked the naval capacity to actually land the troops. Compare D-Day- very different story.
Thirdly... well, I am glad you know what 'Blitzkrieg' means, and why it could not have been done in this case. people throw that term around all the time without knowing what ti means.
You don't conquer nations with medium bombers. Goering tried.
Again- the Germans lacked the capacity to launch an invasion across the Channel, and ALL the branches of the German military said so. They were trying to batter the UK into surrender, not invade.
I would also dispute that about the Zero, but another time.
Originally posted by finti
well the Nazi regim were unable to crush the resistance in the occupied countries, after all it was the resistance movement in these occupied countires that informed the allied about the situation. So it not the success I hope they achieve its what they might have done and achieved turning their eyes on the center of the regime instead of locally
Well, with all respect due these freedom fighters, a lot of their longevity came from the intervention of the US and Britain, in the form of covert ops missions behind enemy lines. For sure though, it was a back and forth relationship. The resistence in many countries helped to provide serious intelligence from inside the German borders.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Actually no, they didn't have the ability to destroy the British fleet, which was one of their problems.Meanwhile, Germany totally lacked the naval capacity to actually land the troops. Compare D-Day- very different story.
Thirdly... well, I am glad you know what 'Blitzkrieg' means, and why it could not have been done in this case. people throw that term around all the time without knowing what ti means.
From what I remember of the History Classes I had I think Hitler had England in a bad spot but for some reason decided not to bomb the Fleet and the Air Force (which wasn't really very big I believe) but to bomb cities, which might have seem like a good strategy but turned out not to be.
That is certainly true, but if it wouldn't have been invoöved in the war with Russia and later the US they might have been able to create it. I think the British Sea Power wasn't what it used to be.
Well, I do have an unfair advantage with this word.
Originally posted by Capt_FantasticIt does seem possible to make them surrender and then isolate them.
I don't think you guys would have "never been next." Once you guys were the only ones left fighting, Germany would have had time to build up enough firepower and personnel to make an invasion, by air or sea, possible.Despite Churchill saying you guys would fight to the last man.
Whooooooo this is all getting very interesting...
In 1940, The Nazis had the 2nd best planes in the world after the Jap Zero. I believe the Nazi planes were fuel-capable of bombing and returning home.still got their asses kicked by R.A.F
Well, with all respect due these freedom fighters, a lot of their longevity came from the intervention of the US and Britain, in the form of covert ops missions behind enemy linesmany of them was actually sodiers that never accepted the surrender, sure much of the equpment came by the aid of allies, but much of it was stolen from the germans as well, besides the equipment the didnt turn in
(to Bardock)
First of all, yes, it was a tactical error to switch to strategic bombing, but what does that have to do with what we were talking about? You were talking about the fleet- it was out of range of the German bombers.
If the pre-requisite for attack of the UK was air superiority over the British coastline, the Germans HAD it for more than long enough. At one point nearly all the south coast airbases were out of action. They had whatever opportunity that might have afforded. They didn't do it. Why not? They couldn't. Adolf Galland himself describes in detail how there was never going to be any invasion, that it was a total joke and Hitler told him personally that it was basically to scare the English and kill time before moving against Russia.
Meanwhile, Germany still WOULD have been at war against Russia, and their naval production could not match that of the UK at the best of times.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
You don't conquer nations with medium bombers. Goering tried.Again- the Germans lacked the capacity to launch an invasion across the Channel, and ALL the branches of the German military said so. They were trying to batter the UK into surrender, not invade.
I would also dispute that about the Zero, but another time.
✅ I see what you mean, homes. Thats what I meant; pummeling them into submission.
Yes the Zero, which was made by Mistubishi Motors 😎, was the fastest in the world. Most fuel-capable?, I'm not so certain, pero I wouldn't doubt it, ese.
Let's make something clear here. Invasion was impossible- totally. The Germans lacked the capacity to cross the Channel.
If the UK wasn't going to just surrender, then the only way to beat the UK was by the Battle of the Atlantic. The UK was a fortress- starve it out.
As it happens, the UK/US won that battle fair and square. But in any alternative scenario, the Germans would not have even started it, once a peace was made, and if they had tried, the peace would have gone and we would be back to what happened anyway, nor would they have bothered trying. It wasn't a battle you could win by surprise; it took years.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
This is true. The Germans had better planes, however the RAF were better pilots.
??!
The Germans had been fighting in air wars since the Spanish Civil War. Their training programme was better, they were more experienced and they were fresh from victory, whereas the RAF was fresh from total defeat.
Whoever told you that fact got it totally wrong. The German pilots were VERY good indeed.
The RAF won because:
1. They started to learn quickly
2. Their organisation system was better for national defence, whereas the German one was designed for army support
3. We had home ground.
The planes on each side were more or less equal. Spitfires vs. 109s has to be the most even contest in history.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Let's make something clear here. Invasion was impossible- totally. The Germans lacked the capacity to cross the Channel.
I agreed with that. However, if you guys were all alone, germany would have eventually had time to prepare for an invasion. But, as it is, it became a two front war and Germany over extended itself.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
✅ I see what you mean, homes. Thats what I meant; pummeling them into submission.Yes the Zero, which was made by Mistubishi Motors 😎, was the fastest in the world. Most fuel-capable?, I'm not so certain, pero I wouldn't doubt it, ese.
Fast, but made out of paper. You couldn't win an offensive air battle with them. The Japanese learned that eventually.