Germany wins Battle of Britain

[Menelik_I]

They would do a lot better than the 'volksturm' did...............

Cut on the Red aAwn.

[Lord of the Drunk Penguin]

Best case scenario which actually is very probable. The Germans win the Battle of Britain and gain total air superiority, then the Germans make Operation Sea Lion with Manstein and Guderian in command of the invading ground troops and Raeder and Donitz in command of the fleet, Goring in command of the air force and probably Rundstedt in command of the Channel forces. The British would throw their entire army and fleet to prevent the Germans from landing but the German and Italian planes would probably decimate the British Fleet (as they cannot fight the German fleet and airforce with only their fleet). The Germans will land and take heavy casualties but the German airsuperiority would be too much for the British. It would essentially be backwards Normandy but with less casualties for the invaders. Operation Sealion would go as predicted and Ireland would probably make a treaty with the Germans and attempt to overrun Northern Ireland. The English Nazi party comes into power and there is more man power for Operation Barbarossa.

The long terms effects would probably be more cooperation with Germany and America, Definite American Neutrality, other neutral states which may have had a difficult position in between Britain and Germany would probably lend more support to Germany (Turkey, Spain, Portugal, Ireland etc.). India would rebel, Egypt and British possessions in the Middle East would be defeated, Australia, Canada and colonies in Africa would probably sue for peace. The Germans have foreign volunteers for their invasion of the Soviet Union and they can bring their full force on the Soviets as Britain and America would not be a threat. The Germans can make two pronged attacks on the Soviet Union; one from Europe and another from the Middle East and possibly a Japanese Invasion of Mongolia and Russian Manchuria.

Sounds legit.

[Aymer de Valence]

But in reality the Germans merely need to land their forces on Britain and it is pretty much over. Besides, if the Germans even land on the island and by some miracle the British hold on, then the populace would not be willing to wait again and be attacked. Churchill's policy of never surrender would definitely need to change and everyone would have to make peace with Germany.

You are forgetting 2 vital things:

1. Logistics. If the Germans somehow managed to destroy the RAF, they would still have the Royal Navy continuously hounding them. Apart from transport planes, how would the German army manage to sufficiently keep supply lines open to keep up the momentum of invasion. This is a reason Napoleon would have failed too - he would have beaten the British army headed by George III, but the remnants of the Royal Navy would not have given him the chance to resupply. The blitzkrieg in France was so successful that it overheated - a reason for the German advance halting before Dunkirk. Such a tactic would be much harder without clear land supply lines, like they had in France etc. lso, the German economy at this time was still tenuous. The war came too early for Hitler - he had predicted that the economy would be ready for war in 1942. In 1939/1940, the Germans did not have sufficient strength or resources to become bogged down in trench warfare which is why they attacked with blitzkrieg. Remember, their army of 1939 still used a lot of horses - how would they have fared having to ship these across the channel into a battlefield? This would not have been as leisurely as 1066 and William.

2. You underestimate the tenacity of the British people. I am not simply saying this because I am somehow clouded by patriotism, but any nation's people in this world do not suffer invaders lightly. Look at the IRA and their effective campaign against the British in the 1920s, and the French resistance. The people would not sit back and allow their country to become overrun. There are still the remains of pillboxes and bunkers underground in this country where the guerillas would have been based. The Channel Islands and their acceptance of the Germans was different compared to mainland Britannia. The German Army would be sabotaged wherever they went. Plus, would Hitler's regime have withstood public outroar at the casualties sustained by an invasion of Britain? Would Stalin have seen such a diversion as an opportunity to attack from the East? Sure, they were allies at this time, but we all know what they really thought of one another.

[Watercress]

Have any of you actually read the first page of this thread? Those who say Sealion could work, I mean.

[HunterKYA]

Suppose the Germans won the Battle of Britain, air power alone wouldn't get them over the Channel. Without thinking, we all know they'd have to seize at least partial control of the sea from the Royal Navy, and with where Germany's surface fleet stood in 1940, they would've been dead in the water before Sea Lion was ever attempted.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

This outcome would be too unlikely. As in, highly unlikely. Highly. Have you seen the files for Sealion? Even the Germans thought it would be impossible. They lacked the infrastructure for a large scale amphibious invasion, and their U-Boat Fleet was no match in a pitched battle to control the Channel. Surely Air Supremacy over the Channel could be a great boost, but let's remember that a supply chain would have to be established, and that would be a big no no.

Germany could have made peace with Britain. That was the only sensible choice.

[DarkArk]

they would still have the Royal Navy continuously hounding them.

At night. During the day the seas would have belonged to the Luftwaffe, and any RN ships that forgot that would have been sunk in short order. Admirals of the era were terrified of land-based aircraft for a reason. There also would have been significant u-boat deployments, which no doubt would have taken their toll. Especially because the night-fighting indirect action that would have happened would have played to their strengths.

their U-Boat Fleet was no match in a pitched battle to control the Channel.

There wouldn't be a pitched battle in the Channel, to do so would invite destruction of the RN.

I think people are underestimating how devastating complete German air superiority over the Channel and waterways would be for Britain. Coastal shipping would be brought to an end. Bombers would be able to intercept convoys with little need to worry about interception. Fact is they don't need to invade to bring Britain to her knees.

The people would not sit back and allow their country to become overrun.

Really? Happens all the time in history. The resistance movements of WWII have been glorified in what they were able to accomplish, most people weren't an active participant, and they didn't succeed to preventing the Germans from conquering and ruling their country.

Plus, would Hitler's regime have withstood public outroar at the casualties sustained by an invasion of Britain?

They suffered millions fighting the Soviets, and there was no real outcry until after it was clear that they were likely to lose. I fail to see how fighting in Britain would somehow be different.

the Germans did not have sufficient strength or resources to become bogged down in trench warfare

On the contrary, it was the British who were not well equipped for that kind of fighting. The British had little heavy equipment, and the BEF escaped with its men but little of its gear.

If it got to the point of the Germans landing one or more armies on British soil, Britain has likely already lost. Now I don't think it is likely it would have gotten to that point, but let's not pretend that the British would have been able to stand up to the might of the Heer if it was able to bring its power to bear.

Also the kind of paper projecting we are doing is not very good history. On paper the Germans should have lost horribly to the French in 1940 as well, and we all know how that turned out.

[HunterKYA]

Germany could have made peace with Britain. That was the only sensible choice.

With the defiant stance that Churchill took towards Germany after taking office as PM, it would've been hypocritical of him to accept a German-dictated peace.

[Karabekian]

Also remember that the Germans did not have a landing fleet. This would be undertaken by barges, civilian and military and ships of different size. They could not go to shore as was possible for the Allies and their developments.

The British army could most likely be defeated, but a landing would never succeed.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

But who says Churchill would stay in power to make a peace, I'd say that by then the generals would want Churchill gone as would most of the populace.
I also fail to see how the Royal Navy is so strong, we're in that time period when the Royal Navy was no longer a super power and Italy's fleet, France's fleet and the German fleet were a match to the Royal Navy and especially together. Air superiority became the decisive factor in naval battles, so how would the Royal Navy defeat the Kriegsmarine or even try to stop them; that would create a pitched battle in which Britain is at a severe disadvantage.
If Britain could stop the Germans from landing in the first place, then why did the Germans land their troops on Norway in the face of the Royal Navy?
Stalin will just keep shipping raw materials to Germany so Germany could eventually build up its fleet. While Britain can't build up their fleet as their shipping of raw materials is very limited and the have little raw material.

[Knight_Of_Ne]

Money, i think you are vastly overrating the effect of german air superiority over the channel and for a matter of fact the Kriegsmarine.

By the end of the Norwegian campaign the Kriegsmarines surface fleet was broken as a power, with the vast majority of their cruisers and destroyers involved sunk or heavily damaged and out of action. Germany had had something like half her destroyers and cruisers sunk. The Kriegsmarine sacrificed its surface fleet and any hope of it challenging the Royal Navy at Norway. Plus Italy's fleet was far to busy fighting the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean and the French Navy, although powerfull wasn't even at the Axis's disposal.

Air power was also pretty useless considering the biggest threat to the German forces in the channel were small vessels such as destroyers and motor torpedo boats of whom the Royal Navy had several hundred at their disposal. Such vessels (MTB's especially) were small enough and fast enough to avoid the threat of the Luftwaffe at day or night whilst still being capable of tearing through the inadequate transport force the Germans had available.

To put it simply German simply didn't have the capability to protect any kind of landing let alone keep any landed forces supplied. Even with complete aerial superiority (which was damn near inpossible to acheive in reality) Germany couldn't have pulled off operation Sealion.

PS. sorry for the wall of text

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Well I did say that was the best case scenario, alternatively public opinion would turn against Churchill and they would want to come to a peace agreement; which would not be relatively costly for the British. Contrary to popular belief Churchill was not undisputed, nor did the generals acknowledge most of his military decisions. I think that if Britain loses their air force then they would not be replacing it and would just be sitting there while Hitler acquires raw material. That was after all the reason that Hitler invaded the Soviet Union; to get an indirect approach into winning the war as he knew his fleet wasn't ready (same reason why the Battle of the Atlantic was mostly raids and U boats).

[Darkhorse]

Admittedly this is pure speculation, but I had fun writing it

But who says Churchill would stay in power to make a peace, I'd say that by then the generals would want Churchill gone as would most of the populace.

Maybe, Churchill had an antagonistic relationship with generals at the best of times. But his successor, civilian or military, may have nod been as strong anyway. Peace negotiations in the light of successful German invasion was a possibility, then again, when fighting in their own gardens, with their own wives and children behind them. Soldiers and generals with Churchill's to the last rhetoric might have sunk in (the rhetoric was popular) and won the day through sheer bullheadedness.

I also fail to see how the Royal Navy is so strong, we're in that time period when the Royal Navy was no longer a super power and Italy's fleet, France's fleet and the German fleet were a match to the Royal Navy and especially together.

Yes and no, the Italian navy caused a few problems for the British fleet in the Med, but this was a separate, smaller British fleet than the home fleet. Much of the French fleet had been destroyed by the British by July 1940 (this moved convinced the rest of the world that Britain meant business). And Germany's surface fleet was no match for the British Home Fleet. The sea battles in April 1940, in Norway resulted in the loss/disabling of 16 destroyers, not to mention the actually land raid was fairly successful. After this, Scharnhorst and her sister encountered the glorious and her escort, Glorious loss was not that severe, yet Scharnhorst being put out of action was pretty damning. Her and her sister were out of action until 1941, and the loss of Glorious allowed allied ships and men to escape to Britain. So Germany had 2 capital ships out of action, lost a U-boat, several supply vessels, and 16 destroyers. Where as British losses, a small number of destroyers, and a carrier, could pretty easily be soaked up and replaced. Germany's could not.

If worse came to worse, the British could always count on ships returning from other theatres. Germany could not.

Air superiority became the decisive factor in naval battles, so how would the Royal Navy defeat the Kriegsmarine or even try to stop them; that would create a pitched battle in which Britain is at a severe disadvantage.

Airpower wasn't really realised as a decisive battle winning force until later in the war. In the early stages of the Battle of Britain, Germany had the opportunity to target shipping in the channel, and they took it. It wasn't particularly helpful, and served pretty much only as bait.

The channel could be blocked off at one end by the Home Fleet sitting in the North Sea north of the Netherlands, this prevents German shipping from leaving Kiel, and although in range of German air power (beyond escort range I'd imagine), would also be in range of surviving British RAF squadrons further north in Britain and carrier fighters. Over the south, Germany might well have achieved air superiority, but once those bombers loose their escorts, they are easy game. A fleet here could raid the channel with destroyers (Germany aren't going to have ships of significant value in the narrow part of the channel) and play havoc with transports, even if the destroyers are picked off once dawn breaks by the Luftwaffe.

Manoeuvring in the wider part of the channel is more possible, A fleet in the Irish Sea or off of the south west could threaten German moves in the wider channel, and allows for night raids by British cruisers and destroyers, if combined with MBT's could also cause havoc (see the e-boat raid on the fleet training for overlord). It is more likely that larger German ships would operate here, which causes a problem for both sides! A British fleet here is more vulnerable to air attack however. A massing of carriers might be the solution!

If Britain could stop the Germans from landing in the first place, then why did the Germans land their troops on Norway in the face of the Royal Navy?

Norway was a weird one. I think that Germany underestimated the strength of the Royal Navy in this area, and rarely, had a formidable fleet of their own. This wouldn't happen often! Nevertheless, it fell apart, luckily for Germany the land campaign faired better.

Stalin will just keep shipping raw materials to Germany so Germany could eventually build up its fleet. While Britain can't build up their fleet as their shipping of raw materials is very limited and the have little raw material.

Canada. Not only did Canada have the resources to give to Britain, but did so free of charge, and had the capacity to build ships there and sail them over.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

With the defiant stance that Churchill took towards Germany after taking office as PM, it would've been hypocritical of him to accept a German-dictated peace.

Actually that was just the surface.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Canada, saving Britain's ass since 1775! We love Mother Britannia, we really do.
Darkhorse made a fierce rebuttal, good job. I wonder how much it would take for the German U boats to stop the shipping from Canada.

[I WUB PUGS]

The evacuation from Dunkerque saved Britain, not the victory in the Battle of Britain. Remember at the time that neither side could maintain air cover for long, especially the Germans.

Germany did not have the simultaneous capability to support a landing by providing CAS to the army that would land in southern England, bombard British industry, mitigate the Royal Navy or attack the RAF. As the BoB proved, Germany was only capable of doing one thing at a time. The switch to industrial bombing gave breathing room to the RAF and production of new planes could just move out of bomber range. If Germany didn't have enough planes to attack cities and airfields, how would they have enough to attack cities, airfields, troop formations and naval sorties?

The sheer number of troops Britain saved from Dunkerque nullified any real hope of Sealion being successful. The Germans would need to land and take a major port facility along with several air fields in the first days of the invasion and the entire time enough air resources would have to be dedicated at keeping the RN from cutting off the link between France and whatever port they took. That means fewer planes to take on either the RAF, act as a force multiplier for what would be a severely outnumbered expeditionary force, or tackling what British industry they could to keep the British from resupplying.

Now of course the RN issue wouldn't have been a problem had Germany had sufficient ships, but they didn't. Its doubtful they could have even embarked a force like this, let alone supply it, and they certainly couldn't support it.

The number of regular army units pulled out at Dunkerque gave the British an assured victory on the ground if a landing was ever attempted. This is without what would surely be an "all or nothing" run into the channel by the RN with all RAF planes available supporting. I say the evacuation from Dunkerque was more important because if Germany was able to conduct Sealion fairly quickly, they could've been attacking purely raw TA troops with veterans and the need for more and more air support wouldn't be so. Entirely possible that they could break the green troops and walk to London........its not far. Now put 300,000 pissed off veterans in the way.....

Best chance for Britain to be knocked out would have been the total destruction of the RAF and then a concentrated U-Boat campaign to starve the islands. After the RAF had been knocked out, start hitting the port facilities so whatever supplies do get through the U-Boats, have nowhere to unload.

[Darkhorse]

^ As I said in an earlier post, Luftwaffe pilots must have had to eat 3 shredded wheat a day do do what was expected of them

Walking to London wouldn't have been easy though. As I said earlier, Kent would be a nightmare to any invader once the bridges across the Medway had been blown. The beaches and major ports best suited to an invasion (Dover, Broadstairs, Ramsgate) are surrounded by steep cliffs and beaches like Whitstable are not firm enough to support any invasion except at the highest of high tides. Rings of defences combined with the fact that German armour in any serious capacity would be much further West would certainly slow any German push. Canterbury may fall, but Maidstone and Rochester (key towns because of bridges) would be easy to defence and both are in range of naval gunfire support from British ships.

An invasion force landed west of Folkestone might have an easier time, but there is still the issue of the military canal (no bridging vehicles remember), and the North Downs (the spine of Kent, a network of steep hills that separate the county) to navigate to get to London.

[I WUB PUGS]

haha, I was thinking ze Germans would have to take Portsmouth directly to have any sort of a chance. Which is of course laughable.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

The only I can see Germany (or Napoleon for that fact) conquering Britain by assault without an adequate fleet or air force would have been if they mobilized every ally or dependent state and throwing all those armies into Britain. Eventually if if all those countries can't defeat Britain, then Britain would be bled dry; public opinion probably would have turned against the government before that though. If the Germans managed to land or destroyed the British air force then it would be stupid to keep fighting when you could get pretty decent terms.

Napoleon on the other hand had an adequate fleet and well enough trained soldiers, but there was no will of Britain to surrender or make peace. He would have to take London for Britain to give in, which is by no means impossible for Napoleon as technology has not given undisciplined recruits the means to fight a powerful army (especially since the technological advantage, powerful army and larger army are on Napoleon's side). But the relatively weak British army and their many recruits would have caused high casualties for Napoleon if he is also going to fight the continental powers.
Speaking of technology: I know that this was completely useless but anyone know how useful or what happened to those submarines and torpedoes Napoleon built?

[Cyclops]

So Luftwaffe victory over RAF in 1940 doesn't lead to the fall of GB, just some additional denting.

I suppose it does mean the RN would have to come forward and take some hits to ward off any crazy Wehrmacht attempts at Sea Lion, maybe the British Isles experinces famine as a result of a more succesdful blockade (if the British air escorts are suppressed leaving convoys less protected), and there's a slightly increased chance GB would surrender if Churchill was blown up (thats two times sweet FA).