MovieChat Forums > Battle of Britain (1969) Discussion > question for british military historians

question for british military historians

posted 19 years ago by Columbialion
243 replies | jump to latest

Just curious if any of you guys knew about Britians land defenses during WWII. we all know about d-day and how the allies had trouble deciding where to attack due to german defences but where were english defenses?

They must have had 10 times the amount of shore defenses because of the due to the fear of a german land invasion. (i assume anyway) just something i never saw pictures of or even thought of the possiblilty of a german land invasion of GB.

Of course as an american who has never been to the south coast of britian Im not sure of the land make up but I assume its not all cilffs and not beaches?

[–] SpiltPersonality 12 years ago

I think you could say that British shore defences were "the RN and the RAF". Without total air supremacy the Luftwaffe would not be able to keep the English Channel clear for an invasion.

By the time Overlord happened, there WAS no Luftwaffe.

Even WITH air supremacy the RN would have caused a lot of problems for any sea landing, but it would have cost the RN dearly.

SpiltPersonality

[–] sascha-17 12 years ago

Even WITH air supremacy the RN would have caused a lot of problems for any sea landing, but it would have cost the RN dearly.

With no RAF to protect their ships, the RN would've had a very hard time indeed. The Luftwaffe could've bombed them pretty much at will .. just look at what happened to the Japanese at Midway. They even had fighters up in the air but those were in the wrong position during the critical US air-attack.

I think the critical error, which made a successful German invasion highly unlikely, occured even before the BoB, when Germany inexplicably failed to capture/wipe out the British and French troops trapped at Dunkirk.

On the first day, only 7,011 men were evacuated, but by the ninth day, a total of 338,226 soldiers (198,229 British and 139,997 French)[5] had been rescued by the hastily assembled fleet of 850 boats.

Eliminating those troops via capture/death would've been a serious blow both to British morale and actual military strength. They left their equipment behind, yes, but rifles and tanks are much easier replaced than trained soldiers.

S.

[–] SpiltPersonality 12 years ago

Whilst I agree air superiority would have caused problems for the RN, it wouldn't have been another Midway. Midway was definative air superiority with dedicated anti shipping aircraft, and wasn't in support of a major naval invasion. The Luftwaffe would NEVER have total 100% air superiority and less dedicated anti shipping capability. So the RN would STILL cause problems for a naval landing.

SpiltPersonality

[–] Hotrodder 12 years ago

Also IIRC the Luftwaffe also didn't have a decent enough armour piercing bomb in 1940. What they had was OK for attacking merchant ships but warships would have been a different matter.

"Oh dear. How sad. Never mind!"

[–] Squeeth2 12 years ago

~~~~~Having had a coule of years to dwell upon this marathon thread I think that Hitler not invading is the definitive verdict on its feasibility.~~~~~

Having had four more years to contemplate the invasion threat, read Britain's War Machine: Weapons, Resources and Experts in the Second World War by David Edgerton and parts of Grand Strategy. Volume I. Rearmament Policy History Of The Second World War. by N. H. Gibbs as well as The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy by Adam Tooze it's hard not to agree with Chamberlain that Hitler had missed the bus and that France 1940 only postponed the inevitable.

Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.

[–] SpiltPersonality 12 years ago

I just read recently about how poor the Luftwaffe was at anti-shipping. Their performance in Norway pretty much showed that they were not very good in anti-Shipping. With the entire RN shoulder to shoulder in the English channel, that would be a LOT of flak making the Luftwaffe even less effective.

I'm now starting to think that the British 'winning' the Battle of Britain is possibly the best thing that possibly could have happened to Germany. I mean, can you imagine what the rest of history would have been like had Sealion actually been attempted and Hitler lost many of those crack units. Suffice to say Barbarossa would have been less effective... or perhaps Stalin would have invaded in '41 instead!

SpiltPersonality

[–] jd-276 8 years ago

I'm now starting to think that the British 'winning' the Battle of Britain is possibly the best thing that possibly could have happened to Germany. I mean, can you imagine what the rest of history would have been like had Sealion actually been attempted and Hitler lost many of those crack units. Suffice to say Barbarossa would have been less effective... or perhaps Stalin would have invaded in '41 instead!

I think the other way. A failed Sealion might well have pricked their ambitions for further conquests. Had Germany tried to invade, the entire invasion force would have been wiped out. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, as has been pointed out already, the Royal Navy was far too strong for the Kriegsmarine and could not have been stopped by any means. Secondly, Britain was better defended than anyone gave them credit for and always had the upper hand in information. Thirdly, the Wehrmacht had no experience of landings and Jodl had decree that it would be like a large river crossing. Finally, it was so shambolically organised that it could never have worked.

As one who has spent 30 years in small craft, I reckon the whole thing was put together by people who don't understand what happens when you put to sea in small boats. Everyone today underestimates this too. It wasn't simply a matter of the Wehrmacht climbing into some boats and blithely invading. Their barges had very low freeboard and a passing destroyer would have sunk dozens of them with its wash without firing a shot. They did not and could not control the sea lanes. Even with air supremacy, their performance against shipping had been very poor in previous battles. They would have had to embark days before they sailed (as the Allies did for Normandy). On top of that - and another smokescreen is the myth of german invincibility. When you understand the French campaign, you can see why they lost the Battle of Britain and why any attempt at an invasion would have been a disaster for the Germans. Three excellent books for background to the Battle of Britain are:

"The Fall of France" by Julian Jackson,

"Operation Sealion" by Leo McKinstry and

"Invasion 1940" by Derek Robinson

I recommend these because they provide information most people are not aware of or have scant awareness of. Plenty of people who have seen this film have read the plethora of books on the Battle but know little of the lead up to it. The RAFs victory in the Battle of Britain made all this impossible anyway.

[–] DD-931 11 years ago

As had already been stated earlier in this very thread, the Luftwaffe could never have pulled off a Battle of Midway. They didn't have anywhere near the anti-ship prowess of U.S. Naval Aviation. Or of the Japanese, quite frankly. Or, remembering Taranto, the British.

[–] R011DaveAAA 11 years ago

I think the critical error, which made a successful German invasion highly unlikely, occured even before the BoB, when Germany inexplicably failed to capture/wipe out the British and French troops trapped at Dunkirk.

Hardly inexplicable. The Germans simply couldn't do it. Their logistics were stretched too far and the country around Dunkirk is not good for armoured operations anyway. Von Rundstedt made a well calculated decision and sold it to Hitler, who was still inclined to listen to his generals a6t that time.

[–] jcard07 11 years ago

I suspect you are a German spy!! :-)

He's not the Messiah! He's a very naughty boy..