What if Germany Won the Battle of Britain?

Jun 2017
2,909
Connecticut
What would have changed if Germany did win the Battle of Britain? It was possible. The British bombing raid of August 26th may have been stopped by weather and/or defenses. The Germans may not have over-reacted to the limited damage from that raid and continued their campaign against the RAF. Something else??

The Germans would have (short term) air superiority over Britain, but the factories turning out Spitfires, Hurricanes...... were out of bomber range and in a few months replacement aircraft and pilots would have become available. The Luftwaffe losses in men and aircraft were substantial and the German air forces lacked heavy bombers, moderating their ability to inflict sever damage to the island.

German nautical resources were hugely deficient in their ability to protect an invasion from the Royal navy. An invasion would likely have been mauled in the channel, at the loss of a number of Royal navy ships. Whatever losses the Royal navy suffers would have been counterbalanced by the fact that the Germans probably would have lost nearly every vessel capable of transporting troops across the channel with limited ability to replace these boats in short or medium term, by which time the RAF would probably be reconstituted.

Even if the Germans managed to successfully land some ground forces, armor and supply were huge issues to overcome. Living off the land was not an option in the Blitzkrieg tactical doctrine.

It appears to me that the outcome of the Battle of Britain is over-hyped and nothing would have changed if it historically went the other way.
It was possible. Invading the UK through gaining air superiority/naval superiority was possible, wasn't the pipe dream it was in WWI because of planes and RN's size being scaled down so much(and split in three). The issue was the Nazi's didn't care, it was not a priority for them. For example switching from trying to defeat the RAF to civilian bombing can be seen as stupid from our perspective if we're thinking of them getting air superiority to launch Operation Sealion but if the goal was to get the UK to quit that is a pretty rational switch to make(inspired by Berlin being bomed or not). The Nazi's goal was to acquire "living space" and the UK is an island whose power far outweighed her tiny size. The point of fighting the UK was to make the UK leave the war while expending as few resources as possible, before Hitler declared war on the US which paved the way for Torch, the Invasion of Italy and eventually D-Day it made much more tactical sense to just do what they did in 1941 and pretend the UK didn't exist while trying to destroy the USSR. The UK's main opponent at this point in the war were the Italians.

And the UK not being a priority was reflected in Germany's pre WWII budgeting decisions where pretty much an entire navy was aborted during construction, the would be difficulty of Sealion in 1940/1941 is largely a consequence of that. The UK and all Europeans largely did the same but the UK had more ships in the first place.
 
Jan 2009
8,488
In the Past
And the UK not being a priority was reflected in Germany's pre WWII budgeting decisions where pretty much an entire navy was aborted during construction, the would be difficulty of Sealion in 1940/1941 is largely a consequence of that. The UK and all Europeans largely did the same but the UK had more ships in the first place.
Mind you, a navy strong enough to matter would have been an Olympic fiscal endeavor to build from scratch, along with an Airforce and Army. I wouldn't say it wasn't a priority, rather it wasn't a meaningful possibility to fund it and still be able to crush the French on land.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,826
Sydney
both post point out the obvious
Germany is a continental power , chasing naval supremacy is just too big a material investment
better to leave Britain go bankrupt and starving with asymmetrical warfare
as been pointed out in other thread , the might of the royal navy was useless for land warfare
 
Likes: Futurist
Jan 2015
165
Kent
Hitler made two fundamental mistakes that cost him the war. He didn`t finish Britain off before turning on Russia and declaring war on America after Pearl Harbour. The Japanese didn`t even tell Germany who was their ally that they were going to attack the American Fleet.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,382
Hitler made two fundamental mistakes that cost him the war. He didn`t finish Britain off before turning on Russia and declaring war on America after Pearl Harbour. The Japanese didn`t even tell Germany who was their ally that they were going to attack the American Fleet.
Well Hitler did not tell Mussolini that he was attacking Russia. or Poland, Or Mussolini Hitler that he was attacking Greece (though I think Hitler found out) The Axis were a bunch of countries that were not good at being allies. REading a book on Franco-Hitler relationship. Both sides made their iniatate demands in neiogatiates and noetehr side bent one iota. The PSanish fair enough they were realitic about teh sort of help they needed if they were to enter the war. But Hitler comprimise, give something up>

But Finish off Britain How? Nazi Germany simiply did not have the means. Tanks do not float. Teh Germans were just cocky teh war was over. Britian had lost they just did not realise it. Soveoit Russia was a rotten structiure that woudl collaspe. Nazi Germnay fundmentally mis read the state of play. (though many other were doing likewise, not many had much faith in the Red Army)
 
Jan 2015
165
Kent
The allies did have amphibious tanks that could float but admittedly only for river crossings not the Channel. However, the allies did have Tank Landing Craft on D Day that's how we got armoured vehicles to France.
You are probably right when you say the Nazi`s didn`t have the means to invade Britain but even if they had not gaining air supremacy meant an invasion would fail.
 
Jun 2017
2,909
Connecticut
Mind you, a navy strong enough to matter would have been an Olympic fiscal endeavor to build from scratch, along with an Airforce and Army. I wouldn't say it wasn't a priority, rather it wasn't a meaningful possibility to fund it and still be able to crush the French on land.
But a "navy strong enough to matter" is not a consistent definition. In WWII a "navy strong enough to matter"(at least in Europe) was considerably smaller because of naval disarmament. It's like setting a curve, if the curve is lower a lower grade scores higher.
 

Poly

Ad Honorem
Apr 2011
6,698
Georgia, USA
It was possible. Invading the UK through gaining air superiority/naval superiority was possible... it was not a priority for them. For example switching from trying to defeat the RAF to civilian bombing can be seen as stupid from our perspective if we're thinking of them getting air superiority to launch Operation Sealion but if the goal was to get the UK to quit that is a pretty rational switch to make(inspired by Berlin being bomed or not). The Nazi's goal was to acquire "living space" and the UK is an island whose power far outweighed her tiny size...

You're right about the goal but wrong about Sea Lion.

It was never possible.

Nazi Germany didn't have the resources to launch a seaborne operation of that size.

Sea Lion was just a bluff.
 
Jan 2015
3,363
Front Lines of the Pig War
It was possible. Invading the UK through gaining air superiority/naval superiority was possible, wasn't the pipe dream it was in WWI because of planes and RN's size being scaled down so much(and split in three). The issue was the Nazi's didn't care, it was not a priority for them. For example switching from trying to defeat the RAF to civilian bombing can be seen as stupid from our perspective if we're thinking of them getting air superiority to launch Operation Sealion but if the goal was to get the UK to quit that is a pretty rational switch to make(inspired by Berlin being bomed or not). The Nazi's goal was to acquire "living space" and the UK is an island whose power far outweighed her tiny size. The point of fighting the UK was to make the UK leave the war while expending as few resources as possible, before Hitler declared war on the US which paved the way for Torch, the Invasion of Italy and eventually D-Day it made much more tactical sense to just do what they did in 1941 and pretend the UK didn't exist while trying to destroy the USSR. The UK's main opponent at this point in the war were the Italians.

And the UK not being a priority was reflected in Germany's pre WWII budgeting decisions where pretty much an entire navy was aborted during construction, the would be difficulty of Sealion in 1940/1941 is largely a consequence of that. The UK and all Europeans largely did the same but the UK had more ships in the first place.
Sigh...

Emperor, you keep posting the same incorrect statements, they simply aren't true and the more you repeat them doesn't change it. :confused:


It was possible. Invading the UK through gaining air superiority/naval superiority was possible, wasn't the pipe dream it was in WWI because of planes and RN's size being scaled down so much
The RN wasn't "scaled down so much", while it was slightly smaller, it was far greater relative to the. German fleet,

At the Battle of Jutland in 1916 both Germany & the Royal Navy sailed with every available capital ship, with the RN holding a 37 to 27 advantage over Germany.

By the beginning of WWII, the British have 21 capital ships vs 2 German.
Comparing the captital ships of the RN to entire Axis alliance, there are only 21 Axis capital ships.
In addition to the 21 British ships (15 battleships/battlecruisers + 6 carriers) there are 13 more capital ships building, meaning a total of 34.


, wasn't the pipe dream it was in WWI because of planes and RN's size being scaled down so much(and split in three).
It wasn't split in three.
There was the Atlantic fleet, and the Mediterranean fleet.

The Far East fleet was a couple of cruisers, a few destroyers, one light carrier + some Australian ships.
Hardly a major factor in Britain vs Germany in 1939.

It was possible. Invading the UK through gaining air superiority/naval superiority was possible, wasn't the pipe dream it was in WWI because of planes and RN's size being scaled down so much(and split in three). The issue was the Nazi's didn't care, it was not a priority for them. For example switching from trying to defeat the RAF to civilian bombing can be seen as stupid from our perspective if we're thinking of them getting air superiority to launch Operation Sealion

And the UK not being a priority was reflected in Germany's pre WWII budgeting decisions where pretty much an entire navy was aborted during construction, the would be difficulty of Sealion in 1940/1941 is largely a consequence of that. The UK and all Europeans largely did the same but the UK had more ships in the first place.
Again, simply not correct.
The Germans didn't "abort an entire navy" pre-WWII, on the contrary they were attempting to match British building with Plan Z, they were just heavily outclassed.

In comparison to 21 British capital ships and 13 building, the Germans have 2 capital ships (Scharnhorsts), plus 6 more building (2 Bismarcks, 2 Zeppelins, and the first 2 "H" class super-battleships), plus 7 more planned as part of Plan Z.

The fact that the last 2 German battleships were laid down in July and August 1939 certainly doesn't refelct your assertion of"Germany's pre WWII budgeting decisions where pretty much an entire navy was aborted during construction"
 
Jun 2017
2,909
Connecticut
You're right about the goal but wrong about Sea Lion.

It was never possible.

Nazi Germany didn't have the resources to launch a seaborne operation of that size.

Sea Lion was just a bluff.
Well yeah it was a bluff cause they were never going to do it. That didn't mean it was impossible or they didn't have the resources. Unlike in WWI where it was almost literally impossible.