First I'll do the Battle of Britain and then later sometime I'll look at something else.

I'm sure we've all heard that the Luftwaffe would have won the Battle of Britain if only they hadn't switched to bombing cities instead of airfields because they had the RAF on its knees. This though does not hold much water.

Luftwaffe bombers had limited range and the RAF airfields in Wales were too far. The RAF was almost at the point of transferring to these airfields when the pressure was lifted off of them. Sure, flying in from Wales would have limited the fuel the Hurricanes and Spitfires had for defending English skies, but they still would have been in the fight with their airfields out of range of the enemy.

The RAF also ended the BoB larger than when it had started. Sure, its pilots were tired and many veterans had been killed, but the same held true for the Luftwaffe's pilots who were exhausted and suffering from high loses.

Of course and even if the RAF mainforce had been defeated an invasion was still problematic as I cannot imagine the Royal Navy not expending every ship they had to prevent it and the water crossing extremely difficult even with air superiority.
Other related myths the Luftwaffe strength frequently quoted always includes every possible airframe while the RAF strength only usable aircraft and not counting the obsolete or other aircraft that could be used against an invasion fleet. The modern fighters available (Hurricanes Spitfires) were not even good aircraft for attacking marine craft, only for air superiority. There was a significant number of reserve, obsolete, coastal command and light bombers that were still available to be used against a landing zone, invasion fleet, admitted with massive causalities likely without fighter cover, but like the navy it seems improbable that any aircraft capable of mounting a weapon would not have been expended on this mission. The example of the defense of the Habbaniya RAF base in Iraq, where every trainer and transport was bomb armed and sent against the attacking forces is a small example of what would have occurred, taking off from sports grounds and roads etc to drop whatever ordinance could be strapped on to them.

Operation Sealion

The Germans themselves fell into the myth that this was possible. It's laughable that they thought that they had a chance.

For starters they would have to win the Battle of Britain, which they couldn't. Then they needed enough transport ships to ferry their troops across the moat. They didn't have this either. In fact, their plan was to use Rhine river barges to help and even with them they could only ferry one division across at a time and that would be without their heavy equipment. Not to mention that on every trip across, even without the Royal Navy turning up to play, some river barges would sink on their own, meaning each trip across would carry less and less troops.

Of course the Kriegsmarine fully expected the RN to suicide themselves on any German invasion fleet, which the Kriegsmarine expected would destroy the KM. The Luftwaffe wouldn't be able to help out much here because they lacked the ability in their bombers, and pilots, to easily bomb ships.

So, one division, at most, without heavy equipment, would make it ashore in the first wave, with any other wave been hours, or days, away. Total pipe dream.

kiore wrote:Of course and even if the RAF mainforce had been defeated an invasion was still problematic as I cannot imagine the Royal Navy not expending every ship they had to prevent it and the water crossing extremely difficult even with air superiority.
Other related myths the Luftwaffe strength frequently quoted always includes every possible airframe while the RAF strength only usable aircraft and not counting the obsolete or other aircraft that could be used against an invasion fleet. The modern fighters available (Hurricanes Spitfires) were not even good aircraft for attacking marine craft, only for air superiority. There was a significant number of reserve, obsolete, coastal command and light bombers that were still available to be used against a landing zone, invasion fleet, admitted with massive causalities likely without fighter cover, but like the navy it seems improbable that any aircraft capable of mounting a weapon would not have been expended on this mission. The example of the defense of the Habbaniya RAF base in Iraq, where every trainer and transport was bomb armed and sent against the attacking forces is a small example of what would have occurred, taking off from sports grounds and roads etc to drop whatever ordinance could be strapped on to them.

Good points. When comparing strenghts during the BoB it's usually number of RAF fighters against number of LW fighters and bombers.

Rome Existed wrote:First I'll do the Battle of Britain and then later sometime I'll look at something else.

I'm sure we've all heard that the Luftwaffe would have won the Battle of Britain if only they hadn't switched to bombing cities instead of airfields because they had the RAF on its knees. This though does not hold much water.

Luftwaffe bombers had limited range and the RAF airfields in Wales were too far. The RAF was almost at the point of transferring to these airfields when the pressure was lifted off of them. Sure, flying in from Wales would have limited the fuel the Hurricanes and Spitfires had for defending English skies, but they still would have been in the fight with their airfields out of range of the enemy.

The RAF also ended the BoB larger than when it had started. Sure, its pilots were tired and many veterans had been killed, but the same held true for the Luftwaffe's pilots who were exhausted and suffering from high loses.

Very true, though one thing, the Luftwaffe bombers did have the range to bomb airfields in Wales (they bombed Liverpool in 1940 after all) there was just no point, not only would they have never caught anything on the ground at those distances, the raids would need to be done during daylight, without fighter escort for much of the journey over England, suffering heavy losses for pretty much nothing. The switch to night time bombing of cities was a more successful tactic for the Germans as far as losses were concerned.

How long does it take to cross the channel? Not very long. So I don't see how the Royal Navy could have been active in stopping the invasion because its ships would have had to have been close enough to intervene at a moments notice. Yet I'm assuming that their ships were kept well away from potential Luftwaffe attacks. I'm also guessing that if the invasion had taken place, the Germans would have flooded the channel and North Sea with U-boats just prior to the attack, all eager to start their turkey shoot.

If I'd have been in charge of the invasion, I think I'd have been looking towards training and utilising as many paratroopers (and spies) as possible (and build their required transport), just prior to any invasion from the sea. Their short-term job would have been to inactivate as many airfields as possible, destroying all planes that were on the ground. Also, to knock out any long-range artillery and destroy lines of communication.

How fast is a Rhine river barge? How fast when the channel suddenly becomes choppy? How fast when you're not going for speed but coordination?

Here's a good myth from WWII - the claim that eating carrots improves night vision. I have heard this many, many times in the US, and recently had a discussion with a Norwegian officer who thought a link existed.

But it's not true at all - it's based on an "ex-recto assertion" from the RAF designed to conceal the fact that night fighters carried interception radars.

http://www.snopes.com/food/ingredient/carrots.asp

All Japanese soldiers were short.

Australian soldiers were totally shocked on the Kokoda Track when they ran into a Japanese unit where none of the Japanese were under 6 feet tall.

The US saved Australia from invasion


The Japanese themselves had no plan to invade Australia. Some junior naval officers requested that Australia be invaded, but the army refused, the navy also refused and Tojo refused. There were a few reasons. One being that it would overextend the Japanese lines which were already overextended. Another being that army thought it'd take at least 10 divisions which they couldn't spare and that they couldn't invade and hold the entire country either and finally that the Japanese didn't have the shipping to support a force that large so far from home.

From the Australian side we weren't saved because we pushed the Japanese back in New Guinea. Guadalcanal was just one of the links the Japanese needed to isolate Australia, the other being Port Moresby in New Guinea.

Matt_B wrote:That German tanks were vastly better than allied ones is a persistent myth.

Sure, it's an argument that can get quite technical and there are many factors to weigh up, but they certainly weren't packing more powerful guns or thicker armour than equivalent allied vehicles.

Especially at the beginning of the war, say the invasion of France, when they used training tanks, such as the PzI and PzII, not to mention the PzIII and PzIV, both of which were undergunned and underarmoured compared to the S35, Char1Bis and Matty 2.

There's a story from North Africa of a British officer, who was a POW, saying to his German captors as they passed an 8.8cm Flak, that it wasn't sporting to use an antiaircraft gun to shoot tanks, to which the Germans replied that it wasn't fair to use a tank with armour so thick only an antiaircraft gun could penetrate.

Some word "myths".

Panzer means tank.
It actually means armour. The Germans didn't call their tanks, um, whatever word they have for tank, because their development didn't have the same history. Panzerkampfwagen is what they called their tanks.

Wehrmacht was the German army.
It was actually the German military. The Heer was the German army.

I thought Panzer meant Panther. Oh well.

To get some idea of the way the Royal Navy would have dealt with an invasion we can see what they did during the battle of Crete the following year. The Germans won the battle of Crete but only with their airborne troops. They were not able to land a single soldier by sea during the battle because all attempts to do so were intercepted by the Royal Navy.

This was despite the main British base being as far away as Alexandria and massive German air superiority. The Mediterranean Fleet sustained considerable losses but they did their job. The Home fleet was much stronger and would have pressed home attacks against what would have been largely undefended and slow moving transport convoys. Any Germans who got ashore would have had very poor lines of supply and communication and no experience of coping with an amphibious operation.

U boats would not have been a factor in 1940. The Germans were not able to put many U-boats to sea at one time in 1940 and it took time before they set up their bases on the west coast of France anyway.

Grimstad wrote:I thought Panzer meant Panther. Oh well.

The Panther is a panzerkampfwagen and it has panzer

Pope Pius X11, knew nothing about the fact that 50% or more of the death camps in Croatia, where run by his beloved Jesuit priests. He also, knew nothing about the hundreds of Nazis who sheltered in the Vatican city buildings after the war. He also, knew nothing of the Nazi rat runs created by the Vatican, that helped these Nazis escape the allied forces.

He also had the cheek to call himself "The Holy SEE!"!

Has anyone seen the series "Hogans heroes"? Schultz... "I see nothing! Nothing!"

Leonidas wrote:To get some idea of the way the Royal Navy would have dealt with an invasion we can see what they did during the battle of Crete the following year. The Germans won the battle of Crete but only with their airborne troops. They were not able to land a single soldier by sea during the battle because all attempts to do so were intercepted by the Royal Navy.

This was despite the main British base being as far away as Alexandria and massive German air superiority. The Mediterranean Fleet sustained considerable losses but they did their job. The Home fleet was much stronger and would have pressed home attacks against what would have been largely undefended and slow moving transport convoys. Any Germans who got ashore would have had very poor lines of supply and communication and no experience of coping with an amphibious operation.

U boats would not have been a factor in 1940. The Germans were not able to put many U-boats to sea at one time in 1940 and it took time before they set up their bases on the west coast of France anyway.

Yeah, in 1940 they were only putting something like half a dozen Uboats to sea at once I think.