What do you folks reckon Hitler's plans for the British

>>2918361
Probably the same as other western occupied countries.

>>2918361
Probably not much different than France, most likely even better. That being said, the eternal anglo deserves suffering and only suffering. Gott strafe England.

>>2918361
The same he did to France
>No army for you
>We get to occupy the most developed part of your country
>We will force you to hand over your eastern colonies to Japan
>We will annex your country when it stops being convenient for us to keep you around
Not that Hitler could have defeated Britain because you know he had a smaller surface navy than Italy.

File: 1496630275926.png (196KB, 710x750px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 710x750px

>>2918371
>the eternal anglo deserves suffering and only suffering. Gott strafe England.

Don't be nasty to the Anglo

File: britons corner saxon menace.jpg (108KB, 908x683px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 908x683px

>>2918371
>Gott strafe England.

You take em from the east, we'll do the west.

File: Dresden.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>2918371

Could land based artillery and aircraft have neutralized the numerical superiority held by the Royal Navy?

Approximately how many men and tanks would need to be landed to achieve a knockout blow to the UK's war machine?

Would there have been a rebellion in Northern Ireland in the case of an invasion?

>>2918475
>Could land based artillery and aircraft have neutralized the numerical superiority held by the Royal Navy?
Not quickly, no. Yes, if the RN ships hang around where the Germans have air superiority, eventually they'll all sink. But in the case of a sealion, they're more than capable of starting an evening outside of airbase range (Say, up near Hull) and steaming down to the Channel and smashing everything in the water and shelling what ports you might have taken. And that's assuming the RAF doesn't fly cover for them.

>Approximately how many men and tanks would need to be landed to achieve a knockout blow to the UK's war machine?

The UK had the following on September 11th, 1940

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-Defence-UK/img/DefenseOfUK-34.jpg

Usually you want roughly a 3:1 advantage to be able to advance quickly, and more if you're storming a beach, so we're talking in the several dozen division range.

>>2918549

Let's say Germany committed the same resources as would later go to Barbarossa. What's the math on that?

Britain might get some preferential treatment due to Hitler's anglophilia, although many political opponents are executed and many English men are forced into labour for the German war effort.

Northern Ireland likely goes to Ireland, the Irish government began to make maneuvers to this effect during 1940 when it seemed Germany would win and Hitler apparently did like the Irish as well (he appreciated their music, and according to Christopher Sterzenbach the German far-right was very pro-Irish during the 1920s). At the very least, NI Catholics will receive special treatment on account of being very pro-German.

>>2918692
>Let's say Germany committed the same resources as would later go to Barbarossa. What's the math on that?

Military production isn't fungible like that, especially not in the short term. You can't just take a bunch of tank and small arms factories and turn them into aircraft factories, nor can you accelerate pilot training, the real sticking point, all that quickly.

Giving Germany an ability to channel raw material production into things like sealift requires an enormous retooling of the infrastructure to even catch up with the UK, let alone surpass it. That's going to take years at least. By that point, America has likely joined the war and the RAF is pounding your cities into rubble.

Well yeah, it would go without saying that he'd demand the absolute capitulation of the high command, in many instances for the sake of pragmatism he'd accept defections. A puppet government could probably be organized, he spoke highly of the Empire and would probably conspire to bolster that but re-orientate it so that Germany was more of a beneficiary.
But no, Brits wouldn't be going to camps much of what Prussians and Germans more generally used to admire in themselves exists also and in some instances especially in Brits as-well.

>>2918458
The Germans had it coming

>>2918382
France was a special case, considering Northern France both as a potential invasion location as well as where to invade the UK
>No army for you
true
>We get to occupy the most developed part of your country
More likely it would be a Vichy style collaborationist government with Edward VII as the new monarch, only border shift I would see is a loss of NI
>We will force you to hand over your eastern colonies to Japan
true
>We will annex your country when it stops being convenient for us to keep you around
due to, you know, gradually losing the war. If the UK had fallen quickly I imagine Hitler would be content to leave the pliant Vichy state in non AL france and shift as many resources as possible towards killing the USSR, same goes for Britain, though I think there'd be a sizeable contingent left to root out resistance

>>2918717

The USA was able to take a bunch of automobile factories and turn them to arms production. Why was Germany unable to overtake the RAF with a larger production base? Why was their pilot training so woefully inadequate?

>>2919129
>The USA was able to take a bunch of automobile factories and turn them to arms production
A tank, in a ridiculously reductionist fashion, is a car with treads instead of wheels, lots of armor plate, and a gun stuck on top. There's a lot smaller of a change from an auto assembly line to a tank assembly line than it is to take that same auto plant and turn it into an airplane factory. And either of those is easier than turning something into a dockyard, which is necessarily on the water, and requires a whole host of specialized machinery.


>Why was Germany unable to overtake the RAF with a larger production base?
Germany had a smaller production base, not larger.

>Why was their pilot training so woefully inadequate?
Because they were drafting pretty much everyone qualified, and you faced competing demands from all branches of service, not just the Luftwaffe. The Heer, by the time of the fall of France, was about 4.5 million men, in a country with a male population of about 39 million. On the other side of the pond, the entire British army was about 1.3 million, in a country with a male population of about 25 million. And that's not counting the enormous reserves of manpower that they can tap from their various colonies and dominions, to which Germany has no real counterpart.

>>2919175

>Germany had a smaller production base, not larger.

I'm including the Czech, Polish, Dutch, Danish, Norwegian, and French industrial bases in this calculation.

>There's a lot smaller of a change from an auto assembly line to a tank assembly line than it is to take that same auto plant and turn it into an airplane factory

Not an airplane factory per se, but to build parts for airplanes, allowing each factory to specialize, and assembly plants for the final product, as is done today.

File: 48076-004-F7D7C8A5.jpg (42KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 450x450px

>>2918361

Do some research into the various amphibious operations that were conducted by the US in the pacific and you'll start to get an idea of just how many ships and resources are required to pull off an successful amphibious assault.

1. You must physically land troops in chosen target area. This requires special ships specifically designed for amphibious warfare. And you must build these ships in very large numbers because you want to land a large number of troops in the target area. You must also figure out how to land tanks, because soldiers without tank support will be easily defeated.

2. If you are attacking an important area, then it is inevitable that you will meet heavy resistance from the defenders. One way to even the odds is to take battleships and heavy cruisers, and have them bombard probable enemy positions prior to landing. This will greatly reduce the danger that your troops will face as they land.

3. You must be able to prevent enemy warships from disrupting your operation. There were several times in the Pacific when Japan attempted to stop the American advance by using battleships to bombard beaches and airfields held by US marines. Usually, the U.S. Navy was able to prevent this from occurring, but when they weren't able to prevent it, the results were devastating. So you absolutely must be able to protect your own troops from bombardment.

4. Troops need constant re-supplies of food, fuel, etc. as well as reinforcements in order to remain combat effective. This means bringing in cargo ships must be brought in consistently to re-supply the men in the field. Doing this requires a large number of transport ships. And you also need a significant number of naval warship vessels dedicated to protecting those transport ships as they come and go, otherwise they will destroyed by enemy submarines and aircraft.

Now compare the size and capability of the Kriegsmarine against that of the Royal Navy.

>>2919254

One must also compare the relative size of the Channel to the entire Pacific Ocean. A single ship can make multiple trips whereas in the Pacific, it takes months to return and resupply.

>>2919175

Tank factories were actually built by Train and Tractor factories, automotive manufacturing is not actually very similar to tank manufacturing, and weren't converted because wartime demand for trucks was much higher than wartime demand for Tanks.

In the case of the United States, no factories were converted to build tanks, instead they just built new tank factories from scratch.

Think it was called the Black Book, a list of prominent persons to be rounded up and dealt with.

>>2919287

Except when you look at the D-day invasion, the number of ships involved was not small at all. You still need a ton of supply ships and escorts even just for crossing the channel.

>>2919295

The size of DDay was larger than any of the amphibious operations in the Pacific, to which relatively few resources were assigned, due to the Germany First plan.

Only 110,000 troops were landed at Iwo Jima. By contrast the invasion of Normandy involved 1.3 million men.

>>2919339

You're proving his point. Amphibious landings are hard and require tremendous manpower and a very large navy to pull off effectively.

>>2918458
R E A P T H E W H I R L W I N D

File: Royal_Air_Force_Bomber_Command,_1942-1945._CH15363.jpg (73KB, 772x800px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 772x800px

>>2919287

>One must also compare the relative size of the Channel to the entire Pacific Ocean. A single ship can make multiple trips

Not if it gets sunk by British submarines during transit. Or a Lancaster bomber drops a Tallboy on top of your ship. Auxiliary vessels will be destroyed by submarines and aircraft unless they are very well defended.

>>2919519
If it's a 1940 Sealion, it's more likely that the RN will just sail 5 battleships into the channel under the cover of night and shell the shit out of everything.

>>2919528
If it's 1940 Sealion it's just as likely half the totally shit river barges they requisitioned for it will capsize if the wind is too strong

>>2919528

That is also something that would happen. This is why when conducting an amphibious operation, it is very important to have a navy large enough to neutralize the enemy navy, or at least keep it away from your operation. Germany perhaps could have eventually built of their navy to the required levels, but this would have taken many years, and the Third Reich simply didn't have time for shipbuilding because they were also busy fighting a land war in Russia (at least after 1941).

>>2918458
>""""""""""""banter""""""""""""

>>2919129
Pilot training was lacking because for a very long time the Germans really thought it would be a short war.

>>2918458
>look at all those (((industrial complexes))) bombarded to make the german war machine struggle
>all those (((ammunistions))) and (((supplies exclusively for the army))) being wasted
>all those (((warmongering germans))) that were serving on the front and personally assisted at killing civilians on the front

anglos truly deserve to burn in an eternal fire

>>2918692
It would take at least 5 years for Germany to even be prepared to launch a landing, by which time the Eternal Anglo and most likely the Amerilads would have been bombing their cities into the ground

File: FB_IMG_1494438169746.jpg (41KB, 640x476px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 640x476px

>>2921531

>implying the lovely Germans didn't do the same first

Pic related, it's the vital strategic target of the British Museum

File: FB_IMG_1494438177426.jpg (24KB, 614x240px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 614x240px

>>2921812

File: FB_IMG_1494438173150.jpg (58KB, 640x478px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 640x478px

>>2921816

>>2921531
Get fucked G*rm, you're the one who decided to chimp out and start a total war

>>2921812
>>2921816
>>2921822
Every g*rman should hang for this

File: FB_IMG_1494893234022.jpg (45KB, 476x654px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 476x654px

>>2921822

Or the important military targets that was Temple Church? Those 700 year old effigies were vital to the war effort!

File: FB_IMG_1494893976143.jpg (34KB, 538x557px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 538x557px

>>2921835

File: FB_IMG_1494893242679.jpg (23KB, 535x398px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 535x398px

>>2921841

>>2918458
This gives me an enormous hardon.

>>2918361
Sea Lion would have never happened, the most likely scenario for Hitler beating the British is Lord Halifax coming to power instead of Churchill, and seeking favourable peace terms with Hitler. Literally nothing would happen to Britain, other then perhaps readjusting some policies to be more pro German, it would essentially be a white peace, as Hitler was eager to turn from the west to the east. Any other scenario for the defeat of Britain is ludicrous.

File: 1487770997664.jpg (49KB, 498x498px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 498x498px

>>2921531

would the Irish have risen up and attacked northern Ireland once the Germans invaded?

>>2921876
DO IT ONCE MORE BOMBER HARRIS

>>2918361
If the Germans by some miracle managed to successfully land in Britain they would be destroyed

The British had fortified the island and had millions of men ready to defend it

>>2921833
>>2921531

You guys do relize bombs dropped from normal heights had a 20% chance to fall within 3 km of the target. Unless you are dive bombing no one has control over what you hit. Its even worse a night.

>>2921812

ne'er forget

http://www.bl.uk/eblj/2013articles/article8.html

>>2921880

I think the irish were quite happy to have their own little corner of the globe to call their own for once in their history

>>2921531
shady tactics or not you should remember a lot of germans still literally voted for hitler and the rest failed to fix the issue

File: 1496674753177.png (29KB, 550x690px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 550x690px

>>2921822
>>2921816
>>2921812
>>2921833
>>2921835
>>2921841
>>2921843
when you stop serving kike agenda they won't bomb you
deal with it anglo scum

>>2921897
THEN DONT START DUMB WARS MY DUDE

> TFW Anglo-German Canadian

>>2922045

You see, this is why canada isn't a real country

I'm an American, regardless of which northern Europeans I'm descended from.

>>2922092
When did I say I wasn't Canadian? I was was just expressing my ethnic background. And you're one to talk, Americans are notorious for wewuzing about their ethnic background that they know nothing about

>>2922092
>he says with millions of americans saying they are irish despite not living in Ireland since the potato famine

>>2921531
>>2921936
>>2918371
stay mad stormbabies

File: 1445211787431.png (167KB, 640x620px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 640x620px

>this thread

>>2922241
exactly
european brothers

File: image.jpg (48KB, 500x555px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 500x555px

>>2922241
>>2922287

>>2922373
it makes me sad that this could've been the outcome of ww2 had people just went with Hitler against communism

>>2922241
Just banter.
I love the jerries.

>>2922389
>Actually believing Hitler's rhetoric while he signs the MR pact to divide up Poland with the communists and get enough resources to attack places like France and Britain.
Seriously, it amazes me how much people still buy into Nazi propaganda.

>>2922389

It makes me sad that millions of people died in a completely unnecessary war because "muh lebensraum."

>>2922555
>britain sides with germany and together btfo the soviet union and after that they pull out of france
>saying this is a worse outcome that what that kike warmonger churchill caused

>>2922672

>Britain should have sent to troops to help an autistic dicator invade the USSR and genocide all Russians

>At the end of the war, Germany gets a shitload of new territory that they control, whereas Britain gets nothing except now being complicit with genocide.

What a great deal! Why on Earth didn't Britain jump at the the chance to be part of such a great deal?

>>2923044
>not wanting to get rid of communism
>what is keeping your empire

>>2922115

>presuming to know anything about persons you yourself know nothing about in regard to their knowledge on a particular subject

>>2922144

no one says they're Irish, they instead add that dratted hyphen to American

now, that's not to say that a man shouldn't recognize and honor those that came before him, ones own history is a worthy area of study

>>2923054

The idea that there could have been an anglo-german alliance in 1941 when Germany was literally bombing British cities in 1940 is straight-up delusional.

File: 1483854927056.png (501KB, 499x621px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 499x621px

>>2918458

>>2923314
I know I just get a hardon while thinking about a combined western offensive against communism

We would all now be speaking Anglish, English with most of the dirty disgusting romance vocabulary purged.

File: german logic on whites.jpg (99KB, 679x680px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 679x680px

>>2918371

File: Nazi invasion plans.png (2MB, 902x1247px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 902x1247px

>>2922389
>Implying that Italo-German Fascism is in any way compatible with Anglo-French Liberalism
It was inevitable, the timeline would have been exactly the same but a cold war between Fascists and Liberals rather than Communists and Liberals. In the end Liberalism wins.
>inb4 someone posts /pol/ memes about immigration and argues that liberalism lost
Its what happens when you put 3 distinct and mutually exclusive ideologies the continent renowned for fucking shit up. The 20th century never stood a chance.

>>2921897
>send hundreds of bombers and drop bombs
>oops sorry we didn't mean to destroy that
k