Why couldn't they invade Britain?

They didn't want to

>>2968355
If they had it US couldn't have invaded and so they only have one front

They lost the battle of Britain and the Kriegsmarine was laughable when compared to the RN.

it's in their blood

>>2968353
https://www.philmasters.org.uk/SF/Sealion.htm

>>2968353
They gave themselves an Eastern Front to fight on at the exact same time.

Because of the Anglo man's racial superiority, and his unmatched ingeniousness and work ethic.

Or because it's a fucking island, one of those.

Because Island
they'd have been conquered a billion times already if it weren't for that.

>>2968547
And they still got conquered 5 times since 1066.

They entered into total war with the Soviets that's why

>>2968551
yh, but that was before we figured out boats

Battle of Britain meant they didn't have complete air superiority, which was necessary for the success of Operation Sealion. They were about to win the battle when they decided to switch bombing from the air fields to the cities, as they presumed the former was not working. Little did they know the RAF was on its knees at that point and this pause in bombing gave them a break to recuperate.

>They were about to win the battle when they decided to switch bombing from the air fields to the cities, as they presumed the former was not working. Little did they know the RAF was on its knees at that point and this pause in bombing gave them a break to recuperate.
This is a common idea, but it's actually highly disputed by experts. I'm not learned enough on the matter to weigh in one way or another, but I've read lengthy arguments that the Germans never came close to winning the Battle of Britain at all, and switching targets made no ultimate difference.

>>2968729
My understanding is that the decision to attack the USSR was made after the Germans had already realized that the Battle of Britain was lost. Basically, the German air force was being attrited faster relative to its replacement capacity than the British was. The Germans realized this and quietly shelved the idea of winning the air war over England. So attacking the USSR did not prevent the Germans from winning the air war against England - that was lost anyway.

>>2968353
Navy not strong enough, air force not strong enough, and no hope of making either strong enough in time to invade.

>>2968353
shitty navy

>>2969157
>They were about to win the battle
how? Britain outproduced Germany in aircraft every single month of the blitz.

Just build a bridge lmao

>>2969194
It's not highly disputed by experts, it's laughed at by experts. What's disputed by military historians is whether or not Fighter Group 11 would be damaged enough to pull its bases back to the midlands; where it would be much harder to bomb them on the ground as the Me-109 wouldn't be able to make it there and back to escort the bombers.

But "Forcing them to base their fighters further away from the action" is a LONG way from actually winning the Battle of Britain, especially if your battle of Britain plan involves an actual Sealion.

>>2971354
i love you

>>2968353
They actually planned on it I think.

>>2968353
Channel.

The very simple version is this. Britain and Germany had roughly equal economic and industrial power (though Britain's was sustainable, while Germany's was not). But Germany had a massive army, on part of being a land power. Britain had a small army, on part of being a sea power. Thus they were pretty much always going to have a stronger air force and navy compared to Germany. And without total air and naval superiority, you can't launch a massive amphibious invasion.

>>2968353
Britain is an island

Royal Navy too stronk, German navy was too shit.

Invading Normandy involved a ridiculous amount of planning and logistics and even then it could have been a complete disaster.

The British had all sorts of crazy stuff to use on the Germans in the event of an amphibious assault. From gassing the entire coastline to literally setting the sea on fire with oil

>>2968355
this

>>2971354
But they'l bomb the bridge

If they did gain superiority in the sky and the sea would a d day type invasion have worked out well for them?

File: retard_1.png (680KB, 600x542px) Image search: [Google]

680KB, 600x542px

>>2968355
>>2972639

>what is the Battle of Britain

>>2972839

That's a double impossibility but no, even if the royal airforce AND navy simply vanished into thin air, the Germans could only lift ~a dozen divisions at a time, the UK had over 40 in South East England alone.

>>2972859
So literally everything they tried was impossible it seems, North Africa , Barbarossa and the battle of Britian. It always seems watching documentaries that they where close to winning all three of these events.

It's almost like ww2 was lost for Germany from day one and that they more or less got lucky in the beginning.

>>2968353
Because defending an island is pretty easy? An enemy pilot either drowns or is taken prisoner, while your own pilots can return to battle shortly after.

It would be another thing if Britain didn't have support from the US, but the way things were strategically set up it was a lost cause from the very beginning.

>>2973281
>An enemy pilot either drowns or is taken prisoner, while your own pilots can return to battle shortly after.
In case of being shot down that is.