WWII and German ability to cross the Channel

>>3224902
I ask that you rethink your question logistically, and militarily.

>>3224902
Check out the level of opposition displayed in Norway and compare that to what the British could field.

>>3224902
Question, did the Germans ever think to use captured French or polish airplanes??

>>3224916
Better question, then, why didn't the British send more troops to Norway?

>>3224902
>Needs control of the sky to send paratroopers
What is the Battle of Britain?
>Needs control of the sea to send marines
What is the Royal Navy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion_(wargame)
The Germans never stood a chance.

>>3224928
Because they were sending most of them to France. In fact, Narvik was holding out (and might have been quite useful had it stayed in British hands) so they could beef up the BEF. Remember, nobody in 1940, not even the Germans, thought that France would crumple so quickly and easily. Norway was a sideshow, and France and the Low Countries was where everyone thought the war would really be decided.

>>3224902
Better question:
Why didn't he support the creation of a fleet air arm and focus air power on attacking the royal navy so as to force the brits to surrender?

best question:
why didn't hitler just kill himself in 1939 to save 6 years of autistic screeching???

>>3226538
It takes two years to build a carrier, and the British have an enormous head start both in ships and training, as well as more industry to put into their fleet air arm. Furthermore, how are you going to "focus air power in attacking the Royal Navy"? How are you going to find them when they're on patrol? How are you going to strike them in their ports that they can defend with spitfires and you'll have to be using your own carrier planes (designed from scratch)?

>>3224902
1. Check the flying distances of WW2 planes, watch Dunkirk, then check Google maps.
2. Check the British Royal Navy.
3. Check the number of troops to invade England.
4. The Nazi's only wanted one port in Norway
5. The fucking Danes were just hilarious.
6. Stop being a jew Jerry
7. Even during the invasion of France and Belgium/Netherlands the Germans were out numbered and severely out equipped, they just got fucking lucky.
8. During 1940 the Germans only had a slight air superiority over the RAF, it wasn't enough to support a major air landing. Check your stats you goob.
9. Why is your door locked Jerry? I needed to use your shower.
10. Sea landings, sure Gustav, we'll get on this boat and happily stand below while it gets shot to shit by Royal Navy destroyers, I always dreamed of drowning.
11. NEEEEEWWWWMMMMMAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNN

>>3225248
I concur with this poster because OP is naive is dumb and stupid.

>>3224902
The real question:

Why do you think jerry seinfeld bombed london?

Even if they manage to establish a foothold on british coast, how will they keep it supplied with their joke of a navy?

>>3228063
50cm x 50cm crate pushed through the top of a U-boat, hatch.

DUH

Easy as fuck to dis-assemble a panzer mark 3 put it onto a u-boat(it only weighed 23 tonnes), easy as fuck mate. Re-assemble it while under light arms fire, no worries.... And once you get to england you just use Harry Potter magic to get the engine sump out of the u boat.

>>3224920
Yes, and they did. Do your own research to find out more.

>>3224902
Go and read about Crete, now add in factors like better AA defences, radar, contested air space

>>3224920
they did, but the Polish airforce was pretty damn small and most of the French airforce was destroyed during the battle of France.

>>3228041
It is a witty reference to "Jerry" having been a derogatory term for the Germans.

>>3224902
The germans had no hope of pulling of a naval invasion. The superiority of the royal navy to the kriegsmarine was to absolute. And at no point did the germans have sufficient air superiority to be able to land enough troops to overwhelm the british defenders. Bombing london was pretty stupid though, London was perhaps the most well defended city in the world in terms of anti-air defences. The Germans underestimated the amount of planes the RAF had left, and chose civilian targets over military ones, this was one of the factors leading to the german defeat in the battle of Britain.

>>3228278
>The entire London bombing campaign was caused by one raid on Berlin
>Before that the RAF was at risk of losing from material losses and damaged airfields
Churchill really knew how to trigger the autist

>>3224902
Paratroopers aren't good for long term invasions because they lack supplies, it's hard to drop a truck, especially without air superiority, which the Germans tried to achieve in the battle of Britain.

>sea landings
You have to remember that this was the twilight days of the British Empire, an empire that relied on sea power more than any other, Britain had a fucking huge navy, on par with the juggernaut that was the USA, dedicated sea landings would've been nigh impossible.

>>3224940
>one of the assumptions was that the luftwaffe failed to assume air superiority
Well duh. That was the reason they cancelled the operation.