What was keeping Hitler, who made MANY bad military choices,

File: Operation Sea Lion.png (700KB, 1208x1024px) Image search: [Google]

700KB, 1208x1024px

>>33448790

My bad with the image, here's a better one

>>33448790
Germans winning battle of Britain would be a big one. But in reality it's much more complex than simply asking for the minimum amount of changes. Any good answer would be pages in lenght

>>33448790
>What's the minimum amount of changes one would need to make to history to make it possible to launch Operation Sea Lion?
Don't attack Russia. Attack Malta. Use fake (or real, lol) operation to lure Royal Fleet and kill it with your ground based aviation. Then repeat operation, because you can build more landing boats, Brits can't build another navy.

>>33448828
This

D-Day worked because of innumerable variables falling into place before, during, and after the invasion.

To speculate on the working of Operation Sea Lion would be to speculate on an absolutely massive number of unknowns, many far too unlikely to even warrant the effort.

All that being said, my personal opinion can be summed up with this; there's a reason that the Allies needed to world's largest industrial power to pull off Operation Overlord successfully. Additionally, if the German's were over-extended on two fronts, both on land they'd previously occupied, imagine what it'd be like having to support a trans-channel supply chain. Defeating the Royal Navy to a degree that they could safely navigate the English Channel on a daily basis, even if it was just from Dover to Calais, with a force of (admittedly powerful) commerce raiders is difficult to imagine.

>>33448790

The Channel would have had to dry up.

Hitler believed (rightfully so) that the 20 miles of channel would be a much harder challenge than the 1,000 miles between Berlin and Moscow. Amphibious invasions are heavily weighted in favor of the defender

>>33448790
The Home Fleet, mostly.

>>33448790
He wouldn't have been able to achieve it without first eliminating the RAF. The Germans got their ass fucked up during the Battle of Britain(so did the Brits) but he didn't do enough damage to risk sending his armies across the English channel. Had they defeated the RAF Sealion might have happened

>Defeat the RAF
A couple more weeks of bombing their airfields and drawing their fighters out to go toe-to-toe would have been the death knell for the RAF. Germany would then have air superiority over England and could thus invade.

Hitler shifting their bombing from the airfields/military targets to the city of London was his biggest mistake in the Battle of Britain and ultimately would cost him the war in the West.

>>33449949
>le epik 2 more weeks :^) meme
Holy shit will weraboos never stop spouting this bullshit? It's based off of contemporary German intelligence which placed the RAF's strength at less than 1/6 of it's actual numbers. Had Germany entered the battle with more accurate information, namely better figures for the UK's production rate of fighters, they might have had an impact, however as it stands the RAF could have continued to fight for as long as the Luftwaffe could.

>>33448790
>What's the minimum amount of changes one would need to make to history to make it possible to launch Operation Sea Lion?
Having even close to enough boats that could act as landing craft, for starters. They didn't even have that if they pulled everything out of every river in Germany.

>>33449793
And logistics.

No way on hell would the Germans have a way to supply and reinforce in any realistic manner.

>>33450747

It'd be similar to their supply and reinforcement of their North Africa campaign

So, not great, but enough to run a multi-year campaign

>>33450805
Disagree.

Considering the intensity of the fighting, it would be a more difficult situation to maintain a bridgehead across the channel in the face of constant attacks by British forces.

>>33450747
yeah, horses wouldn't like swimming that far, especially when pulling loaded wagons

>>33448790

Things to note that did occur.

1: The battle of Britain only occurred when stupid Luftwaffe commander said, "yeah, we can totally bomb and shoot the enemy into submission and make them surrender, then the Heer can just land after words." Didn't work out for several factors that someone else can go more thorough.

2: The German Army, Navy, and Marines, did not invent any reliable amphibious units for the operation. And no, river crossing doesn't count. They had no DUKWs, not real ships for supporting landing operations.

3: Hitler basically saying, fuck this and let's invade Russia before they get super powerful from not fighting.

4: Something else I can't think of at the moment.

>>33448790
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion_(wargame)

He wanted peace which is also why he ordered the tanks to stop before Dunkirk

The truth is that the Kriegsmarine already had several thousand scutters ready for troop transport but the whole thing was blown off two months before the scheduled liberation

>>33450924
>>33450924
It was the brits who bombed german cities first

>>33451447
>It was the brits who bombed german cities first

Nope.

The Germans might have done it on accident but they did it first.

>>33449949
>I'm retarded: the post

The RAF was capable of replacing losses at a sustainable rate. The Luftwaffe was not. Nevermind that the Germans only got a few minutes of air time over England before they ran out of fuel.

>>33450903
Got to say, this horse shit is one of the worst things to ever become a meme.

>>33448790
Operation sea lion wasn't doable without air superiority. Germans never maintained air superiority so they cancelled it.

They could have attempted it without air superiority, but they would have lost so many men that it would've been a pyrrhic victory. Germany didn't even have enough men as it was to hold the eastern front against the russians, so a large loss of troops on the western front would have guaranteed a german collapse much quicker.

>>33448790
>What's the minimum amount of changes one would need to make to history to make it possible to launch Operation Sea Lion?
to launch operation sea lion would have required relatively little change, if for example the RAF had withdrawn some fighter squadrons from he south it might have proven enough to convince the germans the had air superiorit and could risk the invasion.

essentially to launch operation sea lion you only need a change in german perception of the situation, the have to think the have air superiority.

for sea lion to actually succeed on the other hand you need a miracle

>>33448790
>What was keeping Hitler, who made MANY bad military choices, from ordering an invasion of England?

He was afraid the Pakis would steal all their wehrmacht shit and fuck all their women. For some reason the Brits are OK with their shit being ripped and their women rogered; they just have another cup of tea and weep softly.

>>33450458
And maybe a fighter with more than 10 min flight time over London would have helped as well..

>>33453125
shut up turkroach go eat some more sauerkraut and assault kraut women

>>33451447
So...Hitler dindu nuffin, was just a good boy wanting peace?

>>33453148
I think it's fairly obvious Hitler didn't really want a war with England and would have been happy with a truce/peace so he could fight the real enemy

>>33453125
>>33453145
Can you shut the fuck up and preferably also piss off. If you want to act like 12 year old faggots do it somewhere else.

>>33451447
>He wanted peace which is also why he ordered the tanks to stop before Dunkirk

these wold be the tanks that had outrun their logistics, and just been dealt a sharp blow at Arras? He ordered a pause to reorganise and rest a few days before closing on dunkirk.

>The truth is that the Kriegsmarine already had several thousand scutters ready for troop transport but the whole thing was blown off two months before the scheduled liberation
they started with a few thousand, although none were truly suitable for a opposed crossing of the english channel or would have been capable of carrying enough men for a invasion to actually work.

they lost several hundred of what they did have to the RAF bombing the channel ports

>>33448790
they would have to take care of the damn RAF..doing that the luftwaffe and the kriegsmarine would then combined have a chance to keep the royal navy off their backs while the landings take place. so...german navy has to focus more on landing craft and more torpedo boats..the german airforce would have to keep the pressure on the airfields and not fuck around with cities and bullshit

>>33448790
Lack of transport vessels.

Also he did some bad military choices but when the staff said "we can't keep Royal Navy from wrecking all our troops before they can even land" he got the memo.

>>33450458
english records of the time concur...they were doing everything they could to hold the germans off...germany was taking heavy losses but so were the brits...just when the brits were on the ropes..the germans stopped attacking the airfields...this gave them the breathing room they needed to get their shit together. this is not a meme..it is a historical fact.

>>33453458

As I understand, both the Germans underestimated the RAF, and the UK overestimated the Luftwaffe. Even if the RAF were temporarily driven from front line airfields, the lack of range on the Bf109 meant they would not be able to wipe out fighter command.

What might have changed things is if they realised how the interception Dowding system worked, and how big a force multiplier it was.

They could use the Me109 w/ bomb for low level as a suprise raid against radar, airfields, power plants instead escorting the slow bombers. British radar cant detect at 1000 attitude.

File: eJwNycENwyAMAMBdGABjKBSyTGQRRFIlMcLuq-ru7X3vY97zNIvZVYcsANshledmRXlSb7Yz97PROMRWvoBUqe5Xu1XApxRLTMG5nHJGnx34gjEj4qOE_7kQnkD3WmmshM6-RjffH20xI1M.ORD4Cd3dOxAGEkKhgHzWCPugt6M.jpg (77KB, 562x436px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 562x436px

This thread is stupid how about a new scenario.

What if I traveled back in time and gave the nazis five thermal nuclear weapons and the japs three.

What would the world look like today?

Bonus scenario, the allies knew how many I gave each.

>>33454071
Japan uses all three in China before 1939, still manages to fuck it up. Germany uses all five in Russia before 1942, still manages to fuck it up.

>>33453458

>...

This is actual autism

>>33451052

>Allowing the first wave to land unharassed

Why? No British Admiral could have done that

>>33453458
>English records of the time

If you mean 1940, then that wouldn't have helped Sealion :
Back then, the Germans didn't have enough ships to make a sustainable landing on english shores.

So if they had kept attacking on RAF airfields, they would have dominated the skies but wouldn't have been able to act on said domination because they lacked ships and supplies for an amphibious invasion on England.

Now, regarding the RAF in the end of 1940 :

- During the 4th quarter of 1940 and through 1941, the RAF was building about 350 planes per week, which was about 25% more than Germany back then.
Germany's weekly output took over the UK only by the end of 1942... but by then...

- Most planes of Germany went to the Eastern Front... where losses would quickly increase.
If Germany hadn't attacked the USSR (and the USSR hadn't attacked Germany), maybe there would have been enough planes for Germany to win an extended Battle of Britain.
... or not ?

- The Battle of Britain lasted 15 weeks and resulted in about 1800 british planes destroyed.
That's about 120 planes per week.
We saw that plane production was about 350 planes per week by the end of 1940.
So even if Germany had kept the same amount of pressure for the whole 1941 that it had during the (short) Battle of Britain, the RAF would still have been stockpilling aircrafts starting 1941.
Granted, not all aircrafts were fighters, far from it. Yet still > http://ww2db.com/doc.php?q=310
And that's not even concidering...

- By 1941, US production was at about 900 planes / week and rising fast.
Even if only 1/10 of these would have gone to the UK, that would have compensated 3/4 of their losses.

(cont)

>>33455402
So, for Germany to make Sealion happens, sea domination and air domination would have been needed in the Channel.

Sea domination was unlikely because of the HUGE difference in numbers between the Kriegsmarine and the Home Fleet.
Sea domination through air superiority alone was hard : at Dunkirk, Germany lost about 16 planes for each ship it sank so sinking the Home Fleet would have taken hundreds of planes, crippling the ability of Germany to maintain air cover for its supply lines.

But let's assume air superiority alone would be enough :
It would have needed :

- No war with the USSR
- No war with the USA
- No lend-lease to the UK
- No foreign volunteer pilots in the UK
- Battle of Britain extend for 4 more months for Germany's plane production to catch up a bit.
- British war industry is crippled enough for UK's plane production to drop a fair bit.

File: Char B1 2.jpg (222KB, 1200x760px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 1200x760px

>>33448790

>What's the minimum amount of changes one would need to make to history to make it possible to launch Operation Sea Lion?


The entire Kriegsmarine would have to be reworked for Sealion to work. Bear in mind that the original plan placed the German invasion force in a convoy of flat-bottomed river barges (!!!). It gets worse - only one in four barges would actually be powered, and the sole powered barge would have to tow the rest of its column. This invasion fleet and its supply would have to be protected from the Home Fleet and whatever destroyer squadrons the RN would have at their disposal by a handful of submarines, light vessels and the Luftwaffe (an air force primarily designed for operating against land targets at short range, which itself is a significant part of the reason the Germans lost the battle of Britain). This level of naval and air force development would have been impossible in the 7-10 years that Hitler had to rearm in before 1941 (the year about which the Nazi economic miracle, designed almost entirely for supporting a war effort, would have collapsed in peacetime due to a fuckhuge debt:GDP ratio and numerous other factors which I won't go into here).

TL;DR: The entire Nazi war preparation strategy would have to be restructured for the plan to have been workable as a concept, and even then it would be a long shot. pic not related

>>33448790
they had almost no naval resources to speak of. They were so desperate for options they were looking into snorkel attachments for tanks and some of the largest combat gliders in history.

It would've never worked with the equipment they had. Britain would've stomped their "navy" in no time with an honest head to head engagement, and that's before you take into account all of the lightly armored and he aily laden troop transports (that germany didn't even have )

>>33448790
>What was keeping Hitler, who made MANY bad military choices, from ordering an invasion of England?

The Royal Navy, Royal Air Force, and Hitler's expectation that Britain would eventually give in and concede.

File: Hitler vs the International Banking Cartels.jpg (4MB, 3936x3706px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3936x3706px

>>33451538

..........the British, by their own admission, initiated unrestricted bombing of civilian areas ought to merit for them membership in the select society of "war criminals." The unbelieving reader need only consult the testimony of the British officials J. M. Spaight and Sir Arthur Harris, for incontrovertible proof of this charge.99 A decision of the British Air Ministry made on May 11, 1940, to attack targets in Western Germany instituted the practice of bombing purely civilian objectives. This "epoch-making event," as F. J. P. Veale correctly describes it, marked an ominous departure from the rule that hostilities are to be limited to operations against enemy military forces alone.100 Spaight, former Principal Secretary of the Air Ministry, makes the following amazing comment on the decision of May 11, 1940:
Because we were doubtful about the psychological effect of propagandist distortion of the truth that it was we who started the strategic bombing offensive, we have shrunk from giving our great decision of May 11, 1940, the publicity it deserves. That surely was a mistake. It was a splendid decision.101

cont...

File: image-9624-galleryV9-grbd-9624.jpg (120KB, 850x644px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 850x644px

>>33448790
Hitler Tried to make peace with Britain he didnt want a war with them and that clouded his judgement

>>33459308

In fairness, if Germany and the UK were allied, shit would be hella different. AND in the past they were allies, in a way. Technically Prussia. Mostly against France but times changed.

File: Churchill's Masters.jpg (3MB, 3813x1920px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3813x1920px

>>33459282

But the "great decision," the "splendid decision" of May 11, 1940, which was ultimately to cost the lives of millions, including thousands of Mr. Spaight's own countrymen, was to have an even more grisly sequel, for, according to Sir Charles Snow who had charge of selecting scientific personnel for war research in Great Britain in World War II, F. A. Lindemann, a Cabinet member and confidant of Churchill, produced in early 1942 a remarkable Cabinet paper on the subject of the strategic bombing of Germany:
It described, in quantitative terms, the effect on Germany of a British bombing offensive in the next eighteen months (approximately March 1942-September 1943). The paper laid down a strategic policy. The bombing must be directed essentially against German working-class houses. Middle-class houses have too much space round them, and so are bound to waste bombs ...102
One wonders if it was the cultivated humanitarianism inherent in this decision to assure the death of more working class Germans per bomb which entitled the Allies, and in particular the British, to sit in moral judgment on German leaders at Nuremberg in 1946!
99. J. M. Spaight, Bombing Vindicated (London: Geoffrey Bles, Ltd., 1944) and Sir Arthur Harris, bomber Offensive (London: Collins, 1947).
100. F. J. P. Veale, Advance to Barbarism (Apppleton: C. C. Nelson Publishing Company, 1953), p. 122.
101. Spaight, op. cit., p. 7.
102. C. P. Snow, Science and Government (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961), p. 48.

>>33459282
>>33459507
That's all sweet and well proper but not related to what is being discussed in this thread.

They kept cutting ships, even before the war started.

Then each time ships fall into their hands, they cannot cope. The French scuttled or sailed to the UK, so did the Danish.

File: BAH GAWD IT'S STONE COLD.gif (954KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

954KB, 320x240px

>>33459639

>literally correcting the assertion made in another post pertinent to the topic
>"not related to thread"

>>33454071
>>33454111
Basically this
The krauts and the nips were all fuckups, no amount of giving them future-weapons would give them an upper hand.

File: 1490645573579.jpg (87KB, 654x539px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 654x539px

>>33454111
>Germany uses all five in Russia before 1942
more likely invest in long range bomber, drop once and the allies back off of mainland Europe.

>>33459507
I don't know why you fucking retards keep bringing this up. You faggots fucking nailed cities before the BoB and you know what else? We accepted responsibility for what we did and no one was tried for bombing cities as a result.

File: laughing asari.jpg (76KB, 500x474px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 500x474px

>>33461680
>invest in long range bomber

lawl, good one

>>33448790
The only way to for Germany to invade the UK and hold their "beachhead" at that time would be to fill in that BFO moat to support re-supply.
The only way they could have done that in 1940 would be with their dead.
See the logistics of Operation Neptune.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the only bombers the Germans had were the Stukas and they were complete meme-tier bombers right?

>>33448828
battle of britain was an alternative to sea lion, not a precursor. if hitler would have left russia alone for a year or two and invaded england directly following dunkirk he'd have conquered england in a matter of weeks

>>33463544

No he couldn't. Without air superiority he would have been wiped the fuck out by the RAF and he had no boats to pull it off and fend off the Royal Navy.

There's no "B... but if Hitler did X", Germany wasn't in position to invade England in 1940. Period.

File: germany_bombs_british_towns_and_cities.jpg (35KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 640x360px

>>33463489
Stuka was a single engined dive bomber.
Germany had... Ju88, He111, Do17 and some other odds and sods as their "heavies" at the start of WWII.
Pic was basically close support and dogmeat when anyone else in the air was armed.

>>33463544
Not a chance. Seriously. He wanted the UK to leave him alone to take on Russia because even that methhead knew it wasn't going to work.

>>33463544
The Luftwaffe told Hitler they could obtain air superiority over the UK to make Operation Sealion possible.
They failed in that task.

>>33448859
The Royal Navy was fucking huge though. And the Bongs aren't going to send their entire Navy to defend Malta.

File: d00281aaf662ea707484b34b13aea0e5.jpg (67KB, 736x763px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 736x763px

>>33463740
Malta was significant in helping to stop supplies to the Africa Corps and therefore keep them from the Suez Canal so lots of effort was expended to keep them in the war.
The Grand Fleet would never have been committed to that shooting gallery.
Hal Far flight #2

>>33463544
holy shit someone unironically believes this

File: alu7huezjy8x.png (261KB, 584x918px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 584x918px

>invaded england directly following dunkirk

german supply lines were so over stretched they couldn't even pursue the brits to dunkirk, let alone cross the channel and invade

you're drunk wehraboo, go home

>>33463740
It was about Sea Lion. Use sea lion to sink Royal Navy and then do Sea Lion 2.

>>33448790
(1) Heer was unprepared for anything amphibious bigger than crossing the Seine.
(2) Look at Kriegsmarine losses in Norway campaign and which ships were still undergoing repairs till winter.
The Kriegsmarine was reduced to one battleship (essentially only useful to fend off cruisers in daylight), very few cruisers and very few destroyers and very few dozen E-boats.
(3) The available landing boats were essentially river shipping boats.
(4) Air transport capacity was greatly reduced after losses over Norway and Netherlands.
(5) Germany had no amphibious doctrine, army and navy were still working out a common understanding (army officers didn't get how bad the weather could be in the channel), there was no planning ahead of June.
(6) The majority of Luftwaffe bombers was useless against warships. He 111 had unsuitable bomb magazines, Do 17 had hardly any effectiveness, torpedo bombing wasn't operational yet and few aviators had experience against ships.
Only the Ju 88 and Ju87 (too short-ranged) were of much use.
(7) The magnetic fuse naval mines were already countered by the British and considered ineffective.
(8) There was a mistaken idea that one should first fight for air superiority. The British bombers were of marginal effectiveness and the German bombers took losses during the air superiority campaign. Too few fighters were produced (~157 per month) to win a long air superiority campaign.
(9) Idiotic Hitler was already intent on attacking the Soviet Union for no good reason.

File: 1490702968310.jpg (96KB, 730x1024px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 730x1024px

You invade enemies. Hitler loved Anglos. Even after countless acts of aggression Anglo armies were allowed to escape Dunkirk.

>>33449949
They weren't even close to defeating the RAF. No sector airfeild was ever put out of operation during the battle and the British replaced fighter aircraft at an excellent rate. What they did have was a lack of were pilots, and things were very hard on the ones they did have. But by rotations of duty they continued and could continue for the foreseeable future.

>>33454624
IIRC they wanted to make it a worst case scenario for the UK, even though realistically the Germans would never have had those advantages, just to see if there was any possible way they could have invaded. The conclusion was it was impossible for them at that stage.

>>33448790
>no outside intervention from either the US or the USSR
>more time
Time, if the other powers didn't get involved, would have been in Germany's favor. The problem was that time was on Britains side in reality.

>>33463544
"No". Also the whole
>le leave Russia alone
meme is retarded. The Soviets would have taken the opportunity of so much German man and material being caught up in Britain (which could easily take a year or more of high intensity warfare) in order to absolutely beat the shit out of the Germans in the East. Plus Germany NEEDED the resources in the East in order to maintain it's war efforts.

>>33465403
>Plus Germany NEEDED the resources in the East in order to maintain it's war efforts.
And they didn't get any of it.

>>33465443
Yeah, and they lost. The point was that war in the East and preparing for it was more important in the short term. Neutralizing the Soviets and being able to then focus on Britain's surrender made far more sense at the time since the biggest threat from the time from the British were Naval and in the air.

>>33465343
>The evacuation fleet and soldiers were attacked and killed every single day

>Nazi apologists still insist Hitler was letting them escape because lol aryans

>>33452393
>Germans never maintained air superiority so they cancelled it.

That's because they sent more bombers than fighters. Everything German that is planning related was obviously dumb when they had less surface ships than the UK anyway.

>>33465814
>some died with periodic attacks
>that means that the German forces were still conducting operations against the fleeing Allies
You're a fucking moron

>>33465831
>That's because they sent more bombers than fighters
That might have been true on some occasions but not always, and I don't think in a majority of instances it was. I'm reading Al Deere's book now and during July/August '40 he describes larger German raids as being sometimes several hundred fighters spread over a range of altitudes and positions with different tasks ranging from sweeping for RAF fighters to stay above and behind the bombers to act as a net for any RAF trying to attack from behind.

At times only a single squadron ranging from about 26 aircraft down to 10 or 12 at their most depleted would attack these formations, exhaust their ammo, kill a few enemy and take a few casualties themselves before making their way back. Everything I've ever read said that air battles were complete chaos and you basically went in, lost all unit and pair cohesion in a short order of time, used up all your ammo, dived away and flew back to base. But after one squadron had done this another would be in the air already engaged with the fighters and bombers perhaps from a different angle or would shortly be on site to do so. But of course there were different raids coming in to different places at the same time, which played to the numerically superior Luftwaffe's favor.

File: 3632CBD600000578-0-image-a-18_1468344223788.jpg (53KB, 634x425px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 634x425px

>>33466093
>several hundred fighters spread over a range of altitudes and positions with different tasks
And then they were instructed to only fly in VERY close formation with the bombers to better protect them.
Nice one the German high command :)

Another consideration with regards to defeating the RAF is that every airman that parachuted onto English soil was either put straight back into another aircraft (allied) or imprisoned for the duration (axis).
Fighting on the wrong side of the channel (both sides) was a bit lossy like that.

>>33465847
>that means that the German forces were still conducting operations against the fleeing Allies

Uh, yeah?

You're telling me attacking soldiers on the beaches is exactly the same as not attacking them?

Are you representing your nation at Tokyo 2020 for mental gymnastics?

>>33466265
>sub-division level troop movements and sustained low-intensity combat is somehow the same as division level operations
It's pretty clear that the German leadership let them leave, just ensuring a low and prolonged pressure to make sure they kept leaving.

>>33466293
I guess you are

Go for the Gold!

>>33466293
>Directive Number 13
>1. The next object of our operations is to annihilate the French, English, and Belgian forces which are surrounded in Artois and Flanders, by a concentric attack by our northern flank and by the swift seizure of the Channel coast in this area.

>The task of the Air Force will be to break all enemy resistance on the part of the surrounded forces, to prevent the escape of the English forces across the Channel, and to protect the southern flank of Army Group A.

>>33466293
The German ground forces stopped to prevent over-reaching, to consolidate their forces and prevent a British and French breakout. The fact that this order didn't even come from Hitler already rejects the "he let them go because they were aryan" theory.

This however didn't stop the Luftwaffe who conducted almost four thousand sorties against the soldiers on the beaches, and there were also various naval actions from E-boats and U-boats which resulted in sinking shipping attempting to evacuate the beaches.

The idea that this was "letting them go" and not the British exploiting the German operational overreach is absolutely stupid, unrealistic and not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

>>33466293
Jesus Christ just stop already.

>>33465847
>>33466293
>Proven long, long ago that the "Hitler let them go" theory was apocryphal bullshit
>People will STILL assert it

You have no excuse for being this stupid

File: wwii rn.gif (649KB, 1600x1457px) Image search: [Google]

649KB, 1600x1457px

>>33448790

The RAF.

And hypothetically speaking if the RAF lost air superiority over SE England, the Royal Navy would be impossible for the Germany navy to deal with. You might sneak some ships over to raid at night, but the home fleet would make any sort of invasion impossible to sustain.

>this thread triggers the wehraboo

feelsgoodman.nuremberg

>People claiming that RAF had enough planes but not enough pilots
Not exactly true. Keep in mind there were thousands of foreign pilots that never even entered the action and were waiting to get comissioned by the RAF. While hundreds of czechs or poles did end up flying RAF planes, hundreds more did not because they were not needed.

These were capable pilots with previous combat experience from poland and france that would just have to be retrained for british planes. Replacements for lost german pilots had to be trained from the scratch, replacements for lost british pilots were easily available and all they needed to undergo was retraining for british airplane tactics.

>>33466305
Your reductionist bullshit is retarded.
>>33466326
Got a nice sauce on that with a date? The only other explination out of all of this is Jerry incompetence in allowing all those British, French, and Belgian forces escape.
>>33466332
I never made that claim, you're throwing shit on from other posts to build up a strawman
>>33466341
>if I type away condescendingly on my keyboard it means I've won
>>33466349
So it's just German incompetence I guess :)

>>33459340
funny thing is that prior to ww1 Britain and France had a small engagement regarding the suez canal I believe, that could have started an actual war between the two had the french not backed off , if this had happened its possible that Britain would have allied itself with the Germans for ww1.

File: c626522356.jpg (136KB, 546x700px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 546x700px

>>33459282
>>33459507
>>33459308

>>33466537
Hitlers War Directives 1939-1945, Trevor-Roper, H. R

Directive 13, May 24 Next objective in the west

>>33466537
The Blitzkrieg Legend
By Karl-Heinz Frieser

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GTw4AAAAQBAJ&pg=PT306&lpg=PT306&dq=F%C3%BChrer+Directive+13--Next+Object+in+the+West&source=bl&ots=8-5S21Oahs&sig=EIQ2FY2K4X1sLKBY4PkwbDEaLVw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjduIi3_fvSAhUsLsAKHf2xBmMQ6AEIODAG#v=onepage&q=F%C3%BChrer%20Directive%2013--Next%20Object%20in%20the%20West&f=false

>>33466368
Pretty sure bongs were gonna start beaching ships and keeping the guns firing in the event of mainland invasion

>>33448790
>What's the minimum amount of changes one would need to make to history to make it possible to launch Operation Sea Lion?

Sealion is completely unworkable in any realistic scenario

>>33465443

They got some, and then lost them

>>33466941
Setting the sea on fire and using poison gas on anyone stupid enough to try to get ashore was also on the menu.
Defences to your front which the UK had been layering since before there was a Germany every weapon yet invented to be available for use RAF/FAA air superiority and the RN to your rear.
Good luck with that.

File: Fougasse Mine.jpg (394KB, 1787x1772px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 1787x1772px

>>33466941
>>33467135

The extent to which the UK was making itself into a fiery deathtrap has been oh so regularly underappreciated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YFdU4ZXaDw

They had anti-aircraft flamethrowers for fuck sake. ANTI. FUCKING. AIRCRAFT.

>>33467477
Operation sealion looks like it could have made d-day seem like a fun romp on the beach

>>33453458
you do realize that RAF air defense was completely compartmentalized and put into area of operation. the aircraft from one zone wouldn't operate in another zone. That's why when Newcastle was bombed the Luftwaffe was awfully surprised at the amount of RAF aircraft they encountered because they thought they were all in london.

File: 1479240672270.png (27KB, 650x646px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 650x646px

>>33467477
>nazis died simply from planning sea lion

The Germans lost half their destroyer force in the naval battles in Narvik fjord. Sea Lion was an absolute joke. Even if they put a few divisions ashore by some near-miracle without being sunk by the RN there is no way in hell they cold supply them. Every man they put ashore they would have lost when they ran out of fuel and ammo after a couple of days. Think how the allies had fuel problems in Normandy in 1944 with almost limitless resources and total command of the air and sea? Now imagine that only with a tiny fraction of the Allied resources. How could anyone take this seriously? The British even sent their last armor to North Africa they were so sure it wasn't coming. The professionals on both sides knew perfectly well logistics made it impossible.

File: 1445040228242.png (256KB, 476x477px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 476x477px

Hey, let's launch a huge amphibious operation, which we've never done before, using flat-bottomed river barges towed by steamers in the teeth of the biggest navy in the world and the world's only integrated air-defence system.

>>33448790
it would take rewriting almost all of 19th century history to make it possible.

Germany had ZERO chance of actually invading England.

>>33449949
this is false.

>>33448790

Hitler was able to see the future. He seen in a vision how cuck England would be later on. He knew that they would do more damage to themselves than what he ever could do. For that, he focus his power else where.

>>33470308
>He seen in a vision how cuck England would be later on.
Did he happen to see what Germany looks like now?

Reminder that the luftwaffe was heavily depleted after the battle of france and that their unit strength was terrible during the BoB.

They didnt have much of a chance of gaining complete control of the air.

>>33467477

it worked against the spanish ;^)

>>33470276
To put that into perspective the Allied forces took the best part of ten thousand vessels back the other way in 1944. About 1100 of them were there for the purpose of keeping heads down while the other guys got on with putting boots and stuff on the ground.

>>33466150
Fighter sweeps only work when your fighters have the legs to actually run sweeps instead of point interception.

Mustangs could sit on top of Germany airfields in France for hours and pick off the 190s and 109's as they tried to organize.

109's during BOB could stay over London for 15 minutes of normal power, combat power drinks fuel 3-4 times faster. Do a "sweep" and the RAF simply picks up your bombers for free after you are bingo fuel.

BF 109 has a 400 liter internal tank while P-51B has 1000 internal and 1600 with drop tanks

>>33455402
Only the fighter production does not mean nothing; by british accounts, using Richard Collier as source, as much as the fighter was high, training proper pilots, which took heavy casualties everyday, are becoming problematic. They literally throwed rookies with less of 24 hours of real flight into battle, and half of which squad would generally be casualties by the end of their first week of active duty.