5 ms·

Pearl harbour changed the course of the war, before that America wouldnt get involved and Britain had no Army, no food and no air force. Germany had a plan to

Pearl harbour changed the course of the war, before that America wouldnt get involved and Britain had no Army, no food and no air force. Germany had a plan to invade (Operation Sea Lion), and by the numbers it would have been a successful invasion. Dads Army would not have been any resistance. They didnt invade because they thought the RAF was much larger than it actually was, Britain knew they thought this because of Bletchly, and therefore didnt surrender, instead declaring the Battle of Britain won in October 1940, the day or so after they decoded the message saying the invasion was being delayed indefinitely until the Luftwaffe could defeat (the already defeated) RAF. If anything the role of Bletchly and Alan Turing is still under rated.

KaiserPro 6y ago
> Pearl harbour changed the course of the war, agreed > before that America wouldnt get involved Kind of apart from they were building vast factories and re-arming at a spectacular rate > and Britain had no Army, False. the BEF was around 390k, or 13 divisions. The army at that time was around a million. Even accounting for losses in evacuation, (around 70k) There was still the Indian armies, the African armies and the various other imperial armies. More concerning was the loss of equipment. Even so, you seem to forget that the worlds biggest navy owned the channel. (the stuff that was patrolling the north sea wasn't even most of the navy) Then you forget that the british ports were well mined and defended. (just like the ports in normandy, hence the mulberry temporary ports to ship ammo, fuel and armour in, without which the effort would have failed, like market garden) > no food Again no, the blockade was later. Compared to the dutch, Belgians and the germans later on, england had loads of food. > and no air force. again, if the UK had no airforce, they wouldn't have had air superiority. Which meant that the german airforce could have dominated the channel and harassed the British navy. To tackle your point about sealion Without logistics it would have been very difficult for the germans to establish a beach head. First they would have tried to take a port. Ports that are well defended (they've had 200 years at this point to build defences against the french....) Second, should they take a port, they have to keep it stocked up with fuel, ammo and arms. All of which is very difficult when you being bombarded from sea, air and land. d-day only worked because they had complete control of the air, and almost complete control of the sea. Sealion was nowhere near close to any of those.
- DarkmSparks 6y ago
  >Even accounting for losses in evacuation, (around 70k) There was still the Indian armies, the African armies and the various other imperial armies. More concerning was the loss of equipment. Its like chess. Once the King/Capital had fallen, the war would have been over, wouldn't matter how many pieces are left on the board. >Again no, the blockade was later. Rationing started in January 1940, the German U-boats were successful until Bletchly started cracking their navel codes, and that they managed by someone climbing into a sinking German sub. "Die Glückliche Zeit" >again, if the UK had no airforce, they wouldn't have had air superiority. Which meant that the german airforce could have dominated the channel and harassed the British navy. Its a matter of perception, force projection through the use of Radar meant Britain could spread what was left of the RAF in a manner that made the Germans think they were much larger than they were, when truth be told another month or so targeting the RAF instead of cities and they would have had that air superiority. >Second, should they take a port, they have to keep it stocked up with fuel, ammo and arms. Not really, they captured Paris in a few days, London would've been quicker. But I doubt it would have come to that, if Britain hadn't known the invasion was cancelled they would most surely have surrendered.
  - KaiserPro 6y ago
    > they captured Paris in a few days, London would've been quicker. as we all know paris is a well known island.
    - DarkmSparks 6y ago
      Crossing the channel would have been a lot simpler than taking Eben Emael, so I'm not sure why you think that would be a factor. Britain has never had well defended coasts which is why its been conquered so many times over the centuries. Even the Romans managed it....
      - KaiserPro 6y ago
        > Crossing the channel would have been a lot simpler than taking Eben Emael You try it and see how you get on. unless I'm mistaken the belgians didn't have the world largest navy. The belgians didn't didn't air superiority either. Go and look at the logistics of invading a hostile coast, but not only holding it, but pushing further in.

KaiserPro 6y ago

> Pearl harbour changed the course of the war, agreed > before that America wouldnt get involved Kind of apart from they were building vast factories and re-arming at a spectacular rate > and Britain had no Army, False. the BEF was around 390k, or 13 divisions. The army at that time was around a million. Even accounting for losses in evacuation, (around 70k) There was still the Indian armies, the African armies and the various other imperial armies. More concerning was the loss of equipment. Even so, you seem to forget that the worlds biggest navy owned the channel. (the stuff that was patrolling the north sea wasn't even most of the navy) Then you forget that the british ports were well mined and defended. (just like the ports in normandy, hence the mulberry temporary ports to ship ammo, fuel and armour in, without which the effort would have failed, like market garden) > no food Again no, the blockade was later. Compared to the dutch, Belgians and the germans later on, england had loads of food. > and no air force. again, if the UK had no airforce, they wouldn't have had air superiority. Which meant that the german airforce could have dominated the channel and harassed the British navy. To tackle your point about sealion Without logistics it would have been very difficult for the germans to establish a beach head. First they would have tried to take a port. Ports that are well defended (they've had 200 years at this point to build defences against the french....) Second, should they take a port, they have to keep it stocked up with fuel, ammo and arms. All of which is very difficult when you being bombarded from sea, air and land. d-day only worked because they had complete control of the air, and almost complete control of the sea. Sealion was nowhere near close to any of those.

DarkmSparks 6y ago
>Even accounting for losses in evacuation, (around 70k) There was still the Indian armies, the African armies and the various other imperial armies. More concerning was the loss of equipment. Its like chess. Once the King/Capital had fallen, the war would have been over, wouldn't matter how many pieces are left on the board. >Again no, the blockade was later. Rationing started in January 1940, the German U-boats were successful until Bletchly started cracking their navel codes, and that they managed by someone climbing into a sinking German sub. "Die Glückliche Zeit" >again, if the UK had no airforce, they wouldn't have had air superiority. Which meant that the german airforce could have dominated the channel and harassed the British navy. Its a matter of perception, force projection through the use of Radar meant Britain could spread what was left of the RAF in a manner that made the Germans think they were much larger than they were, when truth be told another month or so targeting the RAF instead of cities and they would have had that air superiority. >Second, should they take a port, they have to keep it stocked up with fuel, ammo and arms. Not really, they captured Paris in a few days, London would've been quicker. But I doubt it would have come to that, if Britain hadn't known the invasion was cancelled they would most surely have surrendered.
- KaiserPro 6y ago
  > they captured Paris in a few days, London would've been quicker. as we all know paris is a well known island.
  - DarkmSparks 6y ago
    Crossing the channel would have been a lot simpler than taking Eben Emael, so I'm not sure why you think that would be a factor. Britain has never had well defended coasts which is why its been conquered so many times over the centuries. Even the Romans managed it....
    - KaiserPro 6y ago
      > Crossing the channel would have been a lot simpler than taking Eben Emael You try it and see how you get on. unless I'm mistaken the belgians didn't have the world largest navy. The belgians didn't didn't air superiority either. Go and look at the logistics of invading a hostile coast, but not only holding it, but pushing further in.