Author Topic: The Navy (RN) Won the Battle of Britian...Discuss (Read 2127 times)

Badboy · « **Reply #60 on:** August 28, 2006, 09:50:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
For the RAF to say they beat the luftwaffe is correct, to say they single handlely saved england is silly.

True, the RAF didn't save England single handedly, they were helped by their ground crew, the observer corp, by hundreds of anti aircraft crew, by the people who raised and lowered the barrage balloons, by the controllers and plotters, the fire service, the doctors and nurses who treated the wounded, and many many more. They were also helped by the Royal Navy, who made it possible for the convoys to get through with vital supplies and raw materials for aircraft production.

However, when a battle is won, credit generally goes to those who did the fighting, not to those who provided support, or to those who merely escorted the materials used to make the weapons and ammunition.

Quote

If the Battle of Britain was "won" by the Germans abandoning the invasion, it was won by the fighting of the RAF and the presence of the Royal Navy.

Nope, you can't say that, anymore than you can include the presence of the Home Guard. Neither the Home Guard or the Royal Navy were significantly involved, and nobody can be certain how either would have performed if an invasion had taken place. In fact, the Home Guard were probably more involved in the Battle than the Royal Navy, at least in a more direct capacity.

What you can be certain of, is that the Home Guard and the Royal Navy did not participate directly in the battle as combatants, because the battle was fought in the air, so neither of them can be given credit for the victory. The credit goes to those of the RAF who fought during the battle.

To summarise:

The RAF won the Battle.

The Royal Navy did not, they were little more than spectators.

Badboy

Badboy · « **Reply #61 on:** August 28, 2006, 09:54:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Edbert1
So when we do the AH-BoB-2006 scenario in the next few months I guess it will be LW versus RN?
JK...continue

Yep, whatever the outcome of the scenario, the allies can claim afterwards that the Royal Navy won

Badboy

Angus · « **Reply #62 on:** August 29, 2006, 05:13:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
Still.. airpower alone cant win wars. You need folks on the ground to take and secure it.

Nilsen, when you have an airpowered pond to cross, you need airpower

So no airpower, no victory.
Same the other way around.
So, for the Germans it was very clear, - without control of the skies, no invasion.
And Badboy, of course the presence of the Navy was crucial. With none to little RN (say the size of the kriegsmarine in the area), the invasion would have been worth to look at. Would RAF have stopped the Kriegsmarine as an escort? They couldn't stop Scarnhorst & Gneisenau a year later.

Nilsen · « **Reply #63 on:** August 29, 2006, 05:17:01 AM »

See rule #5

Edbert1 · « **Reply #64 on:** August 29, 2006, 05:38:42 AM »

See rule #5

Angus · « **Reply #65 on:** August 29, 2006, 05:51:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
Yes.. but If the Germans attacked with airpower alone they could not occupy the nation using only planes. They need troops on the ground and ships on the waters. The teapots would not run around on their fields with white flags and surrender to the LW.

How did they capture Crete?

Yes I know it was at a bloody cost, and they wouldn't have caught the UK in the same way, but you could consider it as a good foothold though.
BTW, the "dad" of the German Paras, Student, was hospitalied (I belive) during the BoB. He got shot in the head by the SS!!!!!
(May 1940)

Shuckins · « **Reply #66 on:** August 29, 2006, 06:00:03 AM »

It was never the German's intent to try to occupy Britain with only planes.

First they would seize control of the Channel....possibly faking the launch of the invasion to draw the RN into those narrow waters. The resulting battle would have been a bloodbath for the Royal Navy.

Secondly, the U-boats would starve the country of supplies and arms by savaging the Atlantic convoys.

Third, the Germans would launch the invasion, possibly moving directly across the Channel, but perhaps attempting a landing at a less obvious point, as the Allies actually did during Operation Overlord.

All of which would take place after German bomber raids had rendered the British naval bases inoperable.

A combined arms operation all around.

Nilsen · « **Reply #67 on:** August 29, 2006, 06:11:47 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
How did they capture Crete?

Not by airpower alone

Angus · « **Reply #68 on:** August 29, 2006, 06:34:38 AM »

What?
It was a complete airborne invasion AFAIK.

Nilsen · « **Reply #69 on:** August 29, 2006, 06:36:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
What?
It was a complete airborne invasion AFAIK.

yes.. using TROOPS..

they dindt land there and drive their planes around on the roads and hillsides shooting people.

Squire · « **Reply #70 on:** August 29, 2006, 07:21:08 AM »

The timeatable for Sealion was for the summer of 1940.

The Germans didnt have enough U-boats to starve Britain, they tried, but failed, and the RN even then had only a small percentage of their force doing convoy escort duty. The U-boat force wasnt big enough, and there was no timeframe to attempt it in 1940.

They were not able to destroy all the British naval bases despite all the bombing. The Home Fleet anchorage is at Scapa Flow, in Scotland, beyond the range of effective fighter cover.

The plans for Sealion are well known, and involve a lot of small barges and auxiliary craft, slow, and unable to take heavy seas. The landing areas they were going to use were all along the south coast.

Even with the massive air and naval force the allies had in Overlord (much larger than Sealion), it was a difficult thing to pull off. In June, not in September.

They still might have suceeded, im just pointing out some of the difficulties. It was by no means going to be an easy undertaking.

Angus · « **Reply #71 on:** August 29, 2006, 07:48:47 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
yes.. using TROOPS..

they dindt land there and drive their planes around on the roads and hillsides shooting people.

PARATROOPS BELONG TO AIRPOWER

Angus · « **Reply #72 on:** August 29, 2006, 07:59:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Squire
The timeatable for Sealion was for the summer of 1940.

The Germans didnt have enough U-boats to starve Britain, they tried, but failed, and the RN even then had only a small percentage of their force doing convoy escort duty. The U-boat force wasnt big enough, and there was no timeframe to attempt it in 1940.

They were not able to destroy all the British naval bases despite all the bombing. The Home Fleet anchorage is at Scapa Flow, in Scotland, beyond the range of effective fighter cover.

The plans for Sealion are well known, and involve a lot of small barges and auxiliary craft, slow, and unable to take heavy seas. The landing areas they were going to use were all along the south coast.

Even with the massive air and naval force the allies had in Overlord (much larger than Sealion), it was a difficult thing to pull off. In June, not in September.

They still might have suceeded, im just pointing out some of the difficulties. It was by no means going to be an easy undertaking.

The Uboats managed enough for the British to have food rationing in 1940, way before the Uboat prime-time.
The Naval bases were more or less allright. But Scapa Flow is too far away for a channel interception, and the LW caused daytime ops in the channel to be pretty risky. Homefleet at Scapa is too far away, - has to be on patrol.
Overlord does not compare so well. The weather was bad (+ and -) but the distance is very much more. (not so marked in sailing hours for barges though)
But as for barges, yes, they needed a still night to pull it off.
I agree with you, - it would have been a risky undertaking, with RN Destroyers making Banzai attacks at the bargeline (read about HMS Gloworm for example, - there was no lack of guts in the RN!).
But IMHO, the Germans could have pulled it off if they had got rid of the RAF as quickly as other airforces.
A second victory could have been won by bombing Britain into submission, which they tried of course, but the RAF stood.
So, bottom line from me is that if the RAF had been swept away in the first weeks of the BoB, the Germans would have won.

Squire · « **Reply #73 on:** August 29, 2006, 08:17:43 AM »

The Royal Navy never could have intercepted the initial invasion without prior warning (which they might have got through Enigma) true, but navies dont need to. They intercept while your are resupplying.

Gibraltar and Scapa Flow are a days sailing from the Channel (15 knots say, over 24 hours, is 360+ miles). With their entire fleet. LW or no, it would have been bloody.

Same is true for an airborne landing, it isnt so much the intial drop, its the resupply, that the RAF would have played havoc with. Paras need ammo, ect.

Food rationing, sure, would not have prevented the fleet from sailing.

I think your main point is right, that with no RAF, it would have been grim. I agree.

Just trying to add some perspective. I certainly dont discount the RN, but like I said in my 1st post, I think the authors over state the case.

Angus · « **Reply #74 on:** August 29, 2006, 08:24:44 AM »

YUP.

The sneak factor is where one gets a little lost. All the What if's.
Then the continuation factor.
How much could the German Paras handle?
How much could the Kriegsmarine itself have done (UK goes out, the Kriegsmarine has no job)
How many troops (paras and boats, little barges) could have made it to foothold in a night time.
How would the fighting have developed, - remember, aircover, but NO PANZERS.?
How is the terrain? Would Kent have been another Bocage?
Resupply?

Boils out to this, - the RN needs to be mostly eliminated from the equation, and the RAF was in the way

P.S. Gibraltar is some 1000 miles away from the channel. Straight line.
So, anything but the home fleet is out of the equation for some days.
Which would be too late.