What if: Nazi Germany invaded Great Britain.

[carnivorousplant]

Originally Posted by BMalion

Maybe they could use public transport?

Wast ist, "Exact Change?"

[Gagundathar]

Originally Posted by Johnny L.A.

It Happened Here

Fascinating. I would like to see this.
I imagine some of my SF contacts in Britain have a copy on Beta.
But, it would be at an incompatible scan-rate.

[Lemur866]

Originally Posted by Ludovic

People also over-estimate the effectiveness of simple numbers of divisions. So the most likely counterfactual scenario is that the Germans manage to land several divisions across the channel and then immediately lose the barges to naval and air forces. So technically the German armies are across the channel but still do not have artillery (and their "airborne artillery" is being used to defend against the remnants of the RAF), or resupply or reinforcements. They don't even have a lot of trucks (but do have quite a few horses.)

So at the point of landing one could even argue if the British were underequipped. Because they at least have some artillery and heavy equipment.

Exactly so. Without supplies, the soldiers are useless. They need ammo, food, fuel, spare parts, replacement weapons, and on and on, by the ton.

Yes, starving Japanese soldiers with no resupply were able to fight back ferociously in the Pacific. But they weren't advancing. They used up all their ammunition, then fixed bayonets and committed suicide by charging.

You can't teleport the German army across the channel and leave them on the beach and expect them to do anything unless you're also prepared to keep teleporting the required logistical support.

Yes, France was captured in five weeks, then they surrendered because the situation was hopeless. A German expeditionary force that magically got across the channel could take London, but the British situation would still not be hopeless, because that German force would be supported by the thinnest of logistical threads. German forces in France could be resupplied by trains and trucks and horse drawn wagons, and nothing the French did could stop them. German forces in Britain would be resupplied by---well, nothing.

[Dissonance]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I agree. It was never going to happen historically. The British naval superiority in the summer of 1940 was as overwhelming as the German ground superiority. And I've said so: "the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force made it impossible for the Germans to get their troops across the Channel". But the OP asked "hypothetically speaking, what would happen if the German forces managed to get their armies across the channel".

You're rather missing the point; if the RN and the RAF are both poofed away in a wisp of smoke from a magic wand, it still does nothing to change the fact that the Germans don't have the transports to put anything like the size of the force you describe ashore. They had nothing to cross with in June, and in September the bulk of what they had was Rhine ferries and all of the problems associated with them. Landing 14 fully equipped divisions in the first wave is in the realms of science fiction. The later, if still unrealistic plans for Sea Lion called for landing 10 infantry regiments less all of their heavy equipment. The absence of the RN and RAF wasn't going to make the Germans able to disgorge panzer divisions and infantry divisions with all of their artillery and heavy equipment onto the beaches.

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by Johnny L.A.

It Happened Here

Fuck! I need to watch that movie. I watched the rare videos of it on Youtube, and they're great. Especially considering that it's a movie made entirely by amateurs (directors as much as actors), with borrowed material and such. The scenes look like real war footage, be it the German soldiers fraternizing with Londoners or combat scenes (displaying as much heavy weapons as summary executions). And if the concept of the UK being conquered, as per this thread, seems far-etched, the consequences depicted seem credible.

I could see only one scene of the plot with real dialogues (fortunately subtitled in Spanish, since I'm really bad at understanding spoken English. I had to add what English I could understand and what Spanish I could read) and even that appeared well acted.

How on Earth could have amateurs done that?

Now, I regret having read the plot on Wikipedia. I really want to watch this, but I don't know how I'm going to get in France a copy of an old obsucre foreign movie (let alone preferably subtitled). I doubt it was ever realeased on DVD or even VCR.

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by the_diego

"...our colonies will carry on..."

Maybe Churchill was already considering building up reserves in Canada or India and, using their strong navy, counter-invade.

By crossing the Atlantic? With what troop transports, air cover, heavy weapons, or even men? This scenario seems even more implausible than Sealion.

[Lemur866]

But if the Royal Navy is still intact, they can blockade occupied Britain. And then the occupation force withers on the vine, they can't resupply or reinforce. Eventually you can put troops back in Britain unopposed.

[Filbert]

Originally Posted by XT

If by some miracle they DID manage to get their army across it would have been pretty grim fighting for the Germans. I don't see how they could logistically supply such an operation unless, as previously noted, the Germans had complete air superiority as well as complete local naval superiority. Without those things, a German army landing anywhere in the British Isles would be doomed...just a matter of how long before they were run to ground and wiped out or surrendered, really.

They did invade, and hold, part of the British Isles- the Channel Islands were held from June/July 1940 until the German surrender.

[WotNot]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

Now, I regret having read the plot on Wikipedia. I really want to watch this, but I don't know how I'm going to get in France a copy of an old obsucre foreign movie (let alone preferably subtitled). I doubt it was ever realeased on DVD or even VCR.

It is on DVD, but I'm afraid subtitles don't look likely.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Dissonance

You're rather missing the point; if the RN and the RAF are both poofed away in a wisp of smoke from a magic wand, it still does nothing to change the fact that the Germans don't have the transports to put anything like the size of the force you describe ashore. They had nothing to cross with in June, and in September the bulk of what they had was Rhine ferries and all of the problems associated with them. Landing 14 fully equipped divisions in the first wave is in the realms of science fiction. The later, if still unrealistic plans for Sea Lion called for landing 10 infantry regiments less all of their heavy equipment. The absence of the RN and RAF wasn't going to make the Germans able to disgorge panzer divisions and infantry divisions with all of their artillery and heavy equipment onto the beaches.

Giant seahorses. The Germans rode across the Channel on giant seahorses, just like Aquaman.

The OP didn't say "Was it possible under realistic conditions for the Germans to have successfully crossed the Channel?" He asked what would happen if they did manage it. So just assume the landing force has arrived in England, via ships, teleportation, or giant seahorses, and take it from there.

As for the size of the landing force, I went by the official German plans (which was twenty-seven divisions not fourteen). Again, this is what the OP specified - and I agree that using the German plans to define what the landing force would have been is a reasonable assumption.

[Simple Linctus]

Originally Posted by Filbert

They did invade, and hold, part of the British Isles- the Channel Islands were held from June/July 1940 until the German surrender.

The Channel Islands are not part of the British Isles, despite what Wikipedia says (there's a long running dispute about this)

[Dissonance]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

As for the size of the landing force, I went by the official German plans (which was twenty-seven divisions not fourteen). Again, this is what the OP specified - and I agree that using the German plans to define what the landing force would have been is a reasonable assumption.

The German plan for a landing force of 27 divisions with half of them in the first wave is entirely unreasonable. Again, Overlord only had 5 divisions in the initial landing wave. The question you're answering isn't 'what would happen if the Royal Navy disappeared’; you're answering 'what would happen if the English Channel disappeared.’ Sandhurst has wargamed Sea Lion as planned as if the Royal Navy didn’t exist, i.e. the exercise starts with the Germans landing on the beaches without having been blown out of the water on the way across. In every case by D+3 the Germans are holding onto two small isolated beachheads, facing forces greater than their own with the odds getting worse by the hour while still drawing supplies over open beaches.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Dissonance

The German plan for a landing force of 27 divisions with half of them in the first wave is entirely unreasonable. ...

So what? The whole OP is unreasonable. But if one accepts that invasion succeeded, it not unreasonable to accept that the Germans would win.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

So what? The whole OP is unreasonable. But if one accepts that invasion succeeded, it not unreasonable to accept that the Germans would win.

Exactly. If the OP asks "What if the Confederates had an atomic bomb like the one that blew up Hiroshima?" it's on-topic to discuss what target they might have tried for or how they would have delivered the bomb without aircraft or missile technology. But a discussion on the state of 19th century physics and the impossibility of the OP would be off-topic. You have to accept the premise.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Exactly. If the OP asks "What if the Confederates had an atomic bomb like the one that blew up Hiroshima?" it's on-topic to discuss what target they might have tried for or how they would have delivered the bomb without aircraft or missile technology. But a discussion on the state of 19th century physics and the impossibility of the OP would be off-topic. You have to accept the premise.

I'm feeling a little guilty about the grief you've been given over your opinion. I posted pretty much the same as you in post 17, but you've caught all the flak. Um, thanks.

[Chimera]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Exactly. If the OP asks "What if the Confederates had an atomic bomb like the one that blew up Hiroshima?" it's on-topic to discuss what target they might have tried for or how they would have delivered the bomb without aircraft or missile technology. But a discussion on the state of 19th century physics and the impossibility of the OP would be off-topic. You have to accept the premise.

They build a giant oak barrel around it, label it as bourbon and drive it north on a heavy wagon.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

I'm feeling a little guilty about the grief you've been given over your opinion. I posted pretty much the same as you in post 17, but you've caught all the flak. Um, thanks.

I'll admit I can get to arguing sometimes. I tell myself that it was the other guy that started it and he's the one who's got a problem. But he's probably saying the same thing about me. At some point, my better nature reasserts itself and I just walk away.

[carnivorousplant]

Originally Posted by Chimera

They build a giant oak barrel around it, label it as bourbon and drive it north on a heavy wagon.

And allow William T. Sherman to capture it and knock out the bung.

[the_diego]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

By crossing the Atlantic? With what troop transports, air cover, heavy weapons, or even men? This scenario seems even more implausible than Sealion.

They can land in Ireland first. Or even Norway or Iceland. You might as well assume the Atlantic belonged to the Brits.

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by WotNot

It is on DVD, but I'm afraid subtitles don't look likely.

If it's on DVD, it will have subtitles . In English, but as you can see I can manage to read it.

Unfortunately, after reading your post, I tried to order it but the place where I usually order foreign DVDs has discontinued imports from the UK (in fact, from everywhere except the USA). I can't order it from the UK online, either, because my bank has blocked all online transactions for customers who don't suscribe to its SUPER SECURE (inconvenient, costly) online scheme, so I can't order anything within the EU anymore. Fortunately, I can still use it for transactions in Nigeria and such places.

However, if it exists on DVD (I didn't expect it), I'll find a way to get my hands on it. I'll try ordering it from a British library in Paris.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Johnny L.A.

It Happened Here

This one is good, too.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

This one is good, too.

Damn, how did I miss this one? I've got to see this movie.

Another good "England invaded" work is An Englishman's Castle.

[Elendil's Heir]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

C.S. Forester, author of the Horatio Hornblower stories, wrote a fictionalized account, "If Hitler had Invaded England." Obviously, any such work is speculative, but his is one of the better guesses. In his version, the German divisions get scattered in their landing zones, and, before they can re-organize themselves, they are contained. After that, it's just a slow siege to reduce them.

I just read this; you can find it in Forester's WWII-related short-story collection Gold from Crete. It's pretty good.

SPOILER:

German surface warships and U-boats are able to fend off the Royal Navy just long enough for the invasion fleet to get across the Channel for landings at Rye and Winchelsea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rye,_East_Sussex and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchelsea), but then the Luftwaffe can't maintain local air superiority long enough to keep the invasion force adequately supplied. Home Guard units are more effective against the invaders than anyone expected; snipers, in particular, take a heavy toll against German officers. In the end the Germans are cut off in the British countryside, run out of gas and ammo, and are forced to surrender, still quite a distance from their objective, London.

Gold from Crete also includes a somewhat-related short story, "The Dumb Dutchman," in which

SPOILER:

a Dutch tugboat captain who's secretly spying for the British feigns support for the Nazi cause and gets drafted into invasion duty. His tugboat tows several river barges with German infantrymen and equipment in them. During a nighttime practice run off the Dutch coast, he takes advantage of a heavy fog and the nautical ignorance of his Wehrmacht passengers to head straight across the Channel for Great Britain. A Royal Navy destroyer eventually stops them, easily suppresses the fire of some of the German troops, and captures the rest. The tugboat captain, who had been reassuring himself all along that, if worse came to worst, he could always commit suicide with poison concealed inside a pencil, is horrified to realize that he was carrying the wrong pencil all along!

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Blitzkrieg don't work without gasoline.

And there would be no resupply.
Period.

[BrokenBriton]

Yep, barges make poor tanks.

armies don't seem to important when you can't work out how the invader gets past the navy/air force combo.

Assuming the barges were going to make it, there were still last ditch ideas like effectively setting the channel on fire.

[Mr. Kobayashi]

How does the saying go, amateurs talk about strategy, professionals talk about logistics?

Another aspect nobody has considered is the use of chemical warfare, by both sides. The Nazis planned a possible use of chemical/biological weapons feigning British use as a justification. However the British had no hesitations about use of chemical weapons as German troops hit the beaches;

General Brooke, in command of British anti-invasion preparations of World War II said that he "...had every intention of using sprayed mustard gas on the beaches" in an annotation in his diary.[7] The British manufactured Mustard, chlorine, lewisite, phosgene and Paris Green and stored it at airfields and depots for use on the beaches.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemica...erman_invasion

This adds additional logistic pressure on the Germans in bringing over anti-gas measures and specialised medical treatments, or drains their not easily replaced manpower if they don't bother.

[aruvqan]

Originally Posted by Gagundathar

Fascinating. I would like to see this.
I imagine some of my SF contacts in Britain have a copy on Beta.
But, it would be at an incompatible scan-rate.

Couldn't they use one of the gizmos that turns other video media into computer files?

And to the person upthread who said something about infantry not being good against tanks - the Finns used molotov cocktails agains tanks quite effectively - who knew that if you dump a burning liquid into the vents on the backs of tanks it would cause the fuel and ammo to go kaboom ... granted it can be sort of hard on the poor schlub tossing the molotov, but when you look at the stats for the Winter War, a bunch of antisocial Finns on skis with guns and molotov cocktails did pretty well.

I can't help but think that the Home Guard would do fairly well against the Germans, after all Britain hadn't started disarming the population at that point in time and there were a fair number of hunting guns and souvenir German militaria from WW1 knocking around. The pool of exWW1 doughboys might be pretty good against Jerry ... as was pointed out upthread a few leftover grudges can do wonders for home defense. Nothing like practical experience and willingness to kill.

Not to mention, tactics is great, but remember the old saw about 'Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics' - resupply for the home team is always better than for invaders. A tank is great, until it runs out of fuel and spare parts...

[Kepler1571]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Giant seahorses. The Germans rode across the Channel on giant seahorses, just like Aquaman.

Close, but these are the Germans we're talking about.

[Kepler1571]

Originally Posted by Lemur866

Yes, France was captured in five weeks, then they surrendered because the situation was hopeless.

Which could happen with a successfully blockaded GB, but if Jerry is smart enough to blockade them, he's smart enough not to invade in the first place.

So my answer to OP is the Germans win because the only way it happens is the Brits have been besieged to the brink of starvation beforehand.

[WotNot]

Originally Posted by aruvqan

I can't help but think that the Home Guard would do fairly well against the Germans, after all Britain hadn't started disarming the population at that point in time and there were a fair number of hunting guns and souvenir German militaria from WW1 knocking around.

I'm sure the Home Guard would have acquitted themselves admirably, but it wouldn't have been with their own personal weapons, because they mostly didn't have any. The British population wasn't significantly better armed before the war than it has been since.

The pool of exWW1 doughboys might be pretty good against Jerry ...

… if they weren't all safely at home in America.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by aruvqan

And to the person upthread who said something about infantry not being good against tanks - the Finns used molotov cocktails agains tanks quite effectively - who knew that if you dump a burning liquid into the vents on the backs of tanks it would cause the fuel and ammo to go kaboom ... granted it can be sort of hard on the poor schlub tossing the molotov, but when you look at the stats for the Winter War, a bunch of antisocial Finns on skis with guns and molotov cocktails did pretty well.

The Finns lost that war.

[aruvqan]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

The Finns lost that war.

This winter war, where the soviets went in and pulled back a bloody stump? I might point out that while yes Finland lost 11% of their land, and 30% of their economic assets, I really can't consider a tiny little army from that tiny little land that causes those kinds of losses in manpower and equipment to have *lost*. Losing is losing all your land and becoming a territory with the 'winner' sucking out all the money and materials to go on and have a go at conquering someone else.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Kepler1571

Which could happen with a successfully blockaded GB, but if Jerry is smart enough to blockade them, he's smart enough not to invade in the first place.

So my answer to OP is the Germans win because the only way it happens is the Brits have been besieged to the brink of starvation beforehand.

So, if that happens, do the Germans still have to deal with partisan resistance? (Perhaps its nucleus formed around a small band of refugee public-school boys with OTC training . . .)

[Ranchoth]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

Now, I regret having read the plot on Wikipedia. I really want to watch this, but I don't know how I'm going to get in France a copy of an old obsucre foreign movie (let alone preferably subtitled). I doubt it was ever realeased on DVD or even VCR.

It's actually available on Netflix, right now.

[Kepler1571]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

So, if that happens, do the Germans still have to deal with partisan resistance? (Perhaps its nucleus formed around a small band of refugee public-school boys with OTC training . . .)

I would assume so. Don't underestimate those kids, they wasted Piggy.

[carnivorousplant]

Originally Posted by aruvqan

Losing is losing all your land and becoming a territory with the 'winner' sucking out all the money and materials to go on and have a go at conquering someone else.

I think that had already happened to the Finns. It was a great chance to kill a lot of Russians. I am told, and have no cite, that when Hitler asked the Finns, "Why don't you send me all your Jews?" the Finns said, "Why don't you try to come take them?"

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by aruvqan

This winter war, where the soviets went in and pulled back a bloody stump? I might point out that while yes Finland lost 11% of their land, and 30% of their economic assets, I really can't consider a tiny little army from that tiny little land that causes those kinds of losses in manpower and equipment to have *lost*. Losing is losing all your land and becoming a territory with the 'winner' sucking out all the money and materials to go on and have a go at conquering someone else.

But you don't have a point spread on wars. You don't get to say you "won" because you were expecting to lose by twenty points and only lost by five. Finland ended up giving the Soviet Union everything it had demanded before the war and more.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by carnivorousplant

I think that had already happened to the Finns. It was a great chance to kill a lot of Russians. I am told, and have no cite, that when Hitler asked the Finns, "Why don't you send me all your Jews?" the Finns said, "Why don't you try to come take them?"

In reality, while Finland didn't turn over native Finnish Jews, it did turn over some foreign Jews who were living as refugees in Finland to the Nazis.

[Quartz]

I wonder. Imagine an invasion, not of England, but of the Isle of Wight. By paratroops initially. Could sufficient artillery and AA be dropped (in pieces) with the troops to control part of the Channel? The Germans might sneak in some sort of PLUTO for fuel, and then they have a forward airbase from which to contest the air. Consider Malta as an equivalent.

Or perhaps the Germans mount what appears to be a big raid on London but is secretly an invasion of the IoW?

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Quartz

I wonder. Imagine an invasion, not of England, but of the Isle of Wight. By paratroops initially. Could sufficient artillery and AA be dropped (in pieces) with the troops to control part of the Channel? ... Consider Malta as an equivalent.

Or perhaps the Germans mount what appears to be a big raid on London but is secretly an invasion of the IoW?

They couldn't take Malta. Honestly, I don't know if they planned an invasion of it, but they tried really hard to knock out the port and airfield and they couldn't. And the only way to really knock out those facilities permanently would have been by invasion.

[sidecar_jon]

Originally Posted by Quartz

I wonder. Imagine an invasion, not of England, but of the Isle of Wight. ?

Impossible they would all die of boredom.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Quartz

I wonder. Imagine an invasion, not of England, but of the Isle of Wight. By paratroops initially. Could sufficient artillery and AA be dropped (in pieces) with the troops to control part of the Channel? The Germans might sneak in some sort of PLUTO for fuel, and then they have a forward airbase from which to contest the air. Consider Malta as an equivalent.

Or perhaps the Germans mount what appears to be a big raid on London but is secretly an invasion of the IoW?

A little Googling showed me that Germany had quite extensive plans to invade Malta that they scrapped for reasons not totally clear. According to Wiki, much of the German high command supported it, Rommel wanted to personally lead the invasion, and the Italians were willing to throw in 70,000 troops and build landing craft specifically for the task.

But really, what would be the point of invading the Isle of Wight? The Germans had very good reasons for taking Malta, as it lay right across their supply lines to North Africa. Why would they take the Isle of Wight, which looks within even artillery range of the English mainland? Even if they succeed in the invasion, the time it would take would allow the Brits to build up substantial defenses on their own coasts nearby, the Brits would totally dominate in the air, and I'm doubtful any German invasion craft could survive a sustained British air assault. It looks to me like a German force there would just be a big punching bag for the Brits.

But... I'm not a professional military strategist, so maybe someone around here can provide a better assessment than me.

[Boyo Jim]

FYI, I did find a couple of stories saying Germany did in fact plan to invade the Isle of Wight, as part of Operation Sealion, one among several invasion areas, AFAICT the rest of the forces landing on the mainland. Perhaps they did not want to leave any significant British forces or facilities behind their own forces.

[Askance]

Originally Posted by Quartz

I wonder. Imagine an invasion, not of England, but of the Isle of Wight. By paratroops initially. Could sufficient artillery and AA be dropped (in pieces) with the troops to control part of the Channel? The Germans might sneak in some sort of PLUTO for fuel, and then they have a forward airbase from which to contest the air. Consider Malta as an equivalent.

If Malta had been 5 km off the Italian it would have been untenable. It would be roughly the equivalent had the British held Capri, say.

Up to 1940 the British held the Channel Isles, which are 20km off France. They were judged to be untenable and were evacuated, and the Germans occupied them without a fight. The IoW is just 5km off the English coast. So, no.

[Dissonance]

Originally Posted by aruvqan

This winter war, where the soviets went in and pulled back a bloody stump? I might point out that while yes Finland lost 11% of their land, and 30% of their economic assets, I really can't consider a tiny little army from that tiny little land that causes those kinds of losses in manpower and equipment to have *lost*. Losing is losing all your land and becoming a territory with the 'winner' sucking out all the money and materials to go on and have a go at conquering someone else.

Yes, that Winter War that the Finns lost. You don't surrender 10% of your land and create a half million refugees as a result of a war you didn't lose. This insistence that Finland didn't lose the war always perplexes me. They lasted longer than expected, and the Soviets took heavier losses than expected, but in the end Finland clearly lost the war. The manner in which Finland acted during the cold war (no criticism of the USSR allowed in the media, censorship of movies and films deemed anti-Soviet, etc) even led to the coining of the pejorative term Finlandization.

Hannibal tore Rome several new assholes making the kill ratio in the Winter War look like the work of amateurs, but nobody is foolish enough to try to claim that Carthage didn't lose all of the Punic Wars, even though it wasn’t until the Third Punic War that Rome tired of a war with them every generation and completely eliminated Carthage as a political entity.

[NiceGuyJack]

Originally Posted by the_diego

Right you are. But it seems people here are still assuming the original schedule of Seelowe which was roundabout September.

The funny thing with industrialized countries back then was, well, they were highly populous and industrialized. Britain, I think, best exemplified this. Even if you invaded right after Dunkirk, you'll pay for every mile you gain. British factories beyond the reach of the luftwaffe will crank out weapons round the clock and the 320,000 escapees from Dunkirk would have swelled to half a million. That's probably the number you'll be facing when you get to the London Area.

My best analogy for the above was Stalingrad. Factories there were cranking out new T-34s even as the Germans were knocking at their doors.

How can you compare Britain to the Soviet Union?

If the Germans had decided to invade Britain before turning on Russia, you have to consider that the greatest problem for the Germans to overcome was crossing the channel.
Considering the RN and the RAF and other issues as mentioned in various posts, it would likely have been a costly effort, but I think there is a real possibility they could have succeeded. They would necessarily have had to have done it before they turned on the Russians. Keep in mind that Hitler and Stalin had a none-aggression treaty and had carved up Poland between them.
Stalin was actually supplying Hitler with raw materials.
People seem to forget that before Hitler turned on Stalin, Churchill was also at war with Stalin.
So if Germany had managed to solve the crossing, Britain would not have withstood for very long. You can't compare with Russia. Yes tanks were rolling out of factories in Stalingrad, straight into battle, but there was also raw materials rolling in. Raw materials brought in from as yet unconquered vastness of the Soviet Union. Where would the raw materials be coming in from in Britain?
And with that, add a huge supply of civilians drafted in to the war effort. Often untrained. Simply given a weapon and sent to the front line.
The Soviets lost 20 million people in WW2. Half the population of England at that time. (Population of England was 40 million at the start of WW2, the Soviet Union had a population of 195 million).
Then consider the shear size of the Eastern front. From Leningrad on the Baltic sea to Stalingrad near the Caspian. Would be like going from Dover to the very Northern tip of Scotland at least twice and then some.

With that in mind and if the Germans had successfully solved the crossing problem, Britain would have been conquered in a relatively short time. There simply is no way, the British would have been able to resist the way the Soviets did.

[BrokenBriton]

Originally Posted by NiceGuyJack

With that in mind and if the Germans had successfully solved the crossing problem, Britain would have been conquered in a relatively short time. There simply is no way, the British would have been able to resist the way the Soviets did.

Hence, at the start of WW2, the Soviet Union had three rubbish battleships and no carriers - this across its four fleets.

The SU couldn't defend the Channel and the British couldn't defend a long land border - it's a fairly trite point.

[MarcusF]

Originally Posted by NiceGuyJack

How can you compare Britain to the Soviet Union?

If the Germans had decided to invade Britain before turning on Russia, you have to consider that the greatest problem for the Germans to overcome was crossing the channel.
Considering the RN and the RAF and other issues as mentioned in various posts, it would likely have been a costly effort, but I think there is a real possibility they could have succeeded. They would necessarily have had to have done it before they turned on the Russians. Keep in mind that Hitler and Stalin had a none-aggression treaty and had carved up Poland between them.
Stalin was actually supplying Hitler with raw materials.
People seem to forget that before Hitler turned on Stalin, Churchill was also at war with Stalin.
So if Germany had managed to solve the crossing, Britain would not have withstood for very long. You can't compare with Russia. Yes tanks were rolling out of factories in Stalingrad, straight into battle, but there was also raw materials rolling in. Raw materials brought in from as yet unconquered vastness of the Soviet Union. Where would the raw materials be coming in from in Britain?
And with that, add a huge supply of civilians drafted in to the war effort. Often untrained. Simply given a weapon and sent to the front line.
The Soviets lost 20 million people in WW2. Half the population of England at that time. (Population of England was 40 million at the start of WW2, the Soviet Union had a population of 195 million).
Then consider the shear size of the Eastern front. From Leningrad on the Baltic sea to Stalingrad near the Caspian. Would be like going from Dover to the very Northern tip of Scotland at least twice and then some.

With that in mind and if the Germans had successfully solved the crossing problem, Britain would have been conquered in a relatively short time. There simply is no way, the British would have been able to resist the way the Soviets did.

Lots of problems here if you are going to argue that 'Britain would have been conquered in a relatively short time'. As people have said over and over on this thread the Germans not only had to make a crossing, they had to continue to supply the forces they landed. Even without major opposition there is a limit to how large a force Germany could have sustained across the Channel. With all the greater resources of the Allies in 1944 this was still a constraint on post-Overlord operations. So we are not talking about a force of hundreds of divisions as in the Soviet Union. Assuming we are still talking about a September 1940 invasion by this point British forces were getting their act together, reformed and rearmed since Dunkirk with UK factories ramping up production and munitions flowing in from the United States. Even the Home Guard was beginning to become a potentially effective fighting force, at least able to delay and disrupt German operations if not stop them entirely. If we are talking about 1941 for an invasion, well, this gives Germany time to build some sort of half credible invasion fleet (not entirely unseaworthy barges) and the impact of the weather on resupply might be better for a spring invasion but it also gives time for Britain really to sort out its defences. By May 1941 the strength and effectiveness of the British forces had increased massively.

You say "Where would the raw materials be coming in from in Britain?" The answer is from the same place as in this timeline: from British mines, recycled scrap, and imports. Remember that during the war Britain produced more iron and steel than the Soviet Union and had more available energy reserves. Yes, ultimately the Soviet Union has far more natural resources than Britain but not readily available in 1940-41.

[Dissonance]

Originally Posted by NiceGuyJack

People seem to forget that before Hitler turned on Stalin, Churchill was also at war with Stalin.

People don't forget it because it never happened.

[Elendil's Heir]

Originally Posted by NiceGuyJack

...People seem to forget that before Hitler turned on Stalin, Churchill was also at war with Stalin....

Well, Churchill was certainly no friend of Bolshevism, but was the UK technically at war with the USSR?