ITT we discuss Operation Sea Lion

ITT we discuss Operation Sea Lion

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_Warfare_Department
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_Warfare_Department#Flame_traps
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

stupid name, doomed to fail

contrast with Operation Neptune

doesn't make sense, easier to let Britain just stay there. no need to conquer if you control the rest of Europe. they will be forced to depend on you or the USA for everything eventually.

Attacking an island country is really stupid.

Better chance of hell freezing over

What they should've done is filled the whole area with mines and anti-aircraft turrets while focusing on the rest of Europe.

they had unlimited American supplies form the beginning, letting them stay there would allow them to concentrate their army for an invasion, like they did
Dunkirk was the biggest fuck up of the war, why would they even consider peace when they got away with saving half a million troops

No it's not. It was easily conquerable. They should have first make Britain a vassal state and then attacked the USSR. If they conquered Britain, America could impossibly attack Europe, because they can't launch an invasion over the Atlantic ocean. Now the Germans can fight on a single front on the East and defeat the USSR. Also, they would captured many rothschilds and Jews, including Sigmund Freud.

Not conquering Britain before Barbarossa was the biggest mistake.

Should have destroyed anglos in dunkirk and kept the blitz to military targets only.

...

Didn't have the naval forces proficient enough to pull off any amphibious assault.

it took them 4 years to invade even with full American support. now imagine if Hitler hadn't sperged and declared war after Japan did. the US would probably have continued supplying Britain but not in the way it did after 1941

>You will never experience the joy and ecstacy of having a German soldier burst down your door in your countryside house and spread his Aryan seed deep in your English womb
>Now it's the shitskins
Why

Operation Sea Lion was never a genuine attempt at an invasion of Britain. It's only purpose was to keep a knife at Britain's throat during Operation Barbarossa, because they understood that fighting a war on two fronts (as they had done during WW1) was impossible.

They may have revisited Operation Sea Lion with a more workable plan if Russia had fallen during 1942/1943, but after that it was too late.

I dont think it was possible, they didnt have the power to travel to Britain and land there, historically Germany never had the power through sea, but they did have power by land, they used it just to threat the Brits and use it if they win against the commies, but they didnt, Hitler should have just killed the troops at Dunkirk, maybe then the Brits would sign peace for a while

>It was easily conquerable
Ok produce your plan of action

The invasion of Norway cost them too many naval assets.
The only reason D-day succeeded was because the combined us and British forces were able to guarantee dominance of the sea and air. Without those 2 things the invasion would literally be blown out of the water before the soldiers could even fire their rifles.

Once the us entered the war invading Britain was no longer an option.
Hitlers best option would have been to capture the forces at Dunkirk and use them as bargaining chips to negotiate a cease fire with Britain.

If he had negotiated peace with Britain then there wouldn't have been any need to waste forces in africa, and there wouldn't have been a western front.
These 2 facts make it much more likely barbarrossa would have been successful.

>Capture the forces at Dunkirk and use them as bargaining chips to negotiate a cease fire with Britain.
>Negotiated peace with Britain

Sorry, but nope.

Churchill was in charge by Dunkirk, but the original submission of the Expeditionary Force to France was his predecessors order, not Churchill's (who was only the First Sea Lord at the time).

He would have regretted leaving 300,000 British servicemen at Dunkirk, but that would have been 300,000 that the Germans had to house and feed.

He would have been under pressure to negotiate a peace, but that would have been no different to the situation in May 1940 when he became Prime Minister.

The capture of troops at Dunkirk would have been a disaster, but it would have made no difference to the outcome, Britain would have still fought on and D-Day would have happened when it did.

The British Armed forces was about 5 million during WW2, so 300,000 would have been a significant, but not catastrophic loss.

Fucking Churchill never cared about his men didnt he? What a bastard

If Dunkirk was btfo:
>france completely btfo
>world in a state of catatonic shock as the mighty baguette has fallen
>british who were expecting a drawn out meme war in forts are now suddenly hauling ass away from the line
>literally pinned down a beach
>Germans picking at them like fish in a barrel, high casualties and non existent morale
>Germans kill tens of thousands and capture the rest
>british public already spooked at France crumbling
>now their entire BEF is gone
>germany offers a peace deal that cedes Elsass to them as well as Eastern prussian territories from Poland
>usa still fucking around with depression
>whole of Western Europe is now in axis sphere of influence
>britain cuts their losses, accepts peace and gets their boys back.

War over by February 1941

a good question would be would the british elite have gone along with nazi occupation vichy-style if hitler sweetened the deal for them?

also would have been interesting to see what sections of british society actually ended up in a resistance movement

It's war time sacrifices must be made, i know the Brits had to let some troop ships get blown up because they didn't want the Germans to know they cracked their code

Imagine if after the peace deal some of the captured brit troops were incorporated to spearhead an early Barbarossa. With that and the full German might available from not needing the defend the Atlantic, soviets would have been fucking annihilated

We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender

I don't think so lad, vichy France just swapped sides cause they thought a German dominated Europe was guaranteed to happen to best to start sucking up.

youd have to factor in soviet mobilization in the east stabbing germany in the back though

If Barbarossa had been launched in spring of 1941 then a non distracted Germany with British volunteers could've most likely kicked out the soviets legs by the end of the year.

>The British Armed forces was about 5 million during WW2, so 300,000 would have been a significant, but not catastrophic loss
This is pretty misleading it was 5 million by the end of the war

Some people think that Churchill knew Coventry was going to get bombed but didn't do anything because he didn't want the Nazis to know that the engima codes had been cracked.

What about the USSR, would Germany have defeated them?

not even that, they got within spitting distance of Moscow in our timeline anyway, I give it from May-early October 1941 before Stalin abandons ship and it all falls apart

That's fair, in total war a thousand soldiers is nothing ten thousand is nothing on a grand scale. You can't be Stalin and expect to win while giving a shit about your troops

haha yes, the british ruling class would never ever dream of selling out their own people for cold hard cash

> If they conquered Britain, America could impossibly attack Europe, because they can't launch an invasion over the Atlantic ocean. Now the Germans can fight on a single front on the East and defeat the USSR.

Germany was absolutely fucked in the East by the time D-Day rolled around, it wouldn't have made a difference.

Theoretically if the western front was COMPELTELY freed up by england's defeat and they didn't have to keep troops stationed there in 41-43 it might have helped, but probably not even then. The Soviets were prepared to fight all the way into the Urals, they knew it was a war of complete annihilation.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_Warfare_Department

All our shores were/still are lined with firebombs/pipes designed to burn our enemies. Not much use now since we've allowed in a bunch of muslims. But still, BURN EVERYONE!

haha yes, the British ruling class would join up with people who would crush the corrupt elite and the cancerous unregulated free market and political corruption, I think apart from a few thousand fascist's most people would of kept on fighting and Mosley would of been taken around the back and shot for risk of him taking over

>flamethrower armoured cars
kek this is insane, reminds me of flamethrower halftracks from company of heroes

AHHHHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

No, but seriously, it's a joke in the historical community. A literal joke.

>They should have first make Britain a vassal state

How? Regale us with how you plan to put German boots on the ground in Britain AND KEEP THEM SUPPLIED.

Remember that D-Day and the general Allied Invasion of France was one of the most meticulously planned and prepared for invasions in the history of mankind, and it still ran into huge logistical problems before two months had passed.

The fuck are the Germans going to pull off with a fraction of the resources, manpower, and planning?

should have destroyed the radar first..

This. Only because of the mud the tanks couldn't advance another 15km to Moscow.

*blocks your path*

I read Germany seriously didn't expect UK/France to declare war over Poland. Like, it was definitely a possibility, the threats were there, but they wouldn't have done it

If Germany had until 1941 to prepare, they could have successfully invaded UK imo. Then again, USSR was gearing up after their Finland fiasco as well...

>not even that, they got within spitting distance of Moscow in our timeline anyway

If the Nazis couldn't even take and hold Stalingrad, how the Hell are they going to take Moscow, a much larger city with far superior industrial capacity, ten times the population, and a few extra hundred kilometers deeper into Soviet territory, stretching the already thin supply lines that much further?

>If Barbarossa had been launched in spring of 1941

In Spring of any year, European Russia is hit with heavy rains coupled with melting snow, which in the 1940s turn the dirt roads (which was most of them; few roads were paved, and the ones that were paved, were not paved very well) into hip-deep mud through which it is nearly impossible to move significant numbers of troops with any kind of speed, and certainly not their heavy tanks or armored cars or trucks.

Would never have worked. British were too well entrenched and Germany was shit at amphibious landings.

Selling out their own just so they themselves can be subservient to someone else?
I don't think so, they'd be more likely to flee to one of the other countries within the Anglosphere.

They should have dug a tunnel instead. Might've worked. And casualties in case of the tunnel flooding would've been lower than that plan's.

The (((bankers))) created Hitler and then they turned on him to make a deal with the globalists in the U.S. Any discussion of Hitler's tactics is as moot as a discussion of Hillary's domestic policies. They're irrelevant. Remember, the whole point of WW2 was to force the Jews into Israel in preparation for WW3.

If the Luftwaffe weren't so stupid and kept bombing the RAF airfields they would have won

Only if Italy didn't decide to attack Greece and instead help them. If Germany had Finland, Italy, Spain and Japan against the USSR, then the USSR would've been completely steam rolled.

Worst conspiracy theory

>you are now aware that we literally planned to light the sea on fire and then burn anyone alive that managed to make it to land

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_Warfare_Department#Flame_traps

Who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler!!

I don't know about Germany but America could've definitely invaded Britain and won

Would Hitler senpai notice us after that is the real question

> they could have successfully invaded UK imo.

No, they couldn't. They wouldn't have air superiority; the British had air bases all the way to Scotland and their radar towers allowed them to detect when German planes were incoming practically from the moment the Germans launched from their air bases in France, so there's no element of surprise. The Germans might launch from Germany or somewhere else instead, but that strains their fuel supplies.

The crossing would have needed to be done into the teeth of at least the British Channel Fleet, which was by itself larger than the entire Kriegsmarine combined. However trying to conduct the invasion in secret is nearly unthinkable; the British would know and so would pull in more Fleet assets to defend the homeland.

The Germans had no amphibious ships capable of crossing the channel. Their plan was to Shanghai a bunch of river barges. The one attempt they made at practicing for an invasion using these was an utter disaster, with most of the barges swamped and sunk due to the choppy seas of the Channel. Constructing enough ships to actually carry out the crossing could not be done with sufficient speed.

Paratroopers are a theoretical possibility, but in addition to having to deal with lacking air superiority thanks to the Royal Air Force still being in play, they will quickly run out of supplies. It'll basically be Market Garden but for the Germans (Operation Gärtnerei?).

Honestly, an attempted Sea Lion is probably the best thing that could happen for the Allies. In exchange for a few thousand Allied casualties, you get half the German invasion force drowning in the channel as their river barges sink, the other half dying or surrendering on the beaches on the order of tens of thousands, hundreds more German planes shot down, a huge waste of fuel, and the complete annihilation of the Kriegsmarine except for its U-Boat fleet, which itself is already starting to crack.

Churchill was a monster who engineered a genocidal famine in India.

>implying I care about India

>that based speech Churchill gave to parliament when some MPs suggested we agree to an armistice with Germany

He basically told them all to sit the fuck down while he explained that he'd rather have British people choking on their own blood than give in to a foreign power.

Who do you think you are kidding mrs Merkel.

Spain was in no position to help anyone. By the end of the Spanish Civil War, Spain was out of oil and seriously had only 500,000 bullets left in the entire country.

Finland isn't going to help against the USSR. They will do what they did historically: march up to the very edge of the territory lost in the Winter War, and then hold there.

Italy has nothing to gain by sending any significant number of troops to the Soviet Union; all of their desires are in Africa and southern Europe. And all their equipment is decidedly inferior, AND the Italians might make good soldiers, but they're terrible officers.

The Italians DID actually have some troops in the Soviet Union, by the way - volunteers, mostly, but volunteers fully equipped by the Italian Army. They didn't do any better than the Germans.

Hmm...although now that I'm thinking about it the better use of the Italians would be putting the Regia Marina in the Black Sea and focusing on Soviet oil fields in and around there. However the Regia Marina isn't going to do that to any signficant extent unless the Mediterranean can become an Italian lake, and that's not happening. The Regia Marina did not stand a chance against the British Royal Navy.

Maybe if the Aquila had been launched...but even then, probably not.

SEE . Churchill may have been callous, but he wasn't an idiot. He could read numbers and run them as well as anyone else, and he knew how utterly impossible a German invasion of Britain actually was, and that even a German attempt at it would have only worked out in Britain's favor.

His speech wasn't intended to get the British to sit down and shut up, it was to get them to stop thinking that Britain would be next and would fall as easily as France would when the numbers just weren't there (although they were barely there for France - the French government surrendered, the French Army was still in play and could have still acted against the Germans). He was demonstrating a political backbone, something that the French government lacked.

Maybe the Italians should have gone to Crimea and fight in Ukraine, while the Germans rush to Moscow and beyond, though the Turks wouldnt have let them pass through Istanbul/Consantinople, and also why didnt they killed Gibraltar and the germans create nationalism inside the Urkranians and other people inside Russia?

You say this like this a bad thing you cuck.
It's a shame we don't have someone with this attitude now.

>when fuhrer doesn't know building up a surface fleet takes years

>You say this like this a bad thing you cuck.

I didn't mean to give that impression, I said the speech was based.

The spineless faggots in parliament wanted to give up and he was like "yeah that isn't happening while I'm in charge"

My bad, Churchill gets hated on a lot on this board and i can see why. But i grew up with him as one of my heros and no matter how much he is painted as a globalist i know he wouldn't have approved of Britain in it's current state.

Also, for everyone who thinks the Nazis and us could have lived in peace it would have only be a matter of time till the Germans tried to castrate us militarily

>Maybe the Italians should have gone to Crimea and fight in Ukraine

Why? Italy gains nothing from a war with the USSR.

>while the Germans rush to Moscow and beyond

SEE . The Germans got as close to Moscow as they were ever going to be able historically. There is literally no sensible thing they could have done to stretch further.

Like, they could have bypassed Kiev, for example, which might have gotten them to Moscow - but the problem there is that Kiev was a military-industrial complex loaded with tanks, planes, and about a hundred thousand Soviet soldiers. You can't bypass something like that, it leaves your supply lines and flank open to attack. So Kiev NEEDED to be subdued first, but in subduing Kiev you can't get to Moscow.

It's possible to do everything right and still fail, you know. Though in the case of the Germans it's more likely they did everything wrong but somehow kept getting fucking lucky and winning anyway.

>and also why didnt they killed Gibraltar

It's not that simple. To get to Gibraltar you must first reach Gibraltar, to reach Gibraltar the Regia Marina has to get past the Royal Navy. They were exactly trying to do just that for the entire Mediterranean war, and failed.

The Spanish didn't invade Gibraltar for two reasons, the first being the ones I mentioned upthread concerning oil and bullets (but also just generally the Spanish had had enough war by then - seriously, nothing tanks a nation's morale worse than a civil war); the second being that Francisco Franco was not an idiot and knew very well that Germany had a limited window of opportunity in which it could theoretically win, but past that Germany's eventual defeat was inevitable. Franco therefore let the Germans use sub bases while at the same time remaining officially neutral and even accepting Jewish refugees throughout the War (ironically Spain, the homeland of Torquemada, became a safe haven for Jews who could reach it).

Imagine if only that succeed... Just imagine...

> ITT, silly people that believed that Sea Lion could actually be accomplished.

It was never feasible at any moment in time. Not even if Germany had crushed the Brits at Dunkirk AND won the Battle of England.

Now, they could have realistically strangled England if they had triple the operating submarines they historically had at the start of 1941.
They might have hoped to force it to the peace table if they won both Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain and seized some key successes in the Mediterranean.

But no, Sealion was never anything more than a bad joke. Germany didn't have the capacity to do that. It would not be a thing even if the Soviet Union magically disappeared, at least not in 2 or 3 years.

Yeah, and imagine if America had created an army of real-life Captain Americas with a Super-Soldier Serum. Both are about as likely.

Why not strike a deal with the Irish? Northern Ireland in exchange for allowing German troops to pass through and attack through Scotland?

Chilebro, Italy did fight in Ukraine and in the Caucasus.

CSIR was 62 thousand soldiers in 1941
ARMIR in 1942 was 235 thousand soldiers

Honestly, the worst possible thing that could happen to Germany is for it to do better in World War II. Win a few more battles, maybe even repulse D-Day or contain it to northern France.

Because then America has the nukes that were originally slated for use against Germany online, while Germany is still years from operational nuclear weapons itself.

And how are the Nazis going to supply their forces in Ireland?
How are they going to prevent Ireland to be completely overrun by the Brits in mere weeks, may I add?

Well, if UK had negotiated a peace treaty before 1941, it's not so certain the US would have entered the war against Germany.

And, by the way, the FUCKHUGE amount of UK & US supplies to the USSR were more than enough to hinder the Nazis, nukes would have been pointless.

In 1940, the population of the whole of Ireland was about 2.9 million. The population of the United Kingdom was 46 million.

If the Irish had declared war on them, I'm not certain the British would have even noticed.

This is leaving aside that:

1) Most Irish don'[t want Northern Ireland. Historically speaking it's usually been considered a separate area, hence why for example Cú Chulainn was said to have led Ulster against Ireland.
2) The Irish and the British are basically the same people. They hate each other and fight as only brothers can.
3) Ireland won independence from Britain by not being worth the effort and by attacking while Britain was exhausted and bankrupt from WWI. It stands no chance whatsoever against a Total War footing Britain in World War II that has absolutely zero patience for their shit and already controls 15% of the island.

>in exchange for allowing German troops to pass through and attack through Scotland?

How are you getting German troops to Ireland?

Although Sup Forums is all down for the extermination of the gems, it probably would have helped if the Germans put the holocaust on the back burner during the war. The priority to transport jews should have come second to the supplying of troops.

Although I believe a two front war would be possible to win, I think Hitler's decisions for military action lead to many of the German set backs.

So Germany realisticly would have never won the war? Even without the US and Italy not going to pointless wars?

Nah the US would have declared on Germany, probably in 1943 or so.
Roosevelt was a jewish whore puppet (like 95 % of US presidents in the 20th century and after.

No. Germany at best had a 50-50 shot against the British Empire alone, and most of that comes down to British decisions and ability, not German ones - i.e., it's a question of how long Britain is willing to keep fighting, because Germany utterly lacks the ability to force the issue by putting and keeping boots on the ground in Britain. But by 1940 ENIGMA had already been cracked and the technology and tactics to fight the wolf packs of U-Boats was already coming on-line.

Germany never stood any chance whatsoever against either America OR the USSR, nevermind both at the same time.

Then why fight then? I know it's all about time and Poland would have gone to war either way but, then why get to fight the whole world, why ally the japs if they are in another part of the world?

Honestly I see him as a bit of a mix between a nationalist and a neocon getting help from Jews and helping them back.

I mean he was in ww1 and the boer war said they slaughtered the wrong pig made plans to invade the soviets with the Americans and remaining German regiments and tried to retake the suez and hold onto Indian Independence even calling Indians something along the lines of useless subhuman or something.

I don't quite know how else to break it to you, kid: Hitler was a moron.

Sometimes countries end up with leaders who talk a good game but are actually idiots and do nothing but drive their country to ruin in bad decision after bad decision. Hitler was one of those people.

HItler was a man who honestly thought that genetics was what won wars, instead of resource management, population and manpower, industrial ability, sound tactical and strategic decisions, and money.

This was a man who insisted on a prolonged siege of Stalingrad not for its tactical or strategic value - though it had some of that - but rather because it was the city that Stalin had renamed in honor of himself, and so he wanted to seize it basically so that he could spit in Stalin's eye.

Hitler was a moron.

*blocks your path*

>vassal
>20th century

Wot?

Their only hope might have been the fucked nature of the British army at the time. But the Germans would have to launch early. Being unable to defeat RAF made sure this couldn't happen.

Britain only had one 100% strength and equipped infantry division defending its homeland after Paris fell... and it was a Canadian one.

No, that's not correct, regardless of what our learned friend () says.

It's certainly debatable, and not at all sure. After all, we are in the land of pure speculation.

But they would have needed MANY things to change in their favour in order to change the outcome of the war against the Soviet Union.

First: the western Allies would need not to be in the war by 1941. Hard to obtain, as we have seen.
Second: USA must not intervene. Difficult.
Third: Western allies (USA and UK) must not supply Soviet Russia. Possible if USA did not intervene, and UK had negotiated a full peace.
Fourth: Hitler should not be strategically retarded. Close to impossible.
Fifth: OKW should 1) change its mentality from a war of occupation to a war of destruction 2) should learn the importance of supply lines, standardization and logistics, 3) once a plan was made, it should stick to its key points, and not change it at random.

As a paradox, Germany would have had much more chance against the US on their own, since without UK to use as an airstrip, neither really had the realistic chance to project enough force to take down the other.

Britain declared war, not the other way around.

>Ally Japan

In hindsight we might say it was a bad idea, but Japan had the ability to strike at Britain's colonial possessions in ways Germany never could. In ways it couldn't even achieve in the first world war.

>and it was a Canadian one.

That doesn't mean anything; it's my understanding that Canada actually put forth some of the best Allied troops in the war, in fact.

>Being unable to defeat RAF made sure this couldn't happen.

Again, it's not just defeating the RAF. It's also defeating the Channel Fleet - which, is again, larger than the entire Kriegsmarine - and then sending over tens of thousands of German troops AND KEEPING THEM SUPPLIED despite lacking any kind of means of doing so.

Again, they were planning on using river barges. RIVER BARGES. For the ENGLISH CHANNEL.

Oh, also, horses. We focus on German technological innovations so much sometimes we forget that in 1940 the only fully mechanized army in the world as the British one. For the entirety of the war, the German army was primarily horse-drawn.

Ah, logistics. Hang on, I'm gonna need more characters for this...

Okay.

The Allied D-Day landings showed just how much material had to be landed continuously to maintain an amphibious invasion. The problem for the Germans was worse, as the German Army was mostly horse-drawn. One of its prime headaches would have been transporting thousands of horses across the Channel. British intelligence calculated that the first wave of 11 divisions (including the airborne divisions) would require a daily average of 3,300 tons of supplies. In fact in Russia in 1941, when engaged in heavy fighting, a single German infantry division required up to 1,100 tons of supplies a day, though a more usual figure would be 212-425 tons per day. British intelligence further calculated that Folkestone, the largest harbor falling within the planned German landing zones, could handle 150 tons per day in the first week of the invasion (assuming all dockside equipment was successfully demolished and regular RAF bombing raids reduced capacity by 50%). Within seven days, maximum capacity was expected to rise to 600 tons per day, once German shore parties had made repairs to the quays and cleared the harbor of any blockships and other obstacles. This meant that, at best, the nine German infantry and two airborne divisions landed initially would receive less than 20% of the 3,300 tons of supplies they required each day through a port, and would have to rely heavily on whatever could be brought in directly over the beaches or air-dropped.

The capture of Dover and its harbour facilities was expected to add another 800 tons per day, raising to 40% the amount of supplies brought in through ports. However, this rested on the rather unrealistic assumption of little or no interference from the Royal Navy and RAF with the German supply convoys which would have been made up of underpowered (or unpowered, i.e. towed) inland waterways vessels as they shuttled slowly between the Continent to the invasion beaches and any captured harbors.

Planes beat boat during this war.

The fleet is not an issue. Logistics are tougher.

What do you think about flying it all in? Not ideal but that's the idea.

This is all from Wiki, by the way.

From 19 to 26 September 1940, sea and wind conditions on and over the Channel where the invasion was to take place were good overall, and a crossing, even using converted river barges, was feasible provided the sea state remained at less than 4, which for the most part it did. Winds for the remainder of the month were rated as "moderate" and would not have prevented the German invasion fleet from successfully depositing the first wave troops ashore during the ten days needed to accomplish this. From the night of 27 September, strong northerly winds prevailed, making passage more hazardous, but calm conditions returned on 11–12 October and again on 16–20 October. After that, light easterly winds prevailed which would have assisted any invasion craft travelling from the Continent towards the invasion beaches. But by the end of October, according to British Air Ministry records, very strong south-west winds (force 8) would have prohibited any non-seagoing craft from risking a Channel crossing.

Americans were already land leasing the British and supporting all the rest of the allies, and America was already sinking German submarines, they were practically already at war. And Japan was very handy for taking out British and French Asian possessions

The Soviets were preparing to invade Europe the were linnning up in attack formations on the German border and everyday the soviet power gap was growing over the Germans. The war was a do or die moment for Germany

Sea lion looks like the better strategic plan. Neptune looks like just rushing one point

You can fly in troops, but you can't fly in supplies in sufficient quantities to keep those troops fighting.

>Planes beat boat during this war.

This presumes the planes can make unrestricted attacks. How is the Luftwaffe knocking out the RAF? Their showing during the Battle of Britain establishes zero confidence in their ability.

>As a paradox, Germany would have had much more chance against the US on their own, since without UK to use as an airstrip, neither really had the realistic chance to project enough force to take down the other.

America was able to prosecute a war against Japan despite the distance from San Diego to Tokyo (5,557 miles) being much further than the distance from New York to Berlin (3,968).

America would simply invade Greenland, Iceland, and the Farore Islands (all Danish, and therefore German-controlled, and therefore hostile) and use those as basic staging grounds. Once America carried out a few successful attacks against Germany via aircraft carrier it would demonstrate to Britain that America can carry out the war if it desires, and so Britain will likely re-declare war.

Things are better if Italy is involved, because than America can attack the Regia Marina in the Mediterranean and attack Sardinia and Libya to use as staging areas leading up to an invasion of Italy, which gets America into mainland Europe.

>fatconductoryouarewrong.png

Germans had no aerial torpedos or powerful anti-ship bombs at the time

Sail around it

They would never be able to conquer us. German saurkraut can not compete with Full English Breakfast

Implying that the UK wouldn't become an easy stepping stone for an eventual invasion of Europe
>Which happened...

In Dante's Inferno,the deepest layers of Hell,the ones where Lucifer lives, are made out of ice.

USA supplies gradually increased as the war went on.