>>17382907
Yeah. Nigel will seethe but it’s not unrealistic. You wouldn’t need Overlord levels of transport or manpower. A battalions well armed and supported by aircraft who need to do little more than keep the RAF busy could have stormed the UK and busted up their industrial capacity, sabotaged their airfields, and run circles around the disorganized and relatively few British soldiers who remained.

First of all capture or slaughter all the bongs at Dunkirk.

>>17383317
That kind of thinking was exactly the German one after the fall of France and we all know how it ended

>>17383317
>they wouldn't need overlord levels of transport
but they didn't even have any good transport to begin with

>>17383325
The line of thinking that forever made the USSR stagnant and crippled and the British Empire collapse?

>>17383317
Is this a joke. The Uk's land forces were considerable, They landed a force larger than the one saved at dunkirk, after dunkirk. It would have taken divisions and divisions. They would need to outman the Uk at ever battle, as the UK, would be on the defense the entire time
And the RAF is stronger than the Luftwaffe, and if the home fleet enters the channel even if they took terrible casualties they would easily sweep any landing craft. Invading the UK, would make Overlord look like a cake walk. Only Okinawa would have chance at being a more challenging landing.
>>17383325
Existing is far better than oblivion which is what hitler and his cronies got. Also humanism ended the british empire not the Nazi's. O and losing to russians at all is always pathetic.

>>17383425
Why are you quoting me retard, you surely meant >>17383345

>>17383450
Yes, I fucked up, its vacation daydrinking....

ok and?
And why are you so mad about this ww2 already ended

>>17382907
It would take massive amounts of MORE AIR.
Can you imagine what the RAF would do if they ever got a day of uncontested superiority? And they'd get it, unless more planes and properly trained men fly.

There’s no point even talking about this ‘‘‘event’’’ because it was never going to happen in the first place. The entire ‘‘‘‘‘operation’’’’’ was made up post war by bongs in an attempt to try and make their war seem just as important as the other fronts.
It was also made up at a time when Britain was losing it’s Empire, so they looked to the past and a few decided to take a quote that was nothing more than a little idea that was rejected before anyone really put any thought into it and blow it completely out of proportion.

>>17383425
>Is this a joke. The Uk's land forces were considerable, They landed a force larger than the one saved at dunkirk, after dunkirk. It would have taken divisions and divisions.
And they constantly got BTFO by only a handful of German divisions in North Africa
>They would need to outman the Uk at ever battle, as the UK, would be on the defense the entire time
The Germans didn’t outman the Brits at Crete and yet still managed to curb stomp them
>Also humanism ended the british empire not the Nazi's.
*breathes in*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Fucking hell you Bongs are so full of shit.
You lost your Empire because you;
>1. Lost Singapore:
So you were never taken as a seriously as a major power in Asia.
>2. Lost India:
Which started a trend losing your colonies.
>3. Lost the Suez Canal:
Don’t even need to explain this one.
>O and losing to russians at all is always pathetic.
At least we can both agree that the Brits at the Charge of the Light Brigade losing to Russians were pathetic, that’s very good.

>>17383317

>a battalion
>1000 men
>in flatbottomed Rhine river barges being towed by other ships
>with the only other transport being horses
>keep the RAF busy
>could have stormed the UK
>it's not unrealistic

>>17383324
>don't siege Leningrad, take it immediately

>>17383796
That would be the Crete where the bulk of the defenders were clerks and rear echelon troops with no heavy weaponry, backed up by goatybois with knives and shotguns, yet still managed to utterly rape the ripe of the Luftwaffe and ensure they never get used as actual paratroopers again?

>>17383796
O now its divisions I thought it was battalions.
And you completely ignore the home fleet still at full strength in its midlands ports. Again please explain how a luftwaffe that lost the battle of britain, can protect a defenseless naval landing force from the RAF, and RN. In the Literaly english channel, where the Sailors and Airmen would never retreat.

>>17383873
>siege
not a verb, zoom-zooms

>>17382907
>Build up a stupidly massive submarine fleet as the expense of the army?
The only feasible way for Germany to have ever won the war was to have started (I mean on Day 1) with three times the number of long range subs than they had.

>>17383325
Apparently the staff were sending reports after the Battle for France saying that they really did not do well at all they just got very, very lucky. One of the main things was that the quality of the troops was nowhere near as good as they had in 1914.

this thread is all the proof you need that bongs congregate all over 4chan for targeted posts defending themselves and spewing propaganda. I don't know if they are actual individuals or funded and directed by a goverment or group but it is so pathetic either way.

>>17384087
They were correct.

Literally the only reason they won was two massive lucky breaks. Even with worse troops, the war would have been over by 1939 if France was smart.

Sealion was a joke and the professionals on both sides knew it. There was no way whatsoever any invasion force could be supplied against a navy ten times more powerful than the Kriegsmarine.

>>17383317
There were around 20 divisions in the UK, including tanks and artillery, the BEF was just the expeditionary part, not the entire army.

>>17384173
Send the supplies by air then. It will be costly but a few planes would manage to enter British airspace.

File: 1722329625003.mp4 (1.06 MB, 498x498)

1.06 MB MP4

>>17382907
Here is HOW I would have won Sealion. Hitler almost won it, btw. It is a common myth that it was nowhere near success.

1. Design and build more landing craft.
2. Design and build super-heavy bombers.
3. Do WW2 as normal until fall of france.
4. At Dunkirk, keep going. Enslave the BEF, do not treat them as POWs. This will give a boost to the nation instead of dragging it down due to Geneva.
5. Use super heavy bombers to complement the Blitz. This will reduce morale.
6. Use actual landing craft and sneak across Channel while causing distraction for Royal Navy.
7. Begin conquering
8. Take London and execute Winston Churchill for crimes against peace.
9. Take the rest of Uk.
10. Create a puppet state of the UK rules by Moseley. Royal Navy becomes part of Germany. All UK soldiers conscripted as manpower fror Barbarossa.
11. Do Barbarossa, make winter clothes, go straight for oil fields.
12. Then, when oil is gone from the Russians, take Moscow, hang Stalin and his family, after Stalin is paraded in a cage and dogshit thrown at him then he is used loads of times.
13. Take up to AA line. Begin the ultimate triumph. Any Partisans will be buried alive after watching their entire family be executed before them and being told it is there fault.
14. Attack Turkey for chromium reserves.
15. Develop nuclear weapons.
16. Create stockpile, then declare war on US, nuke all American cities the next day.
17. America becomes a puppet state, sobbing in defeat as Germany TAKES OVER.
18. Enjoy and witness as I digest my victories.

>>17384179
>The determination of the over-all requirements necessary to maintain German troops presents a number of difficulties. This is best shown by a review of the German supply expenditures in Russia in 1941. Armored divisions averaged some 30 tons daily when inactive and about 700 tons a day when engaged in heavy fighting; infantry divisions required 80 tons a day when inactive and some 1,100 tons during a day of heavy fighting. When engaged in defensive, mopping-up, or minor offensive activities, the divisions required supplies in amounts somewhere between the two extremes.
For comparison the daily average for the airlift into Stalingrad, conducted against much less capable opposition, was only 120 tons per day. With the best day being only 350 tons.

>>17382907
No. At its best it was a retarded ego-trip that Hitler liked to jerk off to in meetings while his generals sighed quietly and tried not to show how irritated they were.

Let's assume that you completely remove the British army, just click your fingers and it vanishes - and that every single civilian in Britain is a committed Hitlerboo who will welcome the Germans with open arms and cause absolutely no trouble during the occupation. You'd still need to hope that the Royal Navy Home Fleet (which, IIRC, was significantly larger than the entirety of the various Axis navies combined, and was just one component of the Royal Navy at the time) vanishes with them, and all of RAF Coastal Command (who were happily blowing up anything German looking in the North Sea and British Channel that was visible above the surface) too.

The British government were actually hoping that Hitler would be drunk/drugged out/crazy enough to try it after Dunkirk - because it would have been such a hammering and overwhelming victory for the UK that they thought it would at least shore up civilian support and maybe even force Germany to seek terms.

>tl;dr - No, it's one of the more retarded Wehraboo fantasies. Anyone talking about it as anything other than a retarded non-plan is announcing that they have nothing of value to say.

>wanting to meet british people
sealion was a terrible idea, just 50 more blitzes

>>17383317
Oh boy. Oh fuckin jesus.
>>17382907
No. The plan was a butchers work that could have gone either way based on the quality of prospecting the tide.
Why its laughable is that the plan was passed and settled, no one was happy about it, and that's not why it didn't happen. Not even the decimation of the Luftwaffe was the reason.
The Reich went into full Imperial build mode and demand for steel was at 99%. Certain steels had so much pushback for allocation that the representation for ownership simply took the biggest bribe and regretted production issues.
0% chance.

>>17384519
I'm drunk. They could not afford to build enough ships or even repurpose every economic barge in Europe in time to do it in 1946.

File: DD-1200x480.jpg (145 KB, 1200x480)

145 KB JPG

>>17384206
1. Design and build more landing craft.
And Britain builds more ships.
2. Design and build super-heavy bombers.
And Britain builds more planes.
>3. Do WW2 as normal until fall of france.
>4. At Dunkirk, keep going. Enslave the BEF
These two contradict each others since you cant have both. The halt order came from the German command because the rapid advance had made them outrun their supply lines and exposed to encirclement.
>5. Use super heavy bombers to complement the Blitz. This will reduce morale.
Except bombing didnt reduce morale. Neither for Britain nor for the Germans.
>6. Use actual landing craft and sneak across Channel while causing distraction for Royal Navy.
Distracting?
>7. Begin conquering
You realize that battalions run out of ammunition, water, fuel, lubricants, spare parts literally within days.
The problem isnt strictly about getting men and material across the channel. In fact the British would most likely allow the first wave to successfully land before the navy intervene. The problem is how do you maintain them.
Even Overlord had huge logistical problems even tho it had been planned for 2 years with almost incomprehensible precision and near infinite resources with three of the world largest navies supporting it with impunity.

Germany would literally need pic related, and 80% of their surface fleet had been destroyed just attempting to take Norway. Germany couldnt muster enough to take Malta and they're supposed to take Britain? Amphibious operations against a fortified opponent is the most complex of all military operation.
Not even Imperial Germany had that, and they spent a near decade building a navy during peacetime with far more resources than NS Germany.

wonder if there is any truth to the myths of some small german commando groups attempting landings and being rounded up or killed

>>17384082
I’m sorry you can’t keep up the fact words change and meanings adapt over time, old man.

>>17384084
Would that have been possible? Could they have built that many subs by 1939? I imagine putting so much into submarines would cause other aspects of their armed forces to lag behind as well.

>>17384143
What exactly were the lucky breaks? What should France have done instead?

>>17384173
I know that was the case irl, but could Hitler have altered his plans as early as 1933 to make it a more realistic option?

>>17384206
Peak HOI4 player

File: 4cd.png (28 KB, 812x727)

28 KB PNG

>>17383317
Prussian nerds who spent decades studying military operations and science get BTFO by this one simple trick!

>>17383325
>>17383328
>>17383425
>>17383872
>>17384177
>>17384519
They used aircraft and submarines to get men into the UK. No reason they couldn’t do so on a larger scale.
You just don’t like a potential Hitler win because it means you would get shoah’d.

>>17384179
>Supply entire divisions carrying out offensive actions via air
Yep nothing says a good idea like dropping tens of thousands of gallons of gas by air

>>17384179
>just supply them by air, digga. Trust mir, kummpel. Wir kann do it, no biggy!
>t. Hermann Meyer

File: Operation_Ring_it.png (114 KB, 450x309)

114 KB PNG

>>17384179
>Send the supplies by air then.
Anon, I....

>>17384905
>They used aircraft and submarines to get men into the UK. No reason they couldn’t do so on a larger scale.
They could deliver maybe 1 division worth of paratroopers assuming absolutely nothing goes wrong in transit. That would be around 2000 soldiers carrying nothing but light arms and couple hundred rounds of ammo. They would be wiped out within hours. Not that it maters since Ju52s would get wiped out in the air.

File: 1731025773728030.png (264 KB, 640x451)

264 KB PNG

Here's how I would pull of Sea Lion:
>before the war don't waste money and resources building a big meme battleship when it should've been obvious that battleships were going obsolete and Germany wouldn't be able to compete navally with Britain anyways
>instead focus the fleet entirely around coastal defense to prevent naval incursions
>don't let the fleet target American vessels to make it harder for the British to urge them to join
>1940 after capitulating France instead of bothering trying to conquer N. Africa just abandon it, instead secure the Mediterranean coast and smoke out partisans in Italy so the Allies can't easily land there
>tard-wrangle Mussolini into not invading Greece for his roman larp especially since their leader was sympathetic towards the Axis and likely wouldn't join the Allies or let them stage an invasion from there
>these two prior things move the timeline for the soviet invasion into early 1941 as originally planned
>hit the soviets hard before they've built up
>instead of genociding the slavshits (even if they should all be killed doe) actually work with all the slavs who hated the USSR from the inside and wanted it destroyed
>don't declare war on the USA in 1942 to keep them out as long as possible
>conquer up to the Urals by 1943, if the soviet government still exists by this point don't bother overextending and instead consolidate
>use the conquered soviet industry, resources, and untermenschen slave labor to build a massive fleet and airforce in the Baltics and Black sea out of reach from the Allies
>by early 1945 should hopefully have a carrier fleet with plenty of cruisers and screens to secure naval and air superiority in the Channel and North Sea
>do a reverse D-Day
>maintain air superiority across the eastern Atlantic and Europe to prevent the USA from dropping nukes
>continue with rocket and nuclear research until you get nuclear ICBMS
>demand the US never again intervenes in European affairs or you will nuke the fuck out them

What if they try to land in Ireland or Scotland, instead of England directly? Or they take Iceland before Britain does since bongs were very worried about a German landing there (hence why they intervened)?

>>17385610
Ireland was neutral so that would just further ruin their reputation, not helped by the fact it would still have the same problems as invading Britain, Scotland was even further away along wtih the HQ of the royal navy being in the area so you would just make your problems worse, and beyond subs and the occasional ship that would break the blockade they simply could not realistically reach iceland

>>17383317
>>17382907
Love empire earth reference

>>17385435
>carrier fleet
>in the Channel and North Sea
just why

>>17383886
>That would be the Crete where the bulk of the defenders were clerks and rear echelon troops with no heavy weaponry, backed up by goatybois with knives and shotguns, yet still managed to utterly rape the ripe of the Luftwaffe
Source?

>>17383932
>O now its divisions I thought it was battalions.
What the fuck are you talking about you schizoid bong?

>>17385610
>Ireland
Even harder to reach than England. The Royal Navy massacre German assets at sea and the Germans in Ireland are cut off and surrounded by Irishmen who are suddenly not so pro-German anymore when uninvited and armed Huns show up on their neutral doorstep.
>Scotland
Again, even harder to reach than England, the Royal Navy massacre them and the Luftwaffe can't even reach it with their short ranged fighters, so the RAF also have a fucking field day. Anti-English banter in Scotland is just banter, and the hardest of it comes from the Leftist Communists on the Clyde anyway, so they'll fight hard to kick out the Fascist Huns too.

>>17385344
Paratroopers essentially must be relieved within 7 days.
Battle of Arnhem is probably the most extreme case of paratroopers holding out the longest with whatever ammunition, first aid, provision etc. The entire division had to surrender.

>>17383317
>Luftwaffe cant supply Paulus in one city
>Luftwaffe now going to supply an overseas campaign

>>17385862
You make a good point, carriers would be redundant when there's plenty of land for airbases nearby. Regardless carriers would still be essential to secure the Atlantic from any inevitable American invasion.
Rather than carriers being initially built in the capture soviet ports for Sea Lion it should instead just mostly be light cruisers and destroyers to secure naval superiority along with whatever else would be needed to support a naval invasion. I think the difficulty with that would be having to wrangle members of the high command and upper polity who want to build big flashy ships because of prestige autism and capital ship autism. Most of the actual navy kills will still probably be from the rebuilt luftwaffe at this point anyways (assuming it all goes to plan).

>>17385961
Wouldn't say it was "rape" since they still won the battle, but the casualties the Germans suffered in Crete were considered ghastly enough for Hitler to cancel future large scale Paratrooper operations of that level. Fallschirmjägers in the Bundeswehr used to have a Crete Memorial celebration which was more of a mournful remembrance as opposed to a party.

>>17385990
Not really. These units varied greatly and Arnhem wasn’t paras either it was SSB.
The British and Americans weren’t very good at disconnect disorganized tactics like the Germans were.
Only a handful of special units like SSB and Airborne Taskforce were good at disconnected operations. The men at Arnhem were also screwed over by the fact they didn’t even know where they were going nor what they were doing until the day before the operation was launched, they were totally in the dark.

Besides in 1940 the British and Germans were a lot less sophisticated, a German division just being present would cause a lot problems while in 1944 both sides were experienced and had the equipment and experience to BTFO each other’s special ops units.

>>17386000
>how can they resupply 50,000 men if they can’t resupply 600,000 huh?
Go fetch your handler. We need to have a discussion about your internet time.

>>17383886
>>17385961
>>17386002
Crete was defended mainly by soldiers, not random Greeks.
The Germans took the island and inflicted 3x the casualties they took.
It’s only considered sub optimal because they took any casualties at all.
However some of the problems of Crete could have been handled with more planning. For example, dropping your men without guns is a bad idea, dropping your guns in cases that could land miles away is a bad idea, trying to carry out pre-planned objectives without prioritizing targets of opportunity is a bad idea.

The US and British dropped into Normandy with great success, being disconnected for days even weeks for some groups, and the Germans were masterful at defeating surrounded units.
The FsJ could have took the lessons of Crete and produced a force similar to SSB and First Airborne Taskforce.
They didn’t because they lacked the confidence in their special operations units and instead used them as light infantry to fill gaps in the frontline.

File: 1723020294092108.png (238 KB, 500x318)

238 KB PNG

A lot of people who think that Germany had any chance of winning the war without a taking a completely different approach failed to realize just how lacking the Luftwaffe was compared to even just the RAF let alone the rest of the Allied air forces. While the Luftwaffe had more and better air wings, what needs to be understood was just how bad the fuel shortages was in Germany which only got worse as the war went on. Germany only had enough fuel to keep the Luftwaffe running at full efficiency for a year and a half and that's a stretch. Even if Germany won the Battle of Britain, they would've exhausted most of their fuel at that point and wouldn't have been able to continue operations. Regardless the Battle of Britain was a completely waste of time and resources anyways but that's more of a hindsight being 20/20 kinda thing.

I'm glad that there are anons in this thread who at least somewhat aware of the fact that Germany's ability to maintain air superiority was on a short timer.

EEVERYONE ON 4CHAN WHO IS NOT ME IS BRITISH

File: 476857867678678.jpg (9 KB, 201x250)

9 KB JPG

why didn't the germans try to invade through Ireland?

He could make a fake attack (in english channel) and the real invasion would be in Ireland. It might be easier if they managed a fascist coup in Ireland. With Ireland occupied, the advantage in the air war would be overwhelming and England would probably not be able to stand it until it surrendered.

>>17386114
Yep, it would also force the British to concentrate a part of their land army in a largely unwelcome country. Shit would gît the fan in N.Ireland and back then, London cared much more about that rump state than today.

>>17386114
The UK isn't going to sit idly by while Germany ships tens of thousands of men and tonnes of materiel to an occupied/collaborationist Ireland.

>>17384905
Jewish Derangement Syndrome

>>17386107
Who the fuck are you talking to?

It's fun playing as the British in battlefield. Nothing like massacring an enemy you know will always be inferior in the north african desert.

>>17386013
>50,000 men will conquer Great Britain
LMAO! That aside supporting offensive action is very different than supporting defensive action. Imagine all the fuel you'd have to air drop in addition to ammo and food, while the entire RAF is gunning for your transports and the troops are being bombarded 24/7 by the RN.

>>17386353
Probably every autistic /pol/fag tourist who calls you 'Nigel' because they can only think in "us and them" terms even when debating history

File: operation sea lion.jpg (131 KB, 721x800)

131 KB JPG

>>17382907
>Was there any way this could have been pulled off?

Yes, but it would have required the Germans to plan for Sea Lion before the war, as an immediate followup to the Fall of France.

File: 1665679528683059.jpg (465 KB, 1280x849)

465 KB JPG

>>17382907
> NOOOOO they would have lost 1 million militanerinos if they tried
Meanwhile, in realty, they still lost 10 million men fighting a lost was with Russia. The "too much casualties" argument makes no sense since they were clearly ready to take such losses in that period of time

>>17386701
nice strawman.
No one has ever claimed german casualties were ever a consideration for sealion. The lack of this neat thing called boats is the issue, o and planes.

>>17385961
Literally every book that has ever been written on the battle.

>>17386029
I didn't say it was defined by random Greeks. Work on your reading comprehension.

>>17384082
It's a meme you dip.

>>17384905
>use submarines

So instead of sailing across a few hundred at a time in flatbottomed barges, you're planning to have rhe invasion force consisting of submarines anchored about a mile off the coast, while guys scramble down the side into dingys 5 at a time and row from the submarine onto the beach, while under fire? Unless you're suggesting some retarded plan where the submarines beach themselves and the invasion force all climbs out of the hatch one at a time and storms the beach, while under fire?

>>17384084
Much much better than what they wasted on their capital ships

>>17386757
>No one has ever claimed german casualties
This always comes up in these kinds of threads fucktard. Lurk moar newfaggot

>>17385976
You are wrong, you dumb fuck. Sea Lion never could have worked.

>>17386701
Taking 10 million casualties is a bad thing. It’s a big reason why they lost.

>>17387044
Yes that’s because it was never going to happen in the first place. The operation was just simply blown out of proportion by a couple of Bong historians post war for propaganda reasons, but it was always a meme.

File: cancer.png (11 KB, 220x230)

11 KB PNG

>>17384206
Excellent comedy. Kek'd

>>17386932
The British coast was guarded by boomers you idiot. Have you read anything about their wartime security measures? The Germans were able to get operatives in and out of Britain plenty of times. They even did this to the USA.
The problem wasn’t the impossibility it was a lack of ambition. The British relied on radar as a crutch and their “frontline” at home was old men doing nightly rounds.
They didn’t have soldiers every few hundred meters watching the coast at all times with lights cast behind every stone and inlet.

It would be trivial to ship a specialized group and keep them supplied while they wreak havoc on the British hinterland.
Furthermore the Royal Navy couldn’t even prevent the infiltration which actually took place.

You don’t need some massive landing.
The West Med landings weren’t massive landings yet they were extremely successful accomplished by a few teams of relatively unsupported specialists drawn from the US Airborne and SSB.

>>17386359
Fuel for what?
The transports are submarines.
German infantry proved capable of relatively large offensive operations especially against the Western forces.
You’re on mega cope because pointing out flaws in NATO countries such as their carelessness when it comes to defense undermines NATO and your country only exists because of NATO.
Without Americans you go back to being some imperial subject living your traditional mode of life as a rock farmer LOL.

>it couldn’t happen
It literally did on smaller scales, there is no reason to think a broader distribution of similar operations would have a 0% success rating.

>>17388222
can't you think up something better than "pretending to not understand scale" for your bait

>>17386291
Jewish?
>>17388195
He’s not wrong though. What is your people’s greatest military operation?

>>17388231
>uhhh the Germans would need like tens of thousands of men even doe 300,000 Bongs only ever faced a frontline of 3,000-5,000 Germans
How about you kill yourself instead

>>17382907
The britard desperation in the thread is real.

How did we go from the krauts failing to win the battle of britain to the krauts just being a couple of HOI4 players in the OKW away from taking the UK with ~10,000 men and a dozen submarines

File: swede slurp.jpg (3 KB, 124x125)

3 KB JPG

>>17388236
Cucking Nappy III. out of Alsace-Lorraine. In case of battles probably something like the Battle of France in WWII. I really just thought that guy was making a hoi4 /pol/tard joke post

>>17388257
because the Battle of Britain was an ad-hoc low effort unplanned skirmish while “HOI4” players are literally planning an invasion of the UK.
Even SeaLion itself with the most generous circumstances was given a 20% success rate by the British war game they ran with the Germans.
That is insanely high compared to something like say, the British staging a breakout from Dunkirk which would have a zero percent chance.

Planning with hindsight btw.
The thread is NOT “what were SeaLion’s chances?”
The thread IS “how could it have worked?”
There are ways it could have worked.
Anglos getting mad at literally never defeating an invading army from the Mesolithic onward is not an argument.

A natural law really, if a foreign man sets foot on English soil, he is destined to conquer.
Happened with EEF, PIE, Kelts, Romans, Saxons, Gaels, Danes, Normans, and Dutch.

>>17388273
Genuinely what the fuck are you talking about and what do you read to give you this kind of delusion

>>17388293
I’m not really sure why you believe 1944 Mediterranean operations conducted by the US airborne are “delusional”.

>>17388285
Ah, I see, Harold Godwinson was a "Saxon" when he won at Stamford but when he lost at Hastings he turned into an "Anglo", right

>>17388296
Maybe because the luftwaffe and kreigsmarine at no point held even the slightest resemblance to the crushing power of the USAF and USN?

>>17388285
>There are ways it could have worked.
Go on then, explain them

>>17388222
>getting a handful of spies (who incidentally were ALL caught and flipped or executed) into a country is identical to landing and supplying an invasion force

You've pushed it too far and now your trolling is obvious.

>>17388228
>the transports are submarines
so things that need fuel

>>17385435
>don't let the fleet target American vessels
Cargo vessels would all just fly the American flag and the whole uboat fleet would be rendered impotent.
>just abandon N. Africa
I hope you're ready for the Italians to make a separate peace now that you've hung them out to dry. Securing the Med is also impossible now that the RN has free access to everywhere and safe havens along the entire coast.
>Greece
Oh yeah, Mussolini is definitely abandoning your hypocritical ass.
>invade Russia in early '41
This is retarded. The reason they went in June was because the ground was dry and the days long. Going early in sping just means that logistics get bogged (literally) down and the large kettle battles don't happen.
>hit the Soviets before they build up
Without the build up, the Soviet Army would be better able to preserve their forces in the initial invasion. You're only saving yourself a few months here.
>instead of genociding
impossible to do without subverting your whole reason to go to war in the first place.
>don't declare war
They'll just do it to you as an ally of Japan.
>conquer up to the Urals in 43
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. With what army? They couldn't even manage anywhere close to that IRL. Moscow is just as close to Warsaw as it is to the Urals.
>use conquered soviet industry
That's not how factories work and is assumes you're actually capturing anything intact.
>carrier fleet for the Channel and North Sea
Might as well build one for the Rummelsburger See lmao

Your whole plan relies on more fantasy than the plot of Cinderella.

>>17385435
>instead of bothering trying to conquer N. Africa just abandon it, instead secure the Mediterranean
Did you have a stroke while typing that or what? It doesn't make any fucking sense.

File: b-52-stratofortress-bombe(...).jpg (151 KB, 960x657)

151 KB JPG

>>17382907
Use airpower to bomb English ships, especially Capital ships & carriers.
Use Bismarck as Bait to sink British ships

File: b-52-stratofortress-bombe(...).jpg (277 KB, 1612x1050)

277 KB JPG

>>17389290
>Use Bismarck as Bait to sink British ships
Surround Bismarck with 10 Subs,
Cruise from Hamburg through the channel toward Brittany while loadingmen on ships and paratroopers on bombers.
Time everything to overwhelm the Brits
Drop men all the way to Cornwall & East Sussex

Drop 1/3 of German armies in UK.
Drop supplies
Drop tanks near Corneall
Destroy the RADAR.

Drive Bismarck & subs into London, using incendiary ammo .

Use any French Dutch & Danish Ship s to take out Royal Navy or transport men artillery & tanks

>>17389290
>airpower to bomb English ships, especially Capital ship
Use NF-109s against RAF.
Stukas & smaller bombers against the ships. High explosive especially on the Stuka.
Bomb coastal emplacements, any RADAR, airfields.
Build high- altitude armed spy plane

>>17388297
Its not Harold's fault he was leading an army of Britons calling themselves Anglo.
>>17388304
already did.
>>17388300
The Airforce and Navy did not play a significant part of the operations thoughever.

why didn't hitler just take the eagles to mordor

>>17389290
>>17389298
>>17389308
You are too retarded to breathe, fucking go away

File: 1-29.png (106 KB, 389x495)

106 KB PNG

>>17384206
>just press the "build heavy bombers button"
>just take london
>>17385435
>just conquer the Urals
>>17386114
>just press the "coup ireland" button
Amazing pic's level of retardation is just the average /his/ poster

>>17388273
Never played HoI4 but the shit is being namedropped here all the time, I think I heard that in that game paratroopers can capture virtually anything because the game ignores all pragmatic aspects of reality. IRL paratroopers could hold out for around 7 days before they are forced to surrender unless relieved, and paratroopers had extremely questionable success-rate during ww2 in virtually every operation except taking that single Belgian fortification.

Sealion becomes redundant immediately anyway because Luftwaffe couldnt defeat the RAF and the RAF produced more planes and trained more pilots and had a higher K/D ratio. We literally have a IRL battle to confirm this.
It is also the fact that Germany has no way of defeating Royal Navy. Luftwaffe performed rather poorly in air-to-ship battles because Luftwaffe pilots were never trained for that kind of combat and the design was never intended for it. They couldnt stop the Royal Navy at Norway, they couldnt prevent the Dunkirk evacuation, they couldnt prevent the Greek evacuation.
The majority of the German surface fleet was lost at Norway, so they pretty much only had submarines, submarines they would have to put inside the channel which would be a death sentence for them.

Also, no surface fleet = no way to maintain an overseas campaign. The problem isnt to get the first wave German divisions into Britain, in fact the British would likely allow it to happen before Royal Navy intervene.
The problem is to maintain these divisions with a complex logistical chain.
Even Overlord had huge logistical problems even tho it had been planned for 2 years with almost incomprehensible precision and near infinite resources with three of the world largest navies supporting it with impunity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_logistics_in_the_Normandy_campaign

Just read that and try to translate it into Germany in 1940. It's simply not possible.

>>17389298
>spread your invasion force across 300 miles where it's impossible to resupply or reinforce them
>sail your flagship up a tidal river where it's in range of the entire British Army and RAF and angry cockneys throwing beer bottles at it

Great plan anon. They should have done this so they'd have lost even faster.

>>17389536
>I think I heard that in that game paratroopers can capture virtually anything because the game ignores all pragmatic aspects of reality
Paratroopers have been nerfed in recent years but they are still very strong against the AI simply because the AI doesn't design good divisions or garrison certain strategic locations. For the most part the game simulates paratroopers eventually running out of supplies but because the AI is so shit it's very easy to for your paratroopers to actually push out of an encirclement or secure a supply route and make enemy divisions retreat.
In real life countries did have garrisons in cities, airfields, and naval bases and said garrisons and QRF would be strong enough to hold out against paratroopers.

This thread is really making me want a WW2 simulator that doesn't have shitty AI and gamified mechanics just to see how Hitler could've feasibly won, if at all. There are probably HOI4 mods that fix this to some degree.

File: sub 1710017820348248.jpg (678 KB, 2992x1671)

678 KB JPG

>>17385435
>instead focus the fleet entirely around coastal defense to prevent naval incursions

And most importantly, submarines to strangle the UK. That said, an alt-Germany that goes that route will be countered by the Brits with anti-sub forces, as Germany can't hide what they're doing prior to the war.

File: HMS Gloucester May 1941.jpg (176 KB, 736x974)

176 KB JPG

>>17389536
>It is also the fact that Germany has no way of defeating Royal Navy.

A Royal Navy that sails into the confines of English Channel in an attempt to stop Sea Lion with dozens of German airbases literally a mile away, will be sunk in short order by German air power.

>>17389329
>already did.
no, you have not.
>There are ways it could have worked.
>Anglos getting mad at literally never defeating an invading army from the Mesolithic onward is not an argument.

>A natural law really, if a foreign man sets foot on English soil, he is destined to conquer.
>Happened with EEF, PIE, Kelts, Romans, Saxons, Gaels, Danes, Normans, and Dutch.

>>17389847
>A navy on open waters with massive air coverage from England
No? Almost all battleships sunk by aircraft were either wholly unsupported, or in port where they were defenseless.

Kriegsmarine deserved more attention

File: Wehrmacht horse assault.jpg (33 KB, 474x343)

33 KB JPG

>>17389847
You fucking moron.
do you understand the fundemental problems?
1. ME 109 were not designed for ship battles.
2. Stukas and BF 110 were slow moving and took heavy casualties in every naval engagement, at Norway and at Crete, against a skeleton force of the RN.
3. Luftwaffe isnt facing against just RN, they are contesting against RN and RAF. The navy isnt just going to "sit" in the channel, it's called 'fleet-in-being'. The Luftwaffe would have to defeat a combined attack every time against the German link to sustain the overseas operation.
4. RN had superior technology and doctrine for night fighting, for example, unlike the Germans, the British had fire-control RADAR. The traditions of night fighting was the reason why a small RN force in the Mediaterianian was able to outmatch the far superior Italian navy such as at the battle of Matapan.
You understand that all German operations in Britain immediately cease if the chain to the mainland is broken, if the Germans lose control of the channel, and they will because all it takes is either night time or bad weather to ground the Luftwaffe.
Like I said before, the British will literally allow the Germans to land as much men and material as possible onto Britain because it will only add to the chaos of encirclement when they retake control of the channel.
5.Luftwaffe couldnt break the chain supplying Malta right in their backyard in close poximity to their airfields. Again because they lacked training, design and doctrine for air-to-ship battle
6. Luftwaffe was brought to breaking point during Battle for Britain, the British produced more planes, trained more pilots, and had a higher kill ratio, In fact this was the reason for Luftwaffe pilots experiencing "Kanalkrankheit".
7. The British produced 14 Aircraft Carriers during ww2. The Germans produced 1/4 of one aircraft carrier before running out of resources and material. This battle of intense resource attrition will also demand a lot of fuel.

>>17389847
It would've taken like 5 destroyers to stop the German naval invasion. And they could've done that at night essentially immune from air attack.

File: NormandySupply_edit.jpg (3.85 MB, 2804x2150)

3.85 MB JPG

>>17390800
It's what these "lul Hitler could have invaded Britain" morons dont understand.
River barges are not designed for open water, definetly not designed to be beached, and they are absolutely not designed to be fired upon by military vessels in a combat situation.
A small RN taskforce could obliterate the entire river barge fleet along the English coast, including everything on that very beach, the entire stockpile of supplies, and the entire German campaign in Britain would turn into the worlds greatest encirclement.

Overlord succeeded far beyond the alllies expectations but the logistical chain came straight from the beach for several months. Imagine on pic-related an enemy fleet just steams right in the middle of it and starts shooting with impunity.

>>17390800
>>17390824
>YOU MUST USE RIVER BARGES BECAUSE UHM UH YOU ARENT ALLOWED TO USE ANYTHING ELSE FOR SOME REASON
woiw, why didnt the ZOGs surrender in 1942? They had no tanks which could compete with the Tiger I, and they arent allowed to innovate because because just because ok!

>>17390185
They are being spotted by aircraft, they are being sunk by torpedo boats, Italy, the clown of the war, completely humiliated the royal navy with Torpedo boats.

Your vaunted navy has never been tested and the few times it has faced a real challenge it jobbed horrifically.
Royal Navy is a paper tiger, a crutch, for the British to fall back on, because it never actually fought any large scale sea battles, like say the Romans and Carthaginians or the Japanese and Koreans, well there is no way to effectively disprove these absurd claims of the British fleet being invincible, but from what we can observe, even when they go against very low tier opposition like Germany, or like Italy they do horrifically, taking casualties that their opposing navies never took when put into similar circumstances.

Stop shilling for a naval force that lost to the Americans in fishing boats, to the Italians in speed boats, and had its origins in getting sunk at a rate of 10:1 by a pittance force of Iberians.
The English arent a seafaring people, contrary to popular belief, every time they fight an actual seafaring power like Spain or the US they job and job hard.

Arrogance is the chief humor of the English, look no further than what they claim and what the results are.

>>17389875
I said with submarines and aircraft.
WWII isnt a videogame, you dont need to capture specific nodes to "capitulate" someone, the Germans secured less than 1/8 of France when France threw in the towel and the Germans secured 100% of Poland yet the Poles never stopped fighting.

stop pretending these things are like vidya with specific objectives.
The Germans took over Serbia with 6 men scaring a bunch of boomers in Belgrade.

The English dont have that dog in them to fight on their island, they never have.

>>17391044
>with submarines
you mean those things that perform horribly against dds

>>17382907
Don’t fight the Battle of Britain, instead just U-Boat blockade the isles

>>17391052
Yes the ones that actually managed to get men in and out of the UK without being detected.

>>17391032
Yes, the Germans have to use river barges because that's what they were planning to use in the real Sealion plans and they had no other plans for landing craft whatsoever.

>>17391074
>without being detected
multiples one were detected, that and there is a differnce between a small group versues an entire invasion force, yeah good luck trying to supply that with subs, those things that are already cramped even without additional crew members

>>17391074
>without being detected

And once again
>landing a handful of spies is the same as landing and supplying an invasion force

>>17391079
>>17391081
>NO NO NO YOU CAN NOT PLAN FOR THIS INVASION EVERYONE MUST HAVE FIVE MINUTES NOTICE
loosen your tard helmets, please.

>>17391084
Look up what landing spies and special forces by submarine involves. Then apply the same to say, 10,000 men and their (lol) horses and food and bullets and bandages. Protip: it involves getting out of the hatch, one man at a time, lowering a rubber dingy into the water with 5 guys in it, rowing to shore, unloading those 5 guys and rowing back for the next 5 guys. What planning are you doing to overcome thus?

File: Joan_pujol_garcia.jpg (47 KB, 546x726)

47 KB JPG

>>17391074
>without being detected.
Meanwhile in reality:
>After the war, it was discovered that all the agents Germany sent to Britain had given themselves up or had been captured, with the possible exception of one who committed suicide.

I don't think it needs to be said, but you seem to be exceptionally stupid, but punting one guy off in the dark is an entire universe away from landing entire division of men.

>>17391108
He's going to come out with some shit about landing the entire invasion force one at a time in secret and have them live in the UK undercover for months while they assemble. Just watch.

>>17391032
River barges was all they had lmao
Their entire surface fleet had largely been lost at Norway.
Where are they going to get a new surface fleet that can both conduct the worlds greatest amphibious operation in history at the time, and simultaniously big enough to fend off Royal Navy?

>>17391040
>Italy, the clown of the war, completely humiliated the royal navy with Torpedo boats
Really? When?
Are torpedo boats the new stormfaggot talking point?

Also, Italy had the worlds 4th largest surface fleet at the outbreak of the war. They were definelty a force to be reckon with at sea.
But i'd love it if you could point out what decisive battles you're talking about where Italy humiliated Britain with torpedo boats.

>Your vaunted navy has never been tested
Your?
Also, the British navy had been tested for the past 500 years and pretty much always won.
What is this anyway lol why are you being so fucking autistic all the sudden.

>it never actually fought any large scale sea battles
:')

>there is no way to effectively disprove these absurd claims of the British fleet being invincible
Ok so when was it ever defeated?

>>17391194
He'll probably claim the sneak attack against HMS York in Souda Bay as some decisive sea battle.

>>17391040
Didn't the Italian navy get destroyed early in the war

File: GHN03dxWIAAHZe7.jpg (90 KB, 1179x1302)

90 KB JPG

>>17391084
>Undertaking an amphibious invasion with submarines is simple as, it's just like unloading five spies x100 submarines, right?

>>17391044
>The Germans took over Serbia with 6 men scaring a bunch of boomers in Belgrade.
I thought they had already decided it was over and just surrendered to the first people they saw.

>>17382907
If Hitler had "won" the battle of britain and won air supremacy (not superiority) in Britain Sea Lion would STILL only have a 1% chance of succeeding

basically even under perfect circumstances hitler lands at MOST 100k troops in a lightning strike window where the coast is unguarded. after that he needs to completley supply the troops by air. which can only succeed if the shock and awe of the invasion convinces the british to surrender...

again this has a 1% chance of succeeding WITH air supremacy after a victory at Battle of Britain

>Sealion thread
>Wehraboo has a screaming meltdown when historical reality hits
>has to resort to outright fantasy of submarines being able to carry and quickly land thousands of men, undetected, for it to succeed

Every. Single. Time.

>>17391869
saar the britishers will fold like laundry at the sight of twenty wehrmacht commandos saaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

>>17391869
Again, the problem isnt to get the first wave across the channel. River barges could potentially pull it off. Who knows.

The problem is how to maintain them, for which the Germans had no answer because it would require an overwhelming amount of material and resources by a complex and sophisticated surface navy and amphibious doctrine to support an overseas campaign from the beaches. You also need specifically designed vehicles to compensate the non-existing specifically designed port used to operate river barges.

Not to mention, river barges has no protection or military design in case they get attacked.
And they will.
All it takes is one day of bad weather, or nightfall, for the Luftwaffe to be grounded, meaning the river barges, and the entire supply operation on the beach, to be wide open for any amount of RN ship to obliterate with impunity.

Again, the British would likely not even attempt to prevent the Germans from landing, they would do the opposite: allow the Germans to land with as much men and material as possible, before they finally retake the channel, and turn the German campaign in Britain into the worlds greatest encirclement in history and Germany lose the war there and then.

>>17382907
Yes, but only by not starting the war on the Western front until the end. If Hitler had attacked the USSR before Poland, he might have stayed off allied support to the Russians since that was an obvious fracture point among the allies. Better yet, he could have used deception to depict the Soviets as the aggressors and he might even have gotten away with it. The biggest benefit being no lend-lease support or at least a much diminished investment. The other allies may have wanted Hitler to lose, but they also kinda wanted Stalin to lose too.
Hitler’s strategy ought to have been a focused media blitz/ propaganda focus on Soviet mistreatment of Ukrainians and other Soviet minorities, published primarily in the USA, France, Italy, and UK. After just a few short months or years he could then intervene for the purpose of humanitarian relief, and lay the groundwork for either a false flag or insurrection requiring Nazi retaliation or some other military involvement. This pretense would quickly escalate to a full blown conflict, and Hitler takes Russia quickly with Hungarian, Japanese, Swedish, Finnish and maybe even Persian, Polish, or Arab help; again, all for humanitarian purposes. The only downside would be Germany would likely split control of the USSR among Nazi allies, with Hungary, Ukraine, Sweden/Finland, and Japan taking large pieces. At this point however, his Eastern front would be secured and lend-lease never became an issue. Hitler might even find further expansion unnecessarily, although we might assume he betrays Poland to unify the German people as seems to be his original autistic goal that got him in trouble in the first

The southeast of England is relatively flat and open. Once you've cleared Dover, it's a straight drive through small towns and open fields to London. So what I'd do is try to force an engagement there. Get as much as the army as possible across, then relentlessly bomb the inevitable counterattack and clear a path to London.

Of course, that's assuming the Germans had the capacity for any of that, which they didn't. They didn't have the vessels needed to safely transport their troops to England, and they didn't have an air force strong enough to provide significant support to those troops once in England.

>>17392152

Open fields means no cover. Which means they get shredded by artillery and the RAF every step of the way.

>>17391869
>>17391872
>ENGLAND IS INVINCIBLE ENGLAND WILL NEVER FALL
England has never defeated an invasion, no matter its size, no matter its supply status. Bands of men have reached the shores of England desperate and starving and managed to overthrow the English state and carve it up into petty kingdoms.
When you actually look at the British will to fight on their home soil, it simply isnt there.
>>17391855
No, they were ruse'd.
>>17391389
This is how modern special warfare insertions actually work, so yeah, it actually is like that.
>>17391332
yes which is why its bizarre the RN jobbed so hard to a navy which was by every possible metric their inferior.
Its almost like modern naval warfare is a feedback loop and no one really knows the capability of the Royal Navy, however it is probably very low considering their ships were old and the italians of all people were giving them trouble.
>>17391224
I hadnt even thought of that one, thanks!

>>17392164
why does england never defeating an invasion in the past impact ww2?

do you idiots get off on biting low effort trolling or why do you keep replying to him

>>17392164
When has an entire country been invaded and occupied by submarine launched "special warfare insertions"?

>>17391194
>when
Throughout the war after the Italian main fleet was beaten, their less than conventional naval tactics proved more than capable of resisting a much larger force.
No one really knows how modern naval warfare works because no fleets have been decisively risked and fleets are composed of updated equipment on older hulls.
We can even see the italians were ahead of their time as modern naval doctrine (for the US) has shifted to many small high ordnance vessels over large unsinkable battleship/cruiser type vessels.
>italian fleet
their large ships were largely useless however their smaller torpedo boats were able to consistently punch above their weight even while outnumbered.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_torpedo_boat_Lupo
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_torpedo_boat_Sagittario_(1936)
>The British navy had been tested
nope.
>pretty much always won
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Armada
Its like watching two retards fight.
>autistic
??

The Royal Navy constructed from 1890-1930 never actually fought any large scale naval battles.
This is just a fact.
>when was it ever defeated
plenty of times elements of the Royal Navy have been proven inadequate to the task at hand, being unable to complete its objectives, unable to inflict significant damage when significant damage was taken, and even being outright defeated in battle.
When has the Royal Navy ever defeated another Navy?
no one is saying they have never won any battles or that they are completely useless, only that they are being incorrectly asserted as plot armor for the UK.

>>17392191
Jutland.

>>17391177
>river barges was all they had
ESL
River Barges were all the Americans had as well... until they planned amphibious invasions L O L.
>the entire surface fleet
>15 vessels in total is the entire surface fleet
very funny.
They still had their largest ships and plenty of torpedo boats which were proven to be extremely efficient when properly applied, such as in a narrow channel where larger fleets are easily detected.
>world's greatest amphibious operation in history at the time
???????
a few thousand men to conduct sabotage is hardly the world's greatest considering not even 100 years ago at the time the Americans made a contested landing with no less than 8,000.
>fend off the Royal Navy
The Royal Navy cant fit into a contested channel without taking immense losses to men and materiel and the Germans dont need to land in Dover, they can land anywhere they want using the agility of their state of the art stealth submarines which at the time were at their peak, it would be months before the British would develop the techniques necessary to repel these tactical insertions.
>>17391108
>>17391121
thank you for admitting the Germans penetrated the UK's impenetrable naval barrier L O L

>>17392164
>England has never defeated an invasion, no matter its size, no matter its supply status.
>>17392191
>When has the Royal Navy ever defeated another Navy?
Anywhere else and I'd be certain this is bait but I feel like there's enough retards on /his/ who might actually believe this stuff

>>17392196
not even half of the Kriegsmarine was defeated at Jutland, let alone the entire navy.
also
>British outnumber their opposition by a factor of 50%
>engagement still inconclusive
HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAA
K W A B

>>17392213
>Haha! See, we landed a dozen spies who were all caught and flipped or executed almost instantly!
>This is proof that the same method can be used to invade and occupy the country!

>>17392215
It is true, the British never actually have defeated someone who managed to get on their shores.
Their greatest national defense myth was a two part campaign wherein they eventually lost.
>we beat le heckin unarmored vikings we outnumbered 2:1
and then lost their country which has seen a Dane, a Frank, even a German on the throne but not one native Anglo.

Its not bait, the British never once rendered another country defenseless by sea.

>>17392216
Did the German fleet break through the Royal Navy blockade, yes or no?

>>17392218
>the spies were unsuccessful at actually being spies but they were successfully inserted undetected
>this means you can not successfully insert men undetected
?????????????????????????

>>17392152
It doesn't matter what the terrain is, you can't win if you have 500 bullets max per soldier and no artillery or tanks.

>>17392221
>and then lost their country which has seen a Dane, a Frank, even a German on the throne but not one native Anglo.
>Two wars 100 years apart
Ok yeah it's bait
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fishguard

>>17392225
>plan revolves around inserting men undetected
>they were all detected
?????????????

>>17386114
>German planes barely have enough fuel to fly over England
>They will, somehow, have to fly and fight over Ireland now
Yeah man you really showed those retards who dedicated their entire lives to studying warfare at Germany's best academies. Why didn't they think of this????

>>17392223
>shifting the goalposts
huh, I never expected someone to this ardently defend the British failures, Hitler is that you posting from Valhalla?

>>17392221
>It is true, the British never actually have defeated someone who managed to get on their shores.
Germany has never actually won a war so what's the point of asking how they could've won?

>>17392239
Yes or no anon?

>>17392233
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fishguard
>the only successful defense of the UK was against a penal battalion where no actual battle took place
L O L
Like I said, they have never defeated a foreign army who actually managed to land on their shores.
>>17392234
If they were detected how did they get into the UK in the first place?

>>17388222
>The Germans were able to get operatives in and out of Britain plenty of times. They even did this to the USA.
Only on 4chan could someone be stupid enough to equate a handful of spies to entire army divisions of 10,000+ men.
In other news, the presence of KGB spies in the USA proves that the Soviet Union could've conquered the USA by simply sneakily flying in soldiers into their consulate until that had 100,000 men hidden in the Embassy basement to conquer Washington DC kek

>>17392247
So you admit they were detected. Think on that.

>>17388254
>Britard desperation to laugh at an operation that never happened explicitly because German military planners knew it would be a stupid venture
The enormous cultural gap between sober German army men going "this hypothetical scenario is ludicrous" versus their American teenage Neonazi Fanboys going "the Aryan Will can Triumph against all adversity!!!" is hysterically funny

>>17392243
Yes, the Germans were able to accomplish their goal of reducing the effectiveness of the British blockade by sinking a significant portion of the British fleet.
Nice backpedal too.
>>17392241
They won the Franco-Prussian war.
Tens of Colonial wars.
The Spanish Civil War.
They won 10 small wars in the span of 3 years and those countries had to be liberated from abroad.
They won the cold war.

>>17392257
That wasn't the question I asked.

>>17392252
Yes, an invasion force which is meant to confront the enemy in direct combat while achieving its operational objectives will necessarily be detected by the people they are smoking L O L.
>>17392255
>he enormous cultural gap between sober German army men going "this hypothetical scenario is ludicrous" versus their American teenage Neonazi Fanboys going "the Aryan Will can Triumph against all adversity!!!" is hysterically funny
All of this taking place in your head.

If Britain should have won the war, well, why didnt they do so in 1939?

>>17392247
>Like I said
>England has never defeated an invasion, no matter its size, no matter its supply status.
>never actually have defeated someone who managed to get on their shores.
If you say so. But here's another example anyway
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lincoln_(1217)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barons'_War
But I think I've fed you enough for today

>>17392258
Again, you continue to backpedal, did the Royal Navy sink the entire Kriegsmarine? Did they sink even half? No.
>b-but the British were still sailing around Germany
You defended the claim the British defeated another navy, I am pointing out they clearly did not.

>>17388285
This is a history board, not a fan fiction board. You might as well say "there are ways Germany could've theoretically maybe with some plausibility built Welthauptstadt Germania in Antarctica".
The German military in 1940 lacked equipment to conduct massive seaborne operations, had no experience in massive seaborne operations, and was cornered by the inevitable looming conflict with the Soviet Union next door to them. With all the hypotheticals and modifications to the timeline needed for Sealion to work, you may as well start debating the lore of the Lord of the Rings or start the discussion in the Ice Age by saying Germany should've crossed Doggerland when it still existed.

File: 1602724777091.jpg (437 KB, 2029x2048)

437 KB JPG

>>17392266
>The English defeated other English during an English civil war
HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHA
You're right, we have had enough.
now stop google searching "Battles the British actually won" and accept England is a paper tiger that jobs to anyone they dont have an extreme numerical or technological advantage over.

>>17392269
>The German military in 1940 lacked equipment to conduct massive seaborne operations, had no experience in massive seaborne operations, and was cornered by the inevitable looming conflict with the Soviet Union
So did the American and British militaries.
I guess we can rule out the US playing a significant role in the pacific or the British returning to Europe in force.
Oh wait.

>pointing out the British were successfully invaded throughout their history is like debating Ice Age land formations

How are you still alive?

>>17389847
>RAF just doesn't exist in this scenario because the Luftwaffe kindly asked them to take a day off for the invasion

>>17391040
I'm sure Erich Raeder and Dönitz, those amateurs, both wish they had an expert such as yourself advising them on these matters and explaining to them that the RN was fake and gay and not worth considering as a factor at all.
In fact, the entire German military establishment was sorely lacking the expert advice of undiscovered military geniuses from Japanese Cartoon Imageboards.

>>17392275
presumably Louis and his reinforcements had to sail over the channel and not just teleport?

>>17392278
The Americans were ridiculously more efficient and developed industrially than Germany was, and more importantly, the Americans didn't have the Soviet Union breathing down their necks on their land border.
Germany had finite resources, resources it wasn't about to spend developing craft for seaborne operations. They couldn't even afford to fuel the small navy they already had.

>>17392158
That wouldn't happen in this scenario. The Luftwaffe would keep control of the skies over southeastern England, and any British artillery would have to be moved through a largely unforested, open area to get within range.

>>17392231
You can absolutely win that, as long as you have sufficient air power. If World War II (and every conventional war since) has taught us anything, it's that nothing beats air power. British tanks and artillery would have meant nothing without the air power to back them up. They would have been picked apart on the (very, very open) roads from their depots to the front lines. The area in question - I've driven across it several times - has practically no good hiding places once you're on land. No thick forests, no steep hills and no major rivers until you're at the banks of the Medway.

File: 1389705577093.png (226 KB, 492x388)

226 KB PNG

>>17392320
>The Luftwaffe would keep control of the skies over southeastern England

>>17392320
>You can absolutely win that, as long as you have sufficient air power
You would need literal constant air cover. That would require the Luftwaffe to be many times larger, have better planes with more range, and also for it to be always sunny even at night.

>>17392349
Hence my earlier caveat >>17392152
>Of course, that's assuming the Germans had the capacity for any of that, which they didn't.

>>17392366
They'd just need a few hours a week of clear weather and they'd win, just as the Allies did once the snow storms cleared during the Battle of the Bulge.

>>17392275
>England is a paper tiger
>Wins most wars against its rivals
Why do you hate England so much?

>>17384206
Amazing bait

>>17392476
you just destroyed that guy by replying to his bait

>>17392223
No they ran like whipped dogs, when told to try again they mutinied


>>17392164
>England has never defeated an invasion, no matter its size, no matter its supply status.

since 1066 3 attempts managed to land, only the dutch had any sucess an that because they had large scale public support

>>17392467
>They'd just need a few hours a week of clear weather and they'd win, just as the Allies did once the snow storms cleared during the Battle of the Bulge.
Allies had, on top of clear weather, air supremacy and immense materiel advantage.

>>17392267
>Germany navy did not complete its objective
>British navy did complete its objective
?????????????

>>17392275
>describing the battle of Lincoln as English fighting English
So you're acknowledging that the Plantagenets were English and the French are also English.

>>17392320
>That wouldn't happen in this scenario
Why?
>because that needs to happen for Germany to win
Ah.

>>17392582
>the foreign masters of the English had a dispute with each other
>this is presented as an example of English martial ability
At a loss for words.
>>17392575
>Germany Navy wasnt destroyed
>despite defending the claim it was destroyed
was it destroyed or not??
>>17392549
>since the occupation which still hasnt ended our colonial masters have fended off other colonial masters
K W A B
>>17392476
>wins
losing its Empire is a win?
England is a lot like Spain, Spain won the lottery when they discovered a continent filled with gold guarded by half naked stone age tribals, Spain within a few hundred years rubber banded back to their pre-1500 state and their empire faded as quickly as it arose.

England is much the same, despite the extreme advantages of a head start in world exploration, settlement, and industrialization, they have squandered every advantage they had and they have rubber banded back to a pre-1700s state.
While countries like the US, Germany, Russia, against all odds time and again come back despite their misfortunes.

Germany and Russia upon becoming major powers in Europe never ceased to be major powers in Europe. The same is true for China and Japan, when they became world players they never ceased, despite foreign powers torpedoing them.
England will never again be a major power in Europe, perhaps not even in the British isles, soon to be supplanted foreign apes.

Everyone ignores the regression to the mean we are seeing with the English, the disgusting fat idiot being replaced by even more disgusting more idiotic "people" is whom the Englishman always was, his "high culture" was a phantom of golden age that never really existed and is really a rose-tinted view of happenstance fortune.

I dont hate England enough, I am regrettably mostly English myself.

>>17392164
>England has never defeated an invasion, no matter its size, no matter its supply status
Again, can you please explain how Harold Godwinson and the "Saxons" that defeated the Norse invaders at Stamford magically turned into "English" when they lost at Hastings?

>>17392295
Yes, someone with hindsight will have more insight into a past event than the people who had to navigate it themselves.
>>17392315
the takeaway is that Germany, if they wanted a SeaLion, could have gotten a SeaLion like event with better planning and more foresight.

>"Durr just use submarines to land an invasion force"
Golly gee, why didn't the idiots that planned D-Day think of that?

>>17392890
>we beat some ocean-borne murder hobos who lacked armor and weapons that we also outnumbered 2:1
One really does have to wonder where the origin of English failure resides, is it in their Briton? Their Gaelic? The Welsh fight pretty hard and they held off the English to this day.
a specific subtribe of Britons maybe?
Or was it the buckbreaking by the Normans?

>>17392897
>"Um ackchoally it doesn't count because-"
Fuck off back to /int/ you coping brown retard. The English won at Stamford therefore the statement
>England has never defeated an invasion, no matter its size, no matter its supply status
Is incorrect, no matter how much you cope and seethe about it

>>17392893
They did, actually, the Americans also used them for direct insertion in the pacific.

>>17392901
What specific percentage/number of the forces at D-Day were inserted via submarine?

>>17392898
The Norwegians won at Fulford though, they only lost when they were caught naked in a field by a numerically superior force.

The English never actually defeated them as an army.

>>17392904
Does it matter? We arent talking about recreating overlord, we are talking about a way to cause damage to the UK in 1940.

>>17392905
>The Norwegians won at Fulford
And were soundly defeated at Stamford. Cope
>they only lost
Yes, they lost. Cope.

>Um but akcthoally it doesn't count if the English win because if we do a deep dive we find that it doesn't count as a "victory" if the successful force exceeds a 1.5/1.0 ratio-
>>>/int/

>>17392906
>we are talking about a way to cause damage to the UK in 1940.
That's not what the thread's OP is about, ADHD-kun

File: kamina_h.png (1006 KB, 1920x1080)

1006 KB PNG

EVERYTHING WILL COME RIGHT!

>>17392247
>how were they able to get into the UK in the first place
by being allowed in, so they can capture them, which not only denies germany a trained spy, but also the chance to turn said spy against them to give them false info which they did effectively

>>17392885
You're the one who said it was English fighting English...

File: britainDeclaresWar.jpg (58 KB, 640x512)

58 KB JPG

>>17382907
no, Germany never built the equipment necessary for an invasion of the UK because Hitler had no intention to ever wage war against the UK.

If the Germans had started in 1933 to construct the necessary long-range bombers and landing vessels etc. it might have been doable, provided they could have diplomatically kept their main adversary the USSR off their backs somehow.

>>17393439
> kept their main adversary the USSR off their backs somehow.
>somehow
Like with some sort of pact named after high ranking ministers in their regime, like Molotov and Ribbentrop?

>>17393439
yeah Germany needed to plan for an invasion of Britain during the Weimar Republic, that's another way of saying it was impossible.

>>17392891
No. The naval stregnth required to accomplish a sealion, weakens the airforce, and army to the degree, its possible they are stuck fighting in France, instead of a swift victory. At the very LEAST, it means the RAF is absolutely dominant, making the buildup of forces near enough to england for an invasion impossible.

>>17392906
No we are not talking about that you goalpost moving 13 year old. We are talking about nothing else but the conquest of the UK, by the axis powers in WW2. not fucking annoying it.
Germany was too weak to defeat the UK, Fact.