WWII Question?

Briton said:
Air superiority would probably resulted in invasion despite the Royal Navy.

As you said the RAF did a marvellous job but one theory is that they were all but defeated when Hitler diverted air forces to bomb London and other British towns and cities rather than continue to attack the RAF and our airfields etc. He did this in retaliation for a bombing raid on Germany. This allowed the RAF to recover and eventually to them winning the Battle of Britain. So you could say the 'Blitz' saved us.

Again that now seems to be another slight misinterpretation of the history written after the War. Hitler was very definitely angered by Bomber Commands attack on Berlin and wanted a revenge raid (He did a similar thing after the bombing of Lubeck in March '42 giving us the Baedeker raids). It was also at this time becoming apparent within the German High Command that they had severely underestimated the numbers and resources of Fighter Command but rather than attribute this to the RAF starting with more planes than Goering thought they had, it was falsley summised that the industrial strength of Britain was replacing aircraft at a much higher than actual rate. To this end it was deemed appropriate to destry the RAF by removing the industries that supplied it and allow attrition to take effect.
 
Briton said:
Air superiority would probably resulted in invasion despite the Royal Navy.

As you said the RAF did a marvellous job but one theory is that they were all but defeated when Hitler diverted air forces to bomb London and other British towns and cities rather than continue to attack the RAF and our airfields etc. He did this in retaliation for a bombing raid on Germany. This allowed the RAF to recover and eventually to them winning the Battle of Britain. So you could say the 'Blitz' saved us.

I'm only stating what I read, that historians revised their stance that the RN would have stopped any invasion of Britian

As someone said I think people underestime the size and power of the Royal Navy up until the end of the Second World War
 
TheMightyTen said:
Was in my home town of Portsmouth in September and decided to take the harbour tour, of all the ships in only one was active in the Royal Navy, all the others were either mothballed or being refitted becuase they had been sold to foreign powers :(

It is such a shame. For hundreds of years the Royal Navy prodded buttock.

I heard or read that a few years ago, while the Navy did a traditional...float by... of the Queen it only lasted 20 minutes. 20/30 years ago [or whatever] it used to last 3 hours. Basically we have hardly any ships and we seem to be gettin rid of more and more.

I can only hope the new destroyers and aircraft carriers we are building will reverse the decline. As an island nation a strong navy is pretty important and currently it appears to be rubbish.

SiriusB
 
Yeah agree totally. At the outbreak of world war 1, the Royal Navy was the largest in the world, it was larger than both the 2nd & 3rd largest navies combined!
 
it was, but at that time Naval battles were huge and had been lynch to a society's quest for domination of the world!

nowadays, i fail to see what use a large navy would be in a situation where no other countries have comparable navy's, and have been displayed by the jet aircraft...
 
The need for a strong Navy is still very real, the nature and make-up of that Navy is what is more important, aircraft carriers and taskforce transport and protection is what is needed with a healthy home-protection and policing fleet, unfortunately we have none of this. At the moment the whole service is so hideously over-stretched and under resourced that it is now a bit of a laughing stock amongst the worlds defence experts, none of them deny the commitment and levels of training of the Officers and men (something that has always been of the highest order) but the numbers of, and equipment they are forced to use is a joke.
 
Briton said:
Air superiority would probably resulted in invasion despite the Royal Navy.

As you said the RAF did a marvellous job but one theory is that they were all but defeated when Hitler diverted air forces to bomb London and other British towns and cities rather than continue to attack the RAF and our airfields etc. He did this in retaliation for a bombing raid on Germany. This allowed the RAF to recover and eventually to them winning the Battle of Britain. So you could say the 'Blitz' saved us.

No it wouldn't.

This comes up again and again.

Please explain to me how a Luftwaffe that failed to sink enough stationary civilian vessels in daylight to stop Dunkirk suddenly had the ability a few weeks later to destroy moving warships at night ?

The RN could have sent dozens upon dozens of Destroyers into the channel at night, and have them safely out of the escorted range of the Luftwaffes bombers by daytime. Don't forget that the invasion would have been mounted in October when the nights are getting longer. The risk of fog would have been very real too.

The Germans were having to use river barges that were towed at around 5 knots and were fairly unseaworthy. They sank without any help, never mind with the attentions of the worlds largest navy.

They only carried out one large exercise with these barges. Most never found the right beach, some sank and the rest spent hours milling around while things got worked out. This was in summer, in daylight and without getting shot at.

They also didn't have enough crews. They actually had to strip the Kreigmarines major surface units for crews, leaving them effectively combat ineffective. Who was going to protect the barges now ?

They didn't carry out any reconnaissance of the intended beaches, didn't know anything about the local conditions in terms of tides and sandbanks etc.

They didn't have enough barges to land the assault divisions whole, and even then still didn't have enough to supply them once they had landed. The plan (yes, i've read it) called for the troops to be landed and to not expect any resupply from the sea for a number of days. They were to be supplied from the air. We know how that worked out at Stalingrad don't we ?

I could go on, but lets just say that the whole thing was so shockingly amatuer that frankly we'd have done well to let them land unopposed and just let them walk into the POW cages a week later.

Not that we knew all this at the time, so the brave efforts of the RAF were certainly not in vain.
 
Last edited:
Assuming that the RN had kept it capacity to pre war levels and Aicraft carriers still replaced the Battleship as the capital ships then our aircraft carriers would number well into the double figures. That would be more aircraft than most countries airforces.

Plus if the amount of crusiers, destroyers & submarines stayed the same but evolved into what they are today, thats a lot of ships carrying cruise missles.

I'm pretty certain the Falklands war would've never happend
 
wordy said:
Assuming that the RN had kept it capacity to pre war levels and Aicraft carriers still replaced the Battleship as the capital ships then our aircraft carriers would number well into the double figures. That would be more aircraft than most countries airforces.

Plus if the amount of crusiers, destroyers & submarines stayed the same but evolved into what they are today, thats a lot of ships carrying cruise missles.

I'm pretty certain the Falklands war would've never happend

The RN went because we couldn't afford it. We were bankrupt by 1945.

The Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 was aimed at limited the size of the worlds navies because we were caught up in a naval arms race that we could not afford. The US were simply spending us to bankrupcy. WWII only hastened the end.
 
Stolly said:
The RN went because we couldn't afford it. We were bankrupt by 1945.

The Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 was aimed at limited the size of the worlds navies because we were caught up in a naval arms race that we could not afford. The US were simply spending us to bankrupcy. WWII only hastened the end.


Indeed, I was just speculating what the RN would've been like if it maintained pre WW1 size and power:)
 
I thought at 1939 the navy wasnt incredibly modern, despite the large amounts of ships. AFAIK the ships were also thinnly spread due to colonies needing protecting. This is going by GCSE stuff from years ago, so not sure if im right.
 
wordy said:
Yeah agree totally. At the outbreak of world war 1, the Royal Navy was the largest in the world, it was larger than both the 2nd & 3rd largest navies combined!

In 1914, Britian had an empire to protect, thus the reason for such a vast naval power.
Now we just need need a navy capable of protecting our small island.

I have no idea about our current strength in the water, but im sure it is capable of protecting us.
 
Gigi said:
I have no idea about our current strength in the water, but im sure it is capable of protecting us.

A good theory...... except we have so many over seas commitment we don't actually have enough (or the correct) ships to police and protect our own waters properly :(
 
Gigi said:
In 1914, Britian had an empire to protect, thus the reason for such a vast naval power.
Now we just need need a navy capable of protecting our small island.

I have no idea about our current strength in the water, but im sure it is capable of protecting us.

52 Ships make up the whole Royal Navy.

Not all are combat either, you have recon, mine hunters etc.
 
TheMightyTen said:
A good theory...... except we have so many over seas commitment we don't actually have enough (or the correct) ships to police and protect our own waters properly :(

Probably true, but i guess thats where the Trident submarines come into their own.
 
My opinion, our navy is just for show these days and token "britishness" in foreign waters.

Back in the days before radar and areoplanes you needed a navy to actively hunt out your opponents, so youneeded a lot of ships.

As somoen else said look at carrier warfare in the pacifiic in ww2 that makes all Battleships nealry obsolete over night.

Obviously we need a couple of aircraft carriers and support ships but thats about it id say. Few subs for nukes if its decided we need them still .
 
PikeyPriest said:
I thought at 1939 the navy wasnt incredibly modern, despite the large amounts of ships. AFAIK the ships were also thinnly spread due to colonies needing protecting. This is going by GCSE stuff from years ago, so not sure if im right.

Correct in many respects, a lot of out ships were late WWI and just after, vintage. We had such things as wooden decked (and relatively, for the time, slow) battleships and a very poor anti-submarine fleet. The ships notoriously had poor antiaircraft protection as well. Although we did lead the japanese and Americans in one aspect of aircraft carrier technolgy -We had armoured flight decks, rather than the wooden ones the of the others :eek:

We did redevelop the habit after 1918 of placing our more aggresive Captains in our smaller faster ships (Destroyers, Frigates and in the later years leading up to the war Corvettes). This was a model pioneered in the highpoint of the Nelsonian late 18th/early 19th Century, and gradually moved away from in the complacency of the Victorian period, we learnt many lessons in the very few pitched Naval battles of WWI and realised that Capital Ships were no longer the inpenetrable super weapons they had been since the launching of HMS Warrior in 1859.
 
Back
Top Bottom