What was the most important battle of WWII?

[Sternjaeger]

The Luftwaffe fighters did not have the range to ever defeat the RAF. If worse came to worse the RAF would simply pull back beyond the range of the 109s and recover/regroup. If the Germans were ever stupid enough to actually try and cross the channel (and I don't think they would have ever tried it even if they had some level of air superiority) the RAF and RN would have arrived in force, suffered heavy losses, and stopped the one and only shot the Germans had at an invasion.

 

IIRC, at the time of the BOB the Luftwaffe had not even been able to replace the losses of the previous battles such was the poor state of their industry. Hitler ignored the warnings of his industrial machine's leaders fully believing that the war would be over so fast it would not matter. The losses to the Wermacht were devestating from day one of Barbarossa. The only people optimistic about attacking Russia were Hitler and his fanatical followers. Even in the front lines it was well known early on that the Germans were being worn down much quicker than the Russians. It must have been demoralizing to realize that enemy position after position is manned at the same level while your forces are being worn down with every step.

 

--Outlaw.

 

I'm sorry mate, but there's a lot of personal interpretation there: 

 

1) at the end of 1940 the RAF was struggling to put aeroplanes in the air, and the majority of the air force had fighters anyway, so an effective, continuous attack on a bridgehead would have been difficult if not impossible.

 

2) once you conquer the south, it takes no time to make some improvised airstrips or to invade the coastal airfields.

 

3) the RN would have had a very narrow fighting area, and the Luftwaffe and U-Boote would have minced the the RN in such a small area. Don't forget that in 1940 the Navy mainly had Stringbags and Sea Gladiators, they would have been no match for the Germans.

 

4) the German production spiked from 1941, and the beginning of Barbarossa didn't see many losses at all.. 

[DD_bongodriver]

Take U-boats away from the Atlantic and Britain gets more supplies, U-boats are just as vulnerable in a narrow channel, the Brits were quite good a sub killing both on the sea and from the air, even easier in the channel, not sure how much the Brits were struggling to get aircraft in the air, certainly not enough to convince the Germans to go ahead with Op Sea Lion.

[JtD]

Well, if BoB is considered the most important battle, then I think we should also nominate the Japanese bombing of mainland US. Had they indeed succeeded in turning the US to ashes, it would have been a war winner. Unfortunately for them all they managed was a handful of balloons and a couple of biplanes.

 

BoB, seriously? There's no version where Germany comes out better than they historically did, outside of the entire British Commonwealth joining Nazi Germany's war efforts out of political motivation. Everything else, anything realistic, any prolonged fighting, would have just cost the Germans more material which they would then not have available elsewhere. The only winner in an operation sea lion would be Stalin.

[TheBlackPenguin]

I'm sorry mate, but there's a lot of personal interpretation there: 

 

1) at the end of 1940 the RAF was struggling to put aeroplanes in the air, and the majority of the air force had fighters anyway, so an effective, continuous attack on a bridgehead would have been difficult if not impossible.

 

2) once you conquer the south, it takes no time to make some improvised airstrips or to invade the coastal airfields.

 

3) the RN would have had a very narrow fighting area, and the Luftwaffe and U-Boote would have minced the the RN in such a small area. Don't forget that in 1940 the Navy mainly had Stringbags and Sea Gladiators, they would have been no match for the Germans.

 

4) the German production spiked from 1941, and the beginning of Barbarossa didn't see many losses at all.. 

 

1. Struggling through lack of pilots, not material. They still managed to rotate aircrew and aircraft further North, much to the angst and anguish of the Luftwaffe during the BoB.

 

2. Casualties would have been on a much larger scale than Crete, although Germany took that Island the British didn't put up a stiff defence as they would on their own turf and not forgetting I am a little sceptical that they were ever going to gain full aerial supremacy based on the fact that Hurricanes and Spitfires were very easy to disperse to outlying fields (and in fact were). Think about the ones from WW1 which were unused, such as Stow Maries...If it truly got more desperate wouldn't we have seen this occur more frequently? Plus with squadrons moved further North they would have been much stronger as they were out of the range of the 109, yet still within decent range of the Spitfires etc. Although not entirely convinced on the effectiveness of the Big Wings, they sure as hell convinced the Luftwaffe that the RAF was not getting weaker, but actually stronger and these were formed in the Northern sectors under Leigh-Mallory and Douglas Bader. Southern group were headed by Keith Park and he preferred smaller sections which were quicker to get airborne and far less visible.

 

3. Are you suggesting some sort of "land bridge" which the Spanish Armada tried unsuccessfully in 1588? People are still arguing over whether or not the Luftwaffe had bombs capable of penetrating the deck of a RN cruiser during this period and U-Boats vs Warships at sea would have been interesting .

 

4. I'm going to be reading more on the economic production of Germany, but the UK economy was on full war footing whilst Germany's was not and was not so until Albert Speer (next book I will be absorbing) initiated something similar in 1943...Suggesting the leadership (always go back to that!) thought their campaign would be over quickly. They completely misunderstood, mismanaged and bought disaster to Europe/World and to their own people.

[Outlaw]

4. I'm going to be reading more on the economic production of Germany, but the UK economy was on full war footing whilst Germany's was not and was not so until Albert Speer (next book I will be absorbing) initiated something similar in 1943...Suggesting the leadership (always go back to that!) thought their campaign would be over quickly. They completely misunderstood, mismanaged and bought disaster to Europe/World and to their own people.

Coincidentally, I recently read a piece somewhere claiming that Speer took way more credit than he deserved for the German industrial buildup. According to the author (I can't remember where I saw it), much of the preperation was already completed so Speer was just the finisher. Not that that wasn't a significant (possibly even monumental) effort but Speers claims just don't add up to reality (once again, according to the author).

 

--Outlaw.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Outlaw

[MiloMorai]

I read something similar recently to that Outlaw but it went even further and said that if Speer hadn't taken over even more war material would have been produced.

 

For those saying the RN trying to intercept the Sealion convoys would have been sitting ducks for the Lw, I ask them how was the Lw's night bombing? Also, how many destroyers that were moving during the evacuation from Dunkirk were sunk?

[TheBlackPenguin]

I read something similar recently to that Outlaw but it went even further and said that if Speer hadn't taken over even more war material would have been produced.

 

For those saying the RN trying to intercept the Sealion convoys would have been sitting ducks for the Lw, I ask them how was the Lw's night bombing? Also, how many destroyers that were moving during the evacuation from Dunkirk were sunk?

 

Thanks Outlaw and Milo, I'd like to know more about that if you happen to find those references (I will search for them too though).

 

Here are some stats:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_evacuation#Ships_used

 

No major RN vessels were used during Dunkirk it seems.

[Sternjaeger]

I read something similar recently to that Outlaw but it went even further and said that if Speer hadn't taken over even more war material would have been produced.

 

For those saying the RN trying to intercept the Sealion convoys would have been sitting ducks for the Lw, I ask them how was the Lw's night bombing? Also, how many destroyers that were moving during the evacuation from Dunkirk were sunk?

 

Milo, the Lufwaffe would have used torpedoes, Stukas and Ju88s, like they already had planned, to attack the Navy during the day, leaving the night hunting to the Kriegsmarine's U-Boote. No RN admiral would have resisted in such a relatively small area of operations without sustaining substantial damage and being forced to push back. 

 

The Dunkirk example doesn't stand because Hitler specifically ordered to let the British withdraw.. strafing the small barges used to evacuate soldiers off the French coast, which had no aerial cover either, would have been like shooting fish in a barrel.. 

[Sternjaeger]

1. Struggling through lack of pilots, not material. They still managed to rotate aircrew and aircraft further North, much to the angst and anguish of the Luftwaffe during the BoB.

the numbers were going down fast, and the problem was that the RAF was throwing in the battle pilots with just 40/50 hours (!!!). They were in serious serious trouble, and it was only a matter of time before they would have been subdued.

 

2. Casualties would have been on a much larger scale than Crete, although Germany took that Island the British didn't put up a stiff defence as they would on their own turf and not forgetting I am a little sceptical that they were ever going to gain full aerial supremacy based on the fact that Hurricanes and Spitfires were very easy to disperse to outlying fields (and in fact were). Think about the ones from WW1 which were unused, such as Stow Maries...If it truly got more desperate wouldn't we have seen this occur more frequently? Plus with squadrons moved further North they would have been much stronger as they were out of the range of the 109, yet still within decent range of the Spitfires etc. Although not entirely convinced on the effectiveness of the Big Wings, they sure as hell convinced the Luftwaffe that the RAF was not getting weaker, but actually stronger and these were formed in the Northern sectors under Leigh-Mallory and Douglas Bader. Southern group were headed by Keith Park and he preferred smaller sections which were quicker to get airborne and far less visible.

The concern of Luftwaffe commanders was to steer their efforts towards crippling the RAF for good: it's the change of tactic Hitler wanted that sent things tits up. If he hadn't ordered the bombing of cities and concentrated on destroying RAF radar stations and airfields on the south (and they had the capacity of hitting 95% of the RAF airfields in England, the flew as north as Hull!), the RAF wouldn't have had a chance for a ready response.

If anything Seeloewe was the perfect example of the typical Hitler's oversights and stubborness: they were aware of the British RADAR stations, yet they didn't annihilate them all (which would have been very easy).. they clearly understood the tactical importance of disabling the RAF's ready response, yet they concentrated on bombing cities instead with an unprecedented violence

 

have a look at this map to get an idea of the sheer amount of ordnance dropped on London only..

 

http://www.bombsight.org/#13/51.5053/-0.0893

 

3. Are you suggesting some sort of "land bridge" which the Spanish Armada tried unsuccessfully in 1588? People are still arguing over whether or not the Luftwaffe had bombs capable of penetrating the deck of a RN cruiser during this period and U-Boats vs Warships at sea would have been interesting .

 

4. I'm going to be reading more on the economic production of Germany, but the UK economy was on full war footing whilst Germany's was not and was not so until Albert Speer (next book I will be absorbing) initiated something similar in 1943...Suggesting the leadership (always go back to that!) thought their campaign would be over quickly. They completely misunderstood, mismanaged and bought disaster to Europe/World and to their own people.

no, it was a figure of speech, I didn't mean an actual bridge of course! 

[DD_fruitbat]

Thanks for my sunday morning laugh!

[Sternjaeger]

Thanks for my sunday morning laugh!

 

what's so funny?

[DD_Arthur]

what's so funny?

 

Well this gave me a good laugh;

 

Milo, the Lufwaffe would have used torpedoes, Stukas and Ju88s, like they already had planned, to attack the Navy during the day, leaving the night hunting to the Kriegsmarine's U-Boote. No RN admiral would have resisted in such a relatively small area of operations without sustaining substantial damage and being forced to push back. 

 

The Dunkirk example doesn't stand because Hitler specifically ordered to let the British withdraw.. strafing the small barges used to evacuate soldiers off the French coast, which had no aerial cover either, would have been like shooting fish in a barrel.. 

 

Edited February 16, 2014 by arthursmedley

[Rama]

laugh instead of arguing is a sure way to turn a debate into a personal dispute.

If you find something someone said is very wrong, then eventually say it and bring some arguments. Why should you mock someone, even if you find what he said stupid?

Except of course if it was your intention to be rude... was it?

[MiloMorai]

Milo, the Lufwaffe would have used torpedoes, Stukas and Ju88s, like they already had planned, to attack the Navy during the day, leaving the night hunting to the Kriegsmarine's U-Boote. No RN admiral would have resisted in such a relatively small area of operations without sustaining substantial damage and being forced to push back. 

 

The Dunkirk example doesn't stand because Hitler specifically ordered to let the British withdraw.. strafing the small barges used to evacuate soldiers off the French coast, which had no aerial cover either, would have been like shooting fish in a barrel.. 

 

Stern, how long would it take for the invasion barges to cross the channel at 2-3kts with the tide running at up to 10kts? The Lw had no real night fighting experience vs ships. There was some 469 ships lost in the evacuation so the ships were hardly left alone. There was 39 RN destroyers involved in the evacuation and only 6 were sunk. How many of those were actually under way at high speed?

• Grafton, sunk by U-62 on 29 May
• Grenade, sunk by air attack at Dunkirk on 29 May
• Wakeful, sunk by a torpedo from the E-boat S-30 on 29 May
• Basilisk, Havant, and Keith, sunk by air attack off the beaches on 1 June

The French Navy lost three destroyers:

• Bourrasque, mined off Nieuport on 30 May
• Sirocco, sunk by the E-boats S-23 and S-26 on 31 May
• Le Foudroyant, sunk by air attack off the beaches on 1 June

How many naval vessels did the Lw sink during the convoy battles in the Channel?

     

So you are going to pull the few u-boats from the Atlantic.

 

Hitler had the Army stop but the 'Fat One' continued with the Lw.

Stern, the Lw wasn't doing that well either. Lw replacement pilots were just as rookie as the RAF pilots.

 

Sure the Lw could bomb further than London but would be doing so without Me109 escorts.

[Sternjaeger]

well Milo, it his widely accepted that Hitler stopped the attack to the fleeing Brits: it wouldn't have taken much more than strafing the barges to cause awful casualties.

 

And this is the point: if the Brits managed to evacuate +300k soldiers from Dunkirk in a hurry, I don't see why the Germans would have not managed to move at least the same amount on a planned and prepared invasion, together with  +1000 fallschirmjaeger and with an adequate aerial support (which again was possible because majority of the crossing would be well within range of the Luftwaffe). 

 

As for the laughers, when they're done with their laughing they can feel free to engage in an educated and adult conversation on the topic...

Edited February 16, 2014 by Sternjaeger

[MiloMorai]

Hitler stopped the attack on the troops still on the the shores of Dunkirk partial on the word of the 'Fat One' that his Lw could finish the job.

 

So what was the German capability for night naval attacks?

 

How were the troops that landed in Britain going to be resupplied? Remember that it took almost 24hr at a minimum for a one way trip. That does include the time spent loading and unloading.

[Sternjaeger]

Hitler stopped the attack on the troops still on the the shores of Dunkirk partial on the word of the 'Fat One' that his Lw could finish the job.

 

So what was the German capability for night naval attacks?

 

How were the troops that landed in Britain going to be resupplied? Remember that it took almost 24hr at a minimum for a one way trip. That does include the time spent loading and unloading.

 

What do you mean with German capability for night naval attacks? U-Boote primarily operated at night.

 

As for resupplies, the Luftwaffe could have kept on ferrying their Ju52s back and forth to make a logistic air bridge. Bear in mind that the British ground forces at the time were shattered and still recovering from the loss in equipment and men of the BEF fiasco, they wouldn't have had much to oppose to the German invasion. They would have surely put up quite a fight, since it was their own territory that was being invaded, but I still think that the way of fighting of the Germans in the early years of WW2 would have allowed for a rapid expansion in the mainland. 

 

Needless to say it would have been quite a logistic strain, but no different nor larger than the one they undertook for Barbarossa. The Royal Family and the Cabinet would have probably fled to the north whilst looking for a solution, but I guess there would have been a lot of panic on the territory in the beginning of the invasion. Bear in mind that the British population was concerned about an invasion, and the more the early war went on, the more they realised an invasion was possible indeed.

 

Once again, I'm sure the Brits would have shown extreme defiance, but it would have been a scary bloodbath for both sides.. 

[DD_fruitbat]

Stern, have you ever heard off, and read the wargame conducted by sandhurst in 1974,

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion_(wargame)

 

extract of it from the book  "Operation Sealion" by Richard Cox ISBN090272617X

 

http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/seelowe.txt

 

General Adolf Galland (air), Admiral Friedrich Ruge (naval) and General Heinrich Trettner (land), all dissagree with you.

 

It is a very interesting read by the way regardless of this thread!

Edited February 16, 2014 by fruitbat

[DD_bongodriver]

British ground forces were not shattered, the BEF took a pasting but by late 39 the British army numbered close to a million, the BEF was maybe a third of that and most of them made it back to the UK

[DD_Arthur]

@ Stern; my sincere apologies for not replying sooner.  However, since today has been simply much too nice a day to spend having an internet argument, the commander-in-chief in my house ordered a family route march across hill and dale and how right she was!

 

Stern, just as Stalin never left Moscow during December 1941, neither did Hitler give any orders to allow the British to withdraw to Dunkirk .  The destruction of the BEF was one of the major objectives of operation Sickle Stroke.  The decisions made around Dunkirk were for sound tactical reasons. 

 

 After breaking out through the Ardenne and crossing the Meuse above Liege the Panzers had fought solidly for eleven days and had out run their supporting infantry.  This was much farther and much quicker than had been anticipated. Hitler and the army staff were rightly nervous of counter attack across the base of the armoured spearhead after DeGaulle's 4th Armoured division had attacked at Laon on the seventeenth of May.   Hitler ordered a halt then to allow the infantry to be brought up.

 

The advance then proceeded but on the twenty-first of May two British divisions attacked across the German armoured advance at Arras.  The Germans were checked again but neither of these two attacks had weight of numbers with which to exploit their initial success and had to withdraw.  However these attacks had confirmed Hitler and his staff in their caution.  When Hitler learned that Army Group B's Panzers were preparing to advance into the coastal lowlands he ordered the stop for two days to once more allow supporting infantry to be brought up.  He rightly considered the area unsuitable for armoured operations and was assured by Goring that the Luftwaffe could prevent evacuation of the BEF by sea.

 

What Hitler did not know was that the BEF had been ordered to fall back on Dunkirk with a view to evacuation on May the twenty-third as the political and military situation of French forces declined.  It was this headstart as well as the two day halt to the German advance that allowed Operation Dynamo - the evacuation of Dunkirk - to take place.  That and the usual over-estimation of what air power on its own can achieve against ground forces.  The Luftwaffe were simply not very successful against the Dunkirk beaches.

 

The Battle of Britain itself is best treated as a threat of attack by two separate forces while keeping in mind that Britain recognized immediately that any war with Germany would be a fight for national survival and that Hitler had first asked for initial plans for the invasion of the Soviet Union to be drawn up soon after the fall of France.

 

Could the Luftwaffe have won the Battle and achieved air supremacy over southern England by the beginning of September ( as demanded by Admiral Raeder )?   No chance.

 

 The Germans were now forced to fight in a way where they were weakest and the British strongest.  Strength and weakness being relative the RAF had the tremendous advantage of fighting over home territory.  'What ifs' are irrelevant.  We know what took place.  At the end of the day the Luftwaffe could not stand the rate of attrition incurred during daylight operations over Britain - especially of bombers and their crews.  Britains recognition of its predicament meant the economy had been put on a total war footing on the third of September the previous year.   It was already out producing Germany in aircraft and aircrew training.

 

It is quite possible that the RAF would have been driven back from its forward airfields but the Royal Navy was vast and the channel was small and would have still been within range of other RAF groups outside the home counties.  The Germans simply did not have enough U Boats or E Boats to seal the channel let alone heavy units to see off the navy.  Neither did the Germans possess anything to land heavy equipment - like artillery - ashore outside of a harbour.

 

We benefit from hindsight in knowing Britain went on to become that unsinkable aircraft carrier off the coast of northern Europe which the Americans could use as their springboard for a continental invasion.  

 In the autumn of nineteen forty this was rather less apparent. For Hitler Britain had become a costly humiliation of his forces that would be more gainfully employed in an invasion eastwards in the following year.

[Sternjaeger]

Stern, have you ever heard off, and read the wargame conducted by sandhurst in 1974,

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion_(wargame)

 

extract of it from the book  "Operation Sealion" by Richard Cox ISBN090272617X

 

http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/seelowe.txt

 

General Adolf Galland (air), Admiral Friedrich Ruge (naval) and General Heinrich Trettner (land), all dissagree with you.

 

It is a very interesting read by the way regardless of this thread!

 

Of course I know about it Fruitbat, but this is not the point: in the Sea Lion wargame, "Hitler" denied the interruption of the London raids, reducing vital aerial support to the invasion troops, which is an obviously fundamental flaw. Not even Hitler would have underestimated the importance of aerial supremacy and used the only true edge that they had, their bomber raids, to support the invasion forces.

 

That wargame was essentially yet another example of belated propaganda, as it didn't take into account variables such as that one.  

 

It still remains that under a tactical point of view, a substantial and successful invasion of Great Britain was possible indeed, but they decided to "pull the plug" on the wargame when they realised how "dangerous" this simulation was, and played their "Hitler's order" card.

 

The same goes with the Battle of Dunkirk: other than the specific orders, there is evidence, both circumstantial (Von Rundstedt's opinion on Hitler's "sympathy for the British") and direct (Hitler referring to Churchill as "not a good sportsman" when talking about the Dunkirk affair) of Hitler's intention of holding back on the final blow to the BEF in order to give another chance for a deal with Great Britain, yet people decide to think otherwise.. 

 

But even if this could be a debatable matter, it still remains that back in 1940 Germany had the full capacity and potential for a successful invasion of Great Britain, which never materialised merely because of the poor choices of Hitler, and this, you'll agree, was also established by the aforementioned 1974 wargames. 

Edited February 17, 2014 by Sternjaeger

[MiloMorai]

Stern, how did the supplying of Stalingrad go? Every round trip those Ju52s made there would be less and less of them to carry more supplies.

 

 

it would have been quite a logistic strain

 

 

That is quite the understatement.

 

Supply requirement for a German armored division is given as 30 tons per day when inactive and 700 tons a day when in heavy fighting. German Infantry divisions required 80 tons per day when inactive and 1,100 tons a day in heavy fighting. (in Russia) (Source: "German Tanks at War" by Bob Carruthers).

 

U-boats didn't fair very well in the Channel. How many u-boats you going to pull out of the Atlantic?

 

I can't find it now but the British Army was not as weak as you think it was.

[DD_bongodriver]

A 'retrospective' wargame was dangerous? now that is some real comedy, I think raaaid has infected you somehow with tinfoil hat 'propaganda' theories.

[Sternjaeger]

Great picture Arthur! 

 

Stalin was ready to leave, his train had been packed and they were just waiting for his order (or at least that's the official story!). 

 

Re. Dunkirk, see my comment above.

[MiloMorai]

Hitler's intention of holding back on the final blow to the BEF in order to give another chance for a deal with Great Britain

 

 

If that is so, then why were their Allied casualties after the halt order?.

[Sternjaeger]

Stern, how did the supplying of Stalingrad go? Every round trip those Ju52s made there would be less and less of them to carry more supplies.

 

That is quite the understatement.

 

Supply requirement for a German armored division is given as 30 tons per day when inactive and 700 tons a day when in heavy fighting. German Infantry divisions required 80 tons per day when inactive and 1,100 tons a day in heavy fighting. (in Russia) (Source: "German Tanks at War" by Bob Carruthers).

 

U-boats didn't fair very well in the Channel. How many u-boats you going to pull out of the Atlantic?

 

I can't find it now but the British Army was not as weak as you think it was.

 

Milo, you can't compare the Stalingrad scenario with the 1940 one, they're completely different and based on completely different numbers of aircraft and troops available. And for the record, during the Battle of Stalingrad the Luftwaffe was able to deliver an average of 94 short tons (85 t) of supplies per day out of a air transport capacity of 117 short tons (106 t) per day. The most successful day, 19 December, delivered 289 short tons (262 t) of supplies in 154 flights. (This is from Wikipedia)

 

As for the British Army, by the end of May/beginning of June, when Operation Dynamo happened, the BEF had to leave behind not just a lot of men, but also vast amounts of arms and resources, it is renown that in those crucial months after the Dunkirk evacuation the British Army was at an all time low. 

[DD_Arthur]

 

The same goes with the Battle of Dunkirk: other than the specific orders, there is evidence, both circumstantial (Von Rundstedt's opinion on Hitler's "sympathy for the British") and direct (Hitler referring to Churchill as "not a good sportsman" when talking about the Dunkirk affair) of Hitler's intention of holding back on the final blow to the BEF in order to give another chance for a deal with Great Britain, yet people decide to think otherwise.. 

 

But even if this could be a debatable matter, it still remains that back in 1940 Germany had the full capacity and potential for a successful invasion of Great Britain, which never materialised merely because of the poor choices of Hitler, and this, you'll agree, was also established by the aforementioned 1974 wargames. 

 

  Stern please show some evidence to back this up.  Hitler' reference to Churchill is an indication of exasperation.  In May-June 1940 much of British establishment opinion was that terms should be made with Hitler.  Churchill refused.  Von Rundstedt agreed with Hitlers stop order on the panzers at Dunkirk. Brauchitsch and Halder did not.

 

By July 1940 Hitler was at a strategic cross roads.  The Germany armed forces were simply not equipped for a major amphibious operation.  Hitler did not have sympathy, he had realism.  Any attemped invasion would undoubtedly have been very costly and doubtful as to whether any opposed landing could be made at all.  Who would benefit from the fall of Britain? 

Hitler told his newly created Marshalls in August 1940 it would be "Italy in the Mediterranean, Russia in India, Japan in the Far East and America in world trade."   

[Sternjaeger]

A 'retrospective' wargame was dangerous? now that is some real comedy, I think raaaid has infected you somehow with tinfoil hat 'propaganda' theories.

 

I like you man, but to be honest I'm not expecting you to understand, you always seem to turn a blind eye when someone questions British might..