Contrary, close air bases in France would allow much, much easer cover by short-ranged german fighters. In BoB one of the main problem for german fighters was they insuffecient range - is not a problem here.
One of the major tactical advantages possessed by Fighter command was radar, and - as you no doubt know - they used it to anticipate Luftwaffe movements and where possible, attack with superior numbers and with the sun behind them. With an invasion fleet on the water and troops on English soil, the Luftwaffe is forced to maintain fighter cover over those assets 24 hrs per day, as well as providing extra fighter escorts for any bombing raids - whether tactical or strategic. I doubt that you have considered how much that thins out the available aircraft and pilots, reducing their ability to concentrate numbers, and making their presence and location highly predictable. Pilots need to sleep and aircraft need to refuelled and maintained. This is far more easily done when you are running one or two bombing raids per night, but not so easily done when providing air-cover 24/7. This is the problem faced by the Luftwaffe, while the RAF has the liberty to concentrate numbers and attack when and where it suits them.
Could be compensated by air superiority and bomber attacks. I very, very much doubt GB would risk its fleet bringing in direct reach of german frontline bombers, subs and mines.
Not only was air superiority never achieved, but risking the whole fleet was never required. The Channel is small-ship territory - far too shallow for good sub operation - and the RN had a large advantage in numbers of Destroyers, Corvettes. Mines cut both ways. The British also had minefields to protect their vulnerable ports. Reread my point about requiring the Luftwaffe to cover extensive assets with limited resources.
An problem ofc, but do not everestimate it. GB had quite limited land army anyway.
The ability of the Germans to land troops on English soil was also severely limited. Once the Germans had committed their invasion fleet, the English did not have to plan to defend the whole of their coastline, but could concentrate sufficient troops to equal or exceed the numbers that the Wermacht could land and suport with available resources. It didn't matter how many divisions Hitler had in France. What mattered was how many he could get to England, and how much equipment he could send with them. It is highly unlikely that the Germans could have achieved the superiority in numbers or equipment that is usually required to mount a succesful attack.
Well, Hitler is hardly a benchmark
Besides, german high command judged about numbers, equipment or strategies - not Hitler. There were planes to assault GB in development, and in retrospect they look far more doable than planes to Blitzkrieg USSR - even by all the big luck Germany experienced in initial attack.
Actually, No.
German High Command also considered an assault on England with then-available resouces to be unlikely to succeed. However the planning has to be done in order to demonstrate this, and the sigh of relief when Hitler said "Not this time" was pretty heartfelt.
Very wise strategy. I kinda very much agree what isolating GB would be the best bet. But attacking USSR WITHOUT peace with GB - was very, very stupid. This is my point - if Germany have war with GB - deal with GB first. At all costs.
The problem was that , having started the war, Hitler was not at liberty to stop it on his own terms. It is debatable whether his timing was off, but he considered the USSR to be highly untrustworthy and a natural enemy which would have to be dealt with at some stage in order to secure his eastern frontier.
Having concluded that an invasion of England was currently impossible, his options are pretty much as follows.
~ Peace with England would have required abandoning his conquered territory in Western Europe and possibly, Poland (remember why England declared war in the first place). Without an invasion threat, England (particularly under Churchill) was unlikely to accept peace under Hitler's terms.
~ Conquering England required diverting his armaments industry to the building of a Navy that would be at least comparable to the RN, and that requires playing catch-up, beacuse the English were not exactly letting their shipyards lie idle, either. This diversion of men and resources can only come at the expense of other war supplies - tanks, guns, planes - which degraded Germany's ability to deal with the perceived Russian threat. .
~ In theory, a successful blockade might have starved England to the bargaining table, but this was never achieved. Even at its height, the U-Boat campaign was not sinking shipping tonnage as fast as the Americans were building it.
No, in 1942 it wasnt too later by any way. Germany would still have much higher (and better) fighters numbers, and very adequate bombers numbers. The land forces were not even comparable - german ones were order of magnitude more powerfull. Of course, actually land & supply them would be problem - but solvable one with some planning and efforts.
Transporting those assets across the channel was THE problem.
No air superiority.
No naval superiority.
By the summer of 1942 (any invasion required reasonable weather) The English had had two additional years in which to prepare a defence in depth and conscript and train more personnel. The American Air Corp was in England and conducting raids into Europe. US Army troops were in place in England (tho not to levels of the subsequent build-up) and the English had sufficient air-power to conduct 1000 bomber raids on cities in Germany's industrial heartland. If the Luftwaffe could not prevent this, how do we imagine that they couild prevent raids on a similar level on any German beach-head on the English coast? Normandy 1944 showed how devastating tactical bombing by Bomber Command could be against German defences. This hypothetical has them bombing German troops in the open or in the most hastily prepared shelters.
As i said, on Hitlers place i would not attack USSR or GB at all. I would concolidate all occupied EU first. But if i had only choice about who to attack - GB or USSR (with GB still in war) - i would choose GB. At least, i dont risk anything important here. If i loose - i just loose part of army. Not the whole 3rd Reich as in case of war vs USSR.
The problem is
still larger than you think. When - not if - you fail...
~ You lose the moral or propaganda value of never having lost a major campaign. You still have to deal with Russia while having an encouraged and belligerent England on your back doorstep. (and in Africa)
~ In preparation, you have diverted much more than just the infantry and armour divisions which you tried to send across the channel. You've had to divert resources into areas which give you little or no benefit when dealing with the Russians.
Step back for a moment and consider how difficult the invasion of Normandy was for the Allies. It required an immense buildup of men and materials. It required months of preparatory bombing and sobotage. It required an intensive diversion campaign to convince the Wermacht that the landings would occur elsewhere. It required large quantities of new technology. It needed absolute air and naval superiority. The Allies had everything going for them and still it was hard.
How are we supposed to think that the Wermacht conduct a succesful operation without these advantages and without the prior experience of making other contested landings?
Please consider,,,,,,,,, Peter
