WWII: British Empire Supercharged

[The Two Jerseys]

They were building landing craft and pressing various boats and ships into war service, if push came to shove they could have landed and paradropped significant men and material.

I laughed a bit too hard at paradropped. Airborne infantry is generally the worst option available, the Germans determined from the Battle of Crete that while it can work it’s so rarely worth it.

The Germans' abandonment of airborne assaults was probably more of a logistical issue than anything, the Ju 52 fleet suffered heavy losses in the Low Countries that were never really replaced, and as a result hamstrung the Fallschirmjager for the remainder of the war.

The success of airborne in Normandy with the allies was mostly do to how much the airborne landing fucked up creating chaos behind German lines, the allies would determine after market garden that it really is almost never worth it to use airborne as anything other then ground infantry.

The real problem with Market Garden was the British only had enough aircraft to carry half their force and had to use half of that to secure the LZs for the second drop, so they're essentially going into action at 25% strength. That and the whole "relief column advancing on one road" thing...

That's why with Operation Varsity they cut one airborne division from the operation and switched to dropping all their airborne in one go rather than piecemeal.

[The New California Republic]

The success of airborne in Normandy with the allies was mostly do to how much the airborne landing fucked up creating chaos behind German lines, the allies would determine after market garden that it really is almost never worth it to use airborne as anything other then ground infantry.

The real problem with Market Garden was the British only had enough aircraft to carry half their force and had to use half of that to secure the LZs for the second drop, so they're essentially going into action at 25% strength. That and the whole "relief column advancing on one road" thing...

That's why with Operation Varsity they cut one airborne division from the operation and switched to dropping all their airborne in one go rather than piecemeal.

They also had an issue with fire support and mobility, they just couldn't move away from their drop zones quick enough, and did not have enough fire support to punch through the German line. It's why after the war the Soviets for example laid great emphasis in creating airdroppable vehicles such as the BMD, ASU-57, etc, which went some way towards solving the mobility and fire support problems that had previously plagued airborne forces in WW2.

[Vikanias]

I’d say yes, Britain has large amounts of resources. And to mention it can get every soldier it needs from every dominion and colony. Although it would require large amounts of strategy considering that Barbarossa may not happen. After all Britain and its dominions stand as one against the Axis. especially with the Japanese in the pacific. If Britain plays its cards right and doesn’t send its soldiers to do stupid shit I’d say it’ll be an easy win. Hell if Barbarossa does happen in this timeline it’s more of a win for the Tea drinkers.

[Infected Mushroom]

However, only the British Empire (no USA, no Soviet Union) opposes the Axis. However, all subjects and citizens of the Empire whether or not in a settler colony are 100 percent loyal to the British Empire, really want and need Britain to win and there are no independence movements whatsoever. In this timeline, Britain can try to literally arm up all of India, all of its African colonies etc with no political considerations whatsoever for dealing with insurrections after. In other words, this is Britain that can and will fight at full power.

So are we talking about only the colonies or dominions that were still colonies or dominions and not already independent in 1939?

In which case, Canada would be out (except Newfoundland, which wasn't part of Canada at the time). Canada declared war on Germany a day after the UK in World War II because it didn't have to go to war (unlike World War I where it was still a Dominion of the UK). Same goes for Australia and New Zealand.

Or are you just assuming the entire Commonwealth goes, whether they're governed by the UK or independent at the time?

---

Either way, if they manage to win, it will take longer than 1945. The British Empire and the Commonwealth were already all in World War II and still the Soviets did more damage to Germany overall (and that's not even getting into the bit where apparently Free France isn't trying to win back the occupied part of the country in your scenario for some reason... and it's also not clear if you're including the various refugees from central Europe who were involved in fighting for the allies or the resistance movements in occupied countries that were also helping the allied cause).

In the scenario, Canada remains British/would have been 100 percent on board with Team Britain.

[Picairn]

Then Japan still loses to China.

China is too vast and numerous to be conquered and the Soviets would have destroyed the Kwantung Army regardless, true, but Japan would still likely hold onto its overseas possessions in South East Asia, Ceylon and Papua New Guinea. Neither China nor the USSR has a sufficient navy to counter against Japan. Britain loses many of its Asian colonies in all cases.

And most likely the UK could definitely hold out until 1945. Which means the Soviets would end up pushing against a largely undefended front, assuming the Nazis fully focus on the Brits

I don't think Hitler would have let his troops lay idle on the beaches of Northern France staring at the ocean all day. Without Operation Barbarossa he would possibly have enough troops to both fortify the Atlantic Wall and move against Britain in North Africa. Rommel would have had way more reinforcements to win the Battle of El Alamein sooner and therefore reached the Suez Canal, cutting off the Empire's supply line. If he managed to get Franco to allow passage of Axis troops then Gibraltar would have been invaded and the Mediterranean would have been closed. Assuming this is all done by early 1942, Hitler could then place his troops in position for Operation Barbarossa in the summer. Of course, the Soviets would have been better armed by then and it would have been harder for the Germans.

[Sungoldy-China]

If the conditions you mentioned are all true, why should Britain beat Germany?

Negotiations with Germany until a "European Gendarmerie" appeared.

As long as the UK is willing to wait, there will always be another country that can’t stand it.

The war between Britain and Germany also marked the end of Britain as a global hegemon.

[Punished UMN]

I’m already sick of this. No, there is no scenario were Sea Lion works that doesn’t rely on a complete lack of understanding of the British and German position and ability before 1941.

Tbh it might be because I've got a wider understanding of the performance of the forces involved that makes it feasible, such as the aforementioned fact that the Royal Navy generally was annihilated when used in areas of strong enemy air power.

Yeah, the Battle of Crete more or less proves that, having achieved air superiority, even a relatively small naval force at the time was sufficient to pin down and deal substantial damage to very large naval forces, 610 German aircraft paralyzed the entire Mediterranean Fleet. The British experienced the costliest naval battle of the war for them, while the Royal Navy had really been comparatively helpless. Not an isolated incident either, the Japanese dominated the Royal Navy in the Indian Ocean with airpower. Had the Germans obtained decisive air superiority over the Channel, it's unlikely the Royal Navy would have been able to cope with the air attacks any better than it had at Crete, the Indian Ocean raid, or the sinking of Force Z. The Royal Navy had a terrible record against air power and it's questionable whether they could engage the German fleet under those conditions.

[Infected Mushroom]

Tbh it might be because I've got a wider understanding of the performance of the forces involved that makes it feasible, such as the aforementioned fact that the Royal Navy generally was annihilated when used in areas of strong enemy air power.

Yeah, the Battle of Crete more or less proves that, having achieved air superiority, even a relatively small naval force at the time was sufficient to pin down and deal substantial damage to very large naval forces, 610 German aircraft paralyzed the entire Mediterranean Fleet. The British experienced the costliest naval battle of the war for them, while the Royal Navy had really been comparatively helpless. Not an isolated incident either, the Japanese dominated the Royal Navy in the Indian Ocean with airpower. Had the Germans obtained decisive air superiority over the Channel, it's unlikely the Royal Navy would have been able to cope with the air attacks any better than it had at Crete, the Indian Ocean raid, or the sinking of Force Z. The Royal Navy had a terrible record against air power and it's questionable whether they could engage the German fleet under those conditions.

So naval warships were trash in WWII except for granting you longer strike range in the water? Airplanes OP?

No wonder you never read about the RN in the Battle of Britain.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

If only Britain, France and Germany, in fact, the Nazis could seize the Strait of Gibraltar and drive the Royal Navy out of the Mediterranean.In this way, the British army could not confront the German army in North Africa, which would accelerate the disintegration of the British Empire even if it could not attack the British mainland.Britain cannot compete alone with a unified European continent.

[Dakini]

So are we talking about only the colonies or dominions that were still colonies or dominions and not already independent in 1939?

In which case, Canada would be out (except Newfoundland, which wasn't part of Canada at the time). Canada declared war on Germany a day after the UK in World War II because it didn't have to go to war (unlike World War I where it was still a Dominion of the UK). Same goes for Australia and New Zealand.

Or are you just assuming the entire Commonwealth goes, whether they're governed by the UK or independent at the time?

---

Either way, if they manage to win, it will take longer than 1945. The British Empire and the Commonwealth were already all in World War II and still the Soviets did more damage to Germany overall (and that's not even getting into the bit where apparently Free France isn't trying to win back the occupied part of the country in your scenario for some reason... and it's also not clear if you're including the various refugees from central Europe who were involved in fighting for the allies or the resistance movements in occupied countries that were also helping the allied cause).

In the scenario, Canada remains British/would have been 100 percent on board with Team Britain.

Okay, so again, why isn't Free France (and the French Empire) fighting to free France from Nazi occupation? Are you including the Polish soldiers who escaped Poland and fought for the allies? Are you including any resistance movements?

As I said before, the Commonwealth and the British Empire was already all in on World War II. I'm not sure what you've changed to make you think that the UK, the Empire and the Commonwealth could win on their own without apparently the Soviets, the fucking French empire led by Free France, various resistance movements in occupied countries and the Americans who all contributed to the Allied victory as well.

[Infected Mushroom]

In the scenario, Canada remains British/would have been 100 percent on board with Team Britain.

Okay, so again, why isn't Free France (and the French Empire) fighting to free France from Nazi occupation? Are you including the Polish soldiers who escaped Poland and fought for the allies? Are you including any resistance movements?

As I said before, the Commonwealth and the British Empire was already all in on World War II. I'm not sure what you've changed to make you think that the UK, the Empire and the Commonwealth could win on their own without apparently the Soviets, the fucking French empire led by Free France, various resistance movements in occupied countries and the Americans who all contributed to the Allied victory as well.

All Allies except the USA and Soviet Union can fight for either side.

So French resistance etc is in.

IRL UK didn’t fight at full power because it had to worry about post-war colonial revolutions/insurgents and was conservative in arming colonials.

[Kerwa]

No US = no lend lease and other material and economic support. Britain therefore has to surrender and most likely ends up a neutral with pro axis leanings. Germany then destroys the Soviet Union because they have no trucks or food etc.

[Dakini]

Okay, so again, why isn't Free France (and the French Empire) fighting to free France from Nazi occupation? Are you including the Polish soldiers who escaped Poland and fought for the allies? Are you including any resistance movements?

As I said before, the Commonwealth and the British Empire was already all in on World War II. I'm not sure what you've changed to make you think that the UK, the Empire and the Commonwealth could win on their own without apparently the Soviets, the fucking French empire led by Free France, various resistance movements in occupied countries and the Americans who all contributed to the Allied victory as well.

All Allies except the USA and Soviet Union can fight for either side.

So French resistance etc is in.

IRL UK didn’t fight at full power because it had to worry about post-war colonial revolutions/insurgents and was conservative in arming colonials.

So basically, your claim is that the British Empire could have won on its own if only the UK could have used the people from all of its colonies as cannon fodder (which they did anyway, look at how they used soldiers from Newfoundland)?

[Infected Mushroom]

All Allies except the USA and Soviet Union can fight for either side.

So French resistance etc is in.

IRL UK didn’t fight at full power because it had to worry about post-war colonial revolutions/insurgents and was conservative in arming colonials.

So basically, your claim is that the British Empire could have won on its own if only the UK could have used the people from all of its colonies as cannon fodder (which they did anyway, look at how they used soldiers from Newfoundland)?

Ideally not as fodder but in a tactically optimal way.

[Ifreann]

Okay, so again, why isn't Free France (and the French Empire) fighting to free France from Nazi occupation? Are you including the Polish soldiers who escaped Poland and fought for the allies? Are you including any resistance movements?

As I said before, the Commonwealth and the British Empire was already all in on World War II. I'm not sure what you've changed to make you think that the UK, the Empire and the Commonwealth could win on their own without apparently the Soviets, the fucking French empire led by Free France, various resistance movements in occupied countries and the Americans who all contributed to the Allied victory as well.

All Allies except the USA and Soviet Union can fight for either side.

So French resistance etc is in.

You're asking about whether the British Empire could win WWII alone, by which you mean they would not have been alone at all.

IRL UK didn’t fight at full power because it had to worry about post-war colonial revolutions/insurgents and was conservative in arming colonials.

Is this actually true, or did you just hear it in a video game or TV show?

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

Britain surrenders by 42 or 43. People dont realize how pivotal Destroyers for bases and later lend lease was. Britain was unable to secure the atlantic in 41. The importation of raw materials and food was vital. Sea Lion is an unnescesary thought excercise.

The british fleet would lose in the pacific and indian oceans but a truly commited india would roll over Japan in asia.

[Kannap]

Yeah, the Battle of Crete more or less proves that, having achieved air superiority, even a relatively small naval force at the time was sufficient to pin down and deal substantial damage to very large naval forces, 610 German aircraft paralyzed the entire Mediterranean Fleet. The British experienced the costliest naval battle of the war for them, while the Royal Navy had really been comparatively helpless. Not an isolated incident either, the Japanese dominated the Royal Navy in the Indian Ocean with airpower. Had the Germans obtained decisive air superiority over the Channel, it's unlikely the Royal Navy would have been able to cope with the air attacks any better than it had at Crete, the Indian Ocean raid, or the sinking of Force Z. The Royal Navy had a terrible record against air power and it's questionable whether they could engage the German fleet under those conditions.

So naval warships were trash in WWII except for granting you longer strike range in the water? Airplanes OP?

No wonder you never read about the RN in the Battle of Britain.

You never hear about the Royal Navy in the Battle of Britain because that was an air battle between the RAF and the Luftwaffe. Unless the Royal Navy somehow had flying ships entering the fray. Plenty of naval battles to look at in WW2 if you want to see the royal navy in action.

[Dakini]

So basically, your claim is that the British Empire could have won on its own if only the UK could have used the people from all of its colonies as cannon fodder (which they did anyway, look at how they used soldiers from Newfoundland)?

Ideally not as fodder but in a tactically optimal way.

Yeah, that's totally how the UK treats its "colonials". Hell, they even used Scottish troops as cannon fodder.

In World War I, they used Canadian troops as cannon fodder, they just couldn't do that in World War II because Canada got to manage its own war operations.

[Kannap]

All Allies except the USA and Soviet Union can fight for either side.

So French resistance etc is in.

You're asking about whether the British Empire could win WWII alone, by which you mean they would not have been alone at all.

IRL UK didn’t fight at full power because it had to worry about post-war colonial revolutions/insurgents and was conservative in arming colonials.

Is this actually true, or did you just hear it in a video game or TV show?

The British Empire in WW2 saw 2.5 million Indians volunteer for service - the largest volunteer army in history. It also saw a third of a million volunteers from Africa and thousands of air force volunteers from the Caribbean as well as thousands of sailors from across the empire joining the merchant navy. Not only did the empire send men, they sent money. From Canada spending $1.6 billion on sending RAF pilots and navigators all the way down to citizens of Kano, Nigeria raising £10,290 and sending it to Britain towards purchasing a Spitfire. ^[Source]

Churchill, as shitty of a man he was sometimes, even believed in this idea that the entire empire was at war, not just Britain. From his "we shall fight on the beaches" speech: "and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British fleet, would carry on the struggle"

The war was one that the British Empire fought with its full might - something that we often forget in the modern day with the narrative of Britain being a tiny island facing a giant German Europe (which, as you questioned, is a narrative popular in TV and video games now). One example of this is from the Empty Child, an episode of Doctor Who in 2005: The Doctor says, "1941. Right now, not very far from here, the German war machine is rolling up the map of Europe. Country after country, falling like dominos. Nothing can stop it—nothing. Until one tiny, damp little island says “No”. “No. Not here”. A mouse in front of a lion. You’re amazing, the lot of you. I don’t know what you do to Hitler, but you frighten the hell out of me."

But Britain wasn't just "one tiny, damp little island" or a "mouse in front of a lion" - this misconstrued narrative of Britain vs. Europe controlled by Nazi Germany leaves out the sacrifice and dedication a lot of the rest of the British Empire put into the war effort to defeat the Germans, Italians, and Japanese.

So to answer your question, IM most likely just heard it in a video game or TV show.

[Infected Mushroom]

So naval warships were trash in WWII except for granting you longer strike range in the water? Airplanes OP?

No wonder you never read about the RN in the Battle of Britain.

You never hear about the Royal Navy in the Battle of Britain because that was an air battle between the RAF and the Luftwaffe. Unless the Royal Navy somehow had flying ships entering the fray. Plenty of naval battles to look at in WW2 if you want to see the royal navy in action.

It was a series of air battles that happened over the English Channel on the British Isles. Germany had to attack and every time it did so it had to move massive numbers of airplanes over the water and back (the RN had two chances to interdict and shoot down every single German plane sent over to attack).

If the Royal Navy was relevant, it would have sat in the channel and with its sheer mass of AA fire compounded German losses (every single German plane had to fly to the UK, score a positive kill, and get back to be a net gain) to the point where England would have won Battle of Britain in half or a third of the time.

The British naval tonnage was MASSIVE and yet there were many points in the Battle of Britain where Germany was WINNING even though it had to fly over water two times that the RN could have fired at.

Yet the RN didn't do this, why? Possibly because it was too vulnerable to aircraft. Naval anti-air capabilities were just that bad apparently.

[Kannap]

You never hear about the Royal Navy in the Battle of Britain because that was an air battle between the RAF and the Luftwaffe. Unless the Royal Navy somehow had flying ships entering the fray. Plenty of naval battles to look at in WW2 if you want to see the royal navy in action.

It was a series of air battles that happened over the English Channel on the British Isles. Germany had to attack and every time it did so it had to move massive numbers of airplanes over the water and back (the RN had two chances to interdict and shoot down every single German plane sent over to attack).

Except it was an air battle between the two air forces - one that the RAF won and secured air supremacy over Britain and the Channel. The navy didn't need to be there.

If the Royal Navy was relevant, it would have sat in the channel and with its sheer mass of AA fire compounded German losses (every single German plane had to fly to the UK, score a positive kill, and get back to be a net gain) to the point where England would have won Battle of Britain in half or a third of the time.

And put the Royal Navy needlessly at risk when it would be needed for naval missions and battles throughout the war, especially when the RAF was more well suited for the job of the Battle of Britain? The Royal Navy was doing its part during the war in better ways than needlessly risking ships to Luftwaffe bombers in the Channel.

The British naval tonnage was MASSIVE and yet there were many points in the Battle of Britain where Germany was WINNING even though it had to fly over water two times that the RN could have fired at.

I guess you're just casually forgetting that the Royal Navy also had a much larger range of operations than the RAF did. With war in the Pacific theater (where the Royal Navy was largely neglected for securing the Atlantic theater) and operations in the Atlantic, the Royal Navy was doing its duty for the Empire. The RAF was also doing its duty to protect the British Isles.

Yet the RN didn't do this, why? Possibly because it was too vulnerable to aircraft. Naval anti-air capabilities were just that bad apparently.

I've done my best to explain why the Royal Navy didn't do this, I cannot account for your continued willful ignorance.

[Infected Mushroom]

It was a series of air battles that happened over the English Channel on the British Isles. Germany had to attack and every time it did so it had to move massive numbers of airplanes over the water and back (the RN had two chances to interdict and shoot down every single German plane sent over to attack).

Except it was an air battle between the two air forces - one that the RAF won and secured air supremacy over Britain and the Channel. The navy didn't need to be there.

If the Royal Navy was relevant, it would have sat in the channel and with its sheer mass of AA fire compounded German losses (every single German plane had to fly to the UK, score a positive kill, and get back to be a net gain) to the point where England would have won Battle of Britain in half or a third of the time.

And put the Royal Navy needlessly at risk when it would be needed for naval missions and battles throughout the war, especially when the RAF was more well suited for the job of the Battle of Britain? The Royal Navy was doing its part during the war in better ways than needlessly risking ships to Luftwaffe bombers in the Channel.

The British naval tonnage was MASSIVE and yet there were many points in the Battle of Britain where Germany was WINNING even though it had to fly over water two times that the RN could have fired at.

I guess you're just casually forgetting that the Royal Navy also had a much larger range of operations than the RAF did. With war in the Pacific theater (where the Royal Navy was largely neglected for securing the Atlantic theater) and operations in the Atlantic, the Royal Navy was doing its duty for the Empire. The RAF was also doing its duty to protect the British Isles.

Yet the RN didn't do this, why? Possibly because it was too vulnerable to aircraft. Naval anti-air capabilities were just that bad apparently.

I've done my best to explain why the Royal Navy didn't do this, I cannot account for your continued willful ignorance.

What's more important than winning the Battle of Britain at the time?

The RN didn't fight any huge ship-on-ship battles in the Med Sea either (that was mostly dictated by aircraft) and the submarine war was important but not as important as maximising the number of German airplanes shot down over the English Channel. The big PR and military focus WAS on winning the Battle of Britain, that's what inspired the US to sympathise with Britain, their heroic stand against Germany's Air Force.

If the RN had significant AA capability, then it would have made sense to station them en masse over the Channel to shoot down German planes on the way to London and back.

If you're saying the RN would have been at risk, then that translates into "surface ships are hopelessly weak against aircraft." Britain had way more ships (in tonnage) than what Germany had in aircraft.

A wall of RN ships with AA guns in addition to land-based AA and British warplanes all working together should have been more than enough to decisively crush the Luffewaffe. Literally every single German plane had to cross the channel and come back.

[Ifreann]

Except it was an air battle between the two air forces - one that the RAF won and secured air supremacy over Britain and the Channel. The navy didn't need to be there.



And put the Royal Navy needlessly at risk when it would be needed for naval missions and battles throughout the war, especially when the RAF was more well suited for the job of the Battle of Britain? The Royal Navy was doing its part during the war in better ways than needlessly risking ships to Luftwaffe bombers in the Channel.



I guess you're just casually forgetting that the Royal Navy also had a much larger range of operations than the RAF did. With war in the Pacific theater (where the Royal Navy was largely neglected for securing the Atlantic theater) and operations in the Atlantic, the Royal Navy was doing its duty for the Empire. The RAF was also doing its duty to protect the British Isles.



I've done my best to explain why the Royal Navy didn't do this, I cannot account for your continued willful ignorance.

What's more important than winning the Battle of Britain at the time?

The RN didn't fight any huge ship-on-ship battles in the Med Sea either (that was mostly dictated by aircraft) and the submarine war was important but not as important as maximising the number of German airplanes shot down over the English Channel. The big PR and military focus WAS on winning the Battle of Britain, that's what inspired the US to sympathise with Britain, their heroic stand against Germany's Air Force.

If the RN had significant AA capability, then it would have made sense to station them en masse over the Channel to shoot down German planes on the way to London and back.

If you're saying the RN would have been at risk, then that translates into "surface ships are hopelessly weak against aircraft." Britain had way more ships (in tonnage) than what Germany had in aircraft.

A wall of RN ships with AA guns in addition to land-based AA and British warplanes all working together should have been more than enough to decisively crush the Luffewaffe. Literally every single German plane had to cross the channel and come back.

It's as if you actually think that World War II was a video game.

[The Two Jerseys]

Except it was an air battle between the two air forces - one that the RAF won and secured air supremacy over Britain and the Channel. The navy didn't need to be there.



And put the Royal Navy needlessly at risk when it would be needed for naval missions and battles throughout the war, especially when the RAF was more well suited for the job of the Battle of Britain? The Royal Navy was doing its part during the war in better ways than needlessly risking ships to Luftwaffe bombers in the Channel.



I guess you're just casually forgetting that the Royal Navy also had a much larger range of operations than the RAF did. With war in the Pacific theater (where the Royal Navy was largely neglected for securing the Atlantic theater) and operations in the Atlantic, the Royal Navy was doing its duty for the Empire. The RAF was also doing its duty to protect the British Isles.



I've done my best to explain why the Royal Navy didn't do this, I cannot account for your continued willful ignorance.

What's more important than winning the Battle of Britain at the time?

Securing your supply lines.

The RN didn't fight any huge ship-on-ship battles in the Med Sea either (that was mostly dictated by aircraft)

Wrong.

and the submarine war was important but not as important as maximising the number of German airplanes shot down over the English Channel.

No, not starving to death is what's important.

The big PR and military focus WAS on winning the Battle of Britain, that's what inspired the US to sympathise with Britain, their heroic stand against Germany's Air Force.

Somehow I doubt that the British government was worried about PR when they're literally on the ropes.

If the RN had significant AA capability, then it would have made sense to station them en masse over the Channel to shoot down German planes on the way to London and back.

Ask Repulse and Prince of Wales how well that would go.

And that's before even factoring in the confined waters, shore batteries, torpedo boats...

If you're saying the RN would have been at risk, then that translates into "surface ships are hopelessly weak against aircraft." Britain had way more ships (in tonnage) than what Germany had in aircraft.

And one well-placed bomb from one aircraft can easily sink a capital ship, so...

A wall of RN ships with AA guns in addition to land-based AA and British warplanes all working together should have been more than enough to decisively crush the Luffewaffe. Literally every single German plane had to cross the channel and come back.

So why didn't AAA alone stop the Blitz in real life then?

[Infected Mushroom]

What's more important than winning the Battle of Britain at the time?

The RN didn't fight any huge ship-on-ship battles in the Med Sea either (that was mostly dictated by aircraft) and the submarine war was important but not as important as maximising the number of German airplanes shot down over the English Channel. The big PR and military focus WAS on winning the Battle of Britain, that's what inspired the US to sympathise with Britain, their heroic stand against Germany's Air Force.

If the RN had significant AA capability, then it would have made sense to station them en masse over the Channel to shoot down German planes on the way to London and back.

If you're saying the RN would have been at risk, then that translates into "surface ships are hopelessly weak against aircraft." Britain had way more ships (in tonnage) than what Germany had in aircraft.

A wall of RN ships with AA guns in addition to land-based AA and British warplanes all working together should have been more than enough to decisively crush the Luffewaffe. Literally every single German plane had to cross the channel and come back.

It's as if you actually think that World War II was a video game.

It's as if you can't explain why the RN wasn't positioned to intercept the continuous flow of Luffewaffe warplanes entering into the British Isles (and having to exit through the Channel again) without somehow conceding that the RN had an excessive vulnerability (perceived or real) to military aircraft.