WWII: British Empire Supercharged

[Infected Mushroom]

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?

My point being that WWII warships weren't very useful against military aircraft at all. Otherwise you'd be reading about the RN being a major factor in shooting down German planes during the Battle of Britain.

You don't, which suggests British High Command believed their warships weren't well-suited to help with direct action in the Battle of Britain.

[The New California Republic]

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...

Exactly. Hence my assessment that if the RN had tried to move against an invasion corridor across the channel that the Germans had established with S- and U-boats and air superiority, then the RN would have been annihilated.

[Infected Mushroom]

It's not like the German routes of attack weren't predictable. The British had superior planning, radar, and within a few exchanges had a pretty good idea on how the German air formations worked and generally operated.

Absolutely no reason (unless they felt the warships didn't have reliable cost-effective AA capability) why large packets of warships couldn't be stationed throughout the English Channel to massively disrupt the Battle of Britain.

Would you lose more supplies in the Atlantic and over the world? Maybe. But winning the Battle of Britain is as close to a "decisive victory" as you could get and there was no question UK wanted and needed to win it. It would show the world that Britain was on the winning side, doesn't matter how many more convoys are sunk. How many subs could Germany build anyways? They put most of their money into the army.

A single UK fleet based in the Indian Ocean already had more tonnage than the entirety of the German submarine force probably, and the KM did no effective commerce raiding with surface ships (most of the German Navy wasn't out there terrorising things, mostly subs). English Channel would have been a swinging point if RN was relevant against aircraft.

[Ifreann]

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.

The Royal Navy didn't park every available ship in the Channel because Britain was fighting an entire war, not playing the Battle of Britain mission in an RTS. They didn't dedicate every available military resource to this one battle because they had to win the whole war.

And obviously ships can be destroyed by bombers, these are real world military vehicles we are talking about, not video game units with strengths and weaknesses like Pokémon. AA guns on a ship are not an absolute defence that will prevent 100% of damage from enemy aircraft. That's not an excessive vulnerability, that's just normal.

[Dakini]

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


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.

It's possibly the dumbest IM idea recently. It might make sense if he was from the UK or not from the Commonwealth, but he's fucking Canadian. He should know better!

[Infected Mushroom]

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.

The Royal Navy didn't park every available ship in the Channel because Britain was fighting an entire war, not playing the Battle of Britain mission in an RTS. They didn't dedicate every available military resource to this one battle because they had to win the whole war.

And obviously ships can be destroyed by bombers, these are real world military vehicles we are talking about, not video game units with strengths and weaknesses like Pokémon. AA guns on a ship are not an absolute defence that will prevent 100% of damage from enemy aircraft. That's not an excessive vulnerability, that's just normal.

It was fighting an entire war, at the time where the Battle of Britain was literally the only important theatre.

Germany wasn't even in North Africa yet and only had a few things messing around in the Atlantic.

Meanwhile, Japan wasn't at war with Britain either.

Literally theatre priority Number One WAS the Battle of Britain.

[The Huskar Social Union]

It was fighting an entire war, at the time where the Battle of Britain was literally the only important theatre.

Wrong, securing the Atlantic and maintaining trade and supply routes to Africa and the commonwealth were also important and absolutely vital to the war effort.

Germany wasn't even in North Africa yet and only had a few things messing around in the Atlantic.

No but the Italians were, they were also in Eastern Africa fighting the Allies in Ethiopia and Somalia.

Meanwhile, Japan wasn't at war with Britain either.

And if Britain pulled back all of its naval forces from Asia and the Pacific it leaves them vulnerable to an attack from Japan. Remember Japan and Britain were not exactly friends at this point and defending against possible Japanese attacks was a big focus for the British. Also it would take a lot of time to bring ships from that far away back to Britain.

Literally theatre priority Number One WAS the Battle of Britain.

No there were multiple theatres and engagements that were just as vital and the British had to do the work of dealing with them at all at the same time during this time.

If they pull forces from the Mediterranean they hand it to the Italians on a silver platter and make trying to defend Africa an absolute nightmare and risk losing places such as Malta, Gibraltar and Cyprus which would make their strategic situation worse. If they abandon the far east they leave it vulnerable in the event of a Japanese attack and would take time to redirect forces back to Asia.

[Dakini]

The Royal Navy didn't park every available ship in the Channel because Britain was fighting an entire war, not playing the Battle of Britain mission in an RTS. They didn't dedicate every available military resource to this one battle because they had to win the whole war.

And obviously ships can be destroyed by bombers, these are real world military vehicles we are talking about, not video game units with strengths and weaknesses like Pokémon. AA guns on a ship are not an absolute defence that will prevent 100% of damage from enemy aircraft. That's not an excessive vulnerability, that's just normal.

It was fighting an entire war, at the time where the Battle of Britain was literally the only important theatre.

Uh... what.

Germany wasn't even in North Africa yet and only had a few things messing around in the Atlantic.

Italy was fucking around in North Africa, the Mediterranean (e.g. it was attacking Malta, which was also a British colony at the time) and also the Balkans until the Germans came along because Italy was shit at its job.

[Ifreann]

The Royal Navy didn't park every available ship in the Channel because Britain was fighting an entire war, not playing the Battle of Britain mission in an RTS. They didn't dedicate every available military resource to this one battle because they had to win the whole war.

And obviously ships can be destroyed by bombers, these are real world military vehicles we are talking about, not video game units with strengths and weaknesses like Pokémon. AA guns on a ship are not an absolute defence that will prevent 100% of damage from enemy aircraft. That's not an excessive vulnerability, that's just normal.

It was fighting an entire war, at the time where the Battle of Britain was literally the only important theatre.

Germany wasn't even in North Africa yet and only had a few things messing around in the Atlantic.

Meanwhile, Japan wasn't at war with Britain either.

Literally theatre priority Number One WAS the Battle of Britain.

A top priority does not preclude the existence of other priorities. I don't know how you don't understand this, it's incredibly simple. You need to eat or you'll literally die, but you don't spend all your money on food. No matter how hard you hype the Battle of Britain as the critical element of your imaginary version of WWII where the US and USSR don't get involved for some reason, it was not the only thing that mattered.

[Kannap]

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?

Battle of Britain occurred between Jul 10, 1940 – Oct 31, 1940. Let's see:

July 3, 1940: The British attack and destroy the French navy for fears it would fall into German hands. This operation of the Royal Navy saw 1 aircraft carrier, 2 battleships, 1 battlecruiser, 2 light cruisers, 11 destroyers, and at least 23 aircraft in use.

July 9, 1940: Battle of Calabria, an indecisive navy skirmish between the Royal Navy and the Italian navy off the coast of Italy.

July 19, 1940: Battle of Cape Spada; Royal navy ships meet Italian ships off the northwest coast of Crete; sinks one Italian ship.

July 25, 1940: Evacuation of women and children from Gibraltar

August 1-4, 1940: Operation Hurry (first of the Malta Convoys is successful. Malta served as a strategic position for British air and naval forces to attack Italian convoys delivering supplies from Italy to Italian Libya.

August 3-19, 1940: Italian invasion of British Somaliland

September 9, 1940: Italian invasion of Egypt begins

October 12, 1940: Battle of Cape Passero - Royal navy and Italian navy ships clash off the coast of Sicily

October 28, 1940: Italian invasion of Greece begins, Britain helps defend the country.

These are just some of the key points of what was happening during this time, in less key points the royal navy was busy disrupting U-boat activities in the Atlantic, protecting Atlantic convoys and trade, protecting supply convoys and trade to its colonies and possessions and allies abroad, and getting into various - some named above, some not - skirmishes with the German and Italian navies. This isn't even mentioning the Pacific theater.

It's easy to look back nearly a century later and ask, "Why didn't they do this?" but WW2 wasn't a TV show, a movie, or a video game. The British were fighting their enemies on numerous fronts and the navy was valuable elsewhere than the English Channel. Besides, with regards to the Battle of Britain, the RAF was doing a marvelous job of kicking German ass - the Germans lost that battle and never broke the British defenses and never invaded the island. The Battle of Britain was a huge success for the British and they didn't have to bother using the navy in a large capacity for that battle because the air force handled it well on their own. Besides, the air force was better equipped for the mission of fighting the Luftwaffe than the navy would have been anyway.

The RN didn't fight any huge ship-on-ship battles in the Med Sea either

The Battle of the Mediterranean says hello.

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.

The military focus of the British was much larger than the Battle of Britain, since - as aforementioned - they were fighting the Germans, Italians, and Japanese on multiple fronts. I also doubt they were trying to impress the U.S. via PR, it was clear at this point that the United States had no intention of joining the war, regardless of the outcome of the Battle of Britain.

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.

Maybe it'll surprise you but naval ships aren't built for anti-air operations. Sure, they have AA guns on them in case aircraft attack them, it's a defense, but the primary focus of naval vessels in the world wars era were conflict with other naval vessels - so the overwhelming majority of guns on the decks were for fighting other naval vessels. It makes no sense to put the royal navy in the English Channel to shoot down Luftwaffe aircraft.

If you're saying the RN would have been at risk, then that translates into "surface ships are hopelessly weak against aircraft."

Aircraft: lighter, faster, able to attack ships much easier than ships can attack them. Some aircraft can be armed specifically to attack ships.

Ships: typically not equipped with fighting aircraft in mind. Most guns on the decks are for fighting other ships, AA guns on the decks are smaller and less numerous and are there for defense - not offense.

The royal navy would have been at unnecessary risk in the English Channel during the war - at risk of being attacked by the Luftwaffe. The Battle of Britain secured air supremacy for the RAF and British and meant the Germans would not be able to invade Britain as their much smaller navy would be at risk. It makes no sense to risk the navy in the Channel when they're being used elsewhere and you don't need them in the Channel to win a battle that the air force can win.

Britain had way more ships (in tonnage) than what Germany had in aircraft.

I want you to reflect on this statement and realize how dumb it is.

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.

Land-based AA and the RAF working together were enough to decisively crush the Luftwaffe - at least to the point that the Luftwaffe stopped focusing largely on attacking Britain and turned its focus elsewhere.

[Kannap]

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.

I've explained it thoroughly, but you've managed to let the idea cement in your head and refuse to listen to the very real reasons why it didn't happen. "Why didn't the British put their navy in the Channel?" isn't a hypothetical, it isn't alternate history, it's literally history that happened nearly a century ago and we can look back and research the answers - so if you're going to bury your head in the sand and not listen to my explanation, why don't you go and read some books and work by historians on Britain and the British navy during WW2?

[Kannap]

Absolutely no reason (unless they felt the warships didn't have reliable cost-effective AA capability) why large packets of warships couldn't be stationed throughout the English Channel to massively disrupt the Battle of Britain.

Would you lose more supplies in the Atlantic and over the world? Maybe. But winning the Battle of Britain is as close to a "decisive victory" as you could get and there was no question UK wanted and needed to win it. It would show the world that Britain was on the winning side, doesn't matter how many more convoys are sunk. How many subs could Germany build anyways? They put most of their money into the army.

A single UK fleet based in the Indian Ocean already had more tonnage than the entirety of the German submarine force probably, and the KM did no effective commerce raiding with surface ships (most of the German Navy wasn't out there terrorising things, mostly subs). English Channel would have been a swinging point if RN was relevant against aircraft.

Thank God you weren't in charge of the British Empire's military operations during WW2, shit would be looking very bleak when the supply lines have all been cut between Britain and her empire and the royal navy has been nearly destroyed in the English Channel in *checks notes* 1940

[Infected Mushroom]

It was fighting an entire war, at the time where the Battle of Britain was literally the only important theatre.

Wrong, securing the Atlantic and maintaining trade and supply routes to Africa and the commonwealth were also important and absolutely vital to the war effort.

Germany wasn't even in North Africa yet and only had a few things messing around in the Atlantic.

No but the Italians were, they were also in Eastern Africa fighting the Allies in Ethiopia and Somalia.

Meanwhile, Japan wasn't at war with Britain either.

And if Britain pulled back all of its naval forces from Asia and the Pacific it leaves them vulnerable to an attack from Japan. Remember Japan and Britain were not exactly friends at this point and defending against possible Japanese attacks was a big focus for the British. Also it would take a lot of time to bring ships from that far away back to Britain.

Literally theatre priority Number One WAS the Battle of Britain.

No there were multiple theatres and engagements that were just as vital and the British had to do the work of dealing with them at all at the same time during this time.

If they pull forces from the Mediterranean they hand it to the Italians on a silver platter and make trying to defend Africa an absolute nightmare and risk losing places such as Malta, Gibraltar and Cyprus which would make their strategic situation worse. If they abandon the far east they leave it vulnerable in the event of a Japanese attack and would take time to redirect forces back to Asia.

It wasn't vital to the point where the RN couldn't afford a sufficient number of pockets of RN warships across the Channel to obliterate the Luffewaffe (if it had cost-effective AA). Germany didn't have much of a naval presence in the Med and Italy was almost completed defeated by the Royal Air Force alone.

[Infected Mushroom]

Absolutely no reason (unless they felt the warships didn't have reliable cost-effective AA capability) why large packets of warships couldn't be stationed throughout the English Channel to massively disrupt the Battle of Britain.

Would you lose more supplies in the Atlantic and over the world? Maybe. But winning the Battle of Britain is as close to a "decisive victory" as you could get and there was no question UK wanted and needed to win it. It would show the world that Britain was on the winning side, doesn't matter how many more convoys are sunk. How many subs could Germany build anyways? They put most of their money into the army.

A single UK fleet based in the Indian Ocean already had more tonnage than the entirety of the German submarine force probably, and the KM did no effective commerce raiding with surface ships (most of the German Navy wasn't out there terrorising things, mostly subs). English Channel would have been a swinging point if RN was relevant against aircraft.

Thank God you weren't in charge of the British Empire's military operations during WW2, shit would be looking very bleak when the supply lines have all been cut between Britain and her empire and the royal navy has been nearly destroyed in the English Channel in *checks notes* 1940

Cut by what? Italian warships that couldn't even handle a bunch of airplanes from Malta?

German submarines that only required a fraction of the gigantic RN to handle (and was getting free help from the US destroyers even though it wasn't officially at war)?

[Infected Mushroom]

Absolutely no reason (unless they felt the warships didn't have reliable cost-effective AA capability) why large packets of warships couldn't be stationed throughout the English Channel to massively disrupt the Battle of Britain.

Would you lose more supplies in the Atlantic and over the world? Maybe. But winning the Battle of Britain is as close to a "decisive victory" as you could get and there was no question UK wanted and needed to win it. It would show the world that Britain was on the winning side, doesn't matter how many more convoys are sunk. How many subs could Germany build anyways? They put most of their money into the army.

A single UK fleet based in the Indian Ocean already had more tonnage than the entirety of the German submarine force probably, and the KM did no effective commerce raiding with surface ships (most of the German Navy wasn't out there terrorising things, mostly subs). English Channel would have been a swinging point if RN was relevant against aircraft.

Thank God you weren't in charge of the British Empire's military operations during WW2, shit would be looking very bleak when the supply lines have all been cut between Britain and her empire and the royal navy has been nearly destroyed in the English Channel in *checks notes* 1940

It would only have been destroyed in the channel, if the RN lacked cost-effective AA (which is my point)

[Janpia]

Thank God you weren't in charge of the British Empire's military operations during WW2, shit would be looking very bleak when the supply lines have all been cut between Britain and her empire and the royal navy has been nearly destroyed in the English Channel in *checks notes* 1940

It would only have been destroyed in the channel, if the RN lacked cost-effective AA (which is my point)

Sorry to cut this one out. But AA on ships are just for defense. All ships are very vulnerable to whatever aircraft it is (Bismarck and Trollfish plane) not to mention, effective AA? Look what happend to Tirpitz or Yamato. They were fitted with the top AA batteries . The ships sunk because of? You guess it, planes.

What your saying is like the AA ball turret in B29 should be use like a gunship instead of defending from fighter planes.

[Kannap]

Thank God you weren't in charge of the British Empire's military operations during WW2, shit would be looking very bleak when the supply lines have all been cut between Britain and her empire and the royal navy has been nearly destroyed in the English Channel in *checks notes* 1940

It would only have been destroyed in the channel, if the RN lacked cost-effective AA (which is my point)

This whole tangent started with me telling you you don't hear of the royal navy in the Battle of Britain because that battle was an air battle, then you went on some tirade about how the royal navy should have been in the Channel. I've been trying to explain to you why they weren't, for a variety of reasons including the fact that naval ships are designed to fight other naval ships - they're not designed to fight airplanes. Airplanes are designed to fight other airplanes. I'm not sure what part you're not understanding.

[Kannap]

It would only have been destroyed in the channel, if the RN lacked cost-effective AA (which is my point)

Sorry to cut this one out. But AA on ships are just for defense. All ships are very vulnerable to whatever aircraft it is (Bismarck and Trollfish plane) not to mention, effective AA? Look what happend to Tirpitz or Yamato. They were fitted with the top AA batteries . The ships sunk because of? You guess it, planes.

What your saying is like the AA ball turret in B29 should be use like a gunship instead of defending from fighter planes.

I've spent about a page trying to explain all this to IM, it's a waste of your time.

[The Two Jerseys]

Securing your supply lines.

Wrong.

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

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

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...

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

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

My point being that WWII warships weren't very useful against military aircraft at all. Otherwise you'd be reading about the RN being a major factor in shooting down German planes during the Battle of Britain.

Warships are useful for AA.

Just not the way you propose using them.

You don't, which suggests British High Command believed their warships weren't well-suited to help with direct action in the Battle of Britain.

They're not. Effective ceiling of the 2 pdr pom-pom is 2000 feet below Luftwaffe bomber formations' minimum cruising altitude, and the 5.25 inch gun isn't realistically going to hit anything without proximity fuses.

[The New California Republic]

My point being that WWII warships weren't very useful against military aircraft at all. Otherwise you'd be reading about the RN being a major factor in shooting down German planes during the Battle of Britain.

Warships are useful for AA.

Just not the way you propose using them.

You don't, which suggests British High Command believed their warships weren't well-suited to help with direct action in the Battle of Britain.

They're not. Effective ceiling of the 2 pdr pom-pom is 2000 feet below Luftwaffe bomber formations' minimum cruising altitude, and the 5.25 inch gun isn't realistically going to hit anything without proximity fuses.

In terms of AA capability the RN was woefully unprepared (but then again the same could be said for many navies). Granted, they created the Battle-class destroyer, but that wasn't until well after the threat of invasion had passed, in 1943-44, so wouldn't apply. The 4.5 inch guns of that class could pose a threat to bombers, but since the class wasn't built in serious numbers until the end of the war then the point is moot.

So long story short, the RN could never have challenged the Luftwaffe in the channel during that time, they would have been sitting ducks.

[Picairn]

Absolutely no reason (unless they felt the warships didn't have reliable cost-effective AA capability) why large packets of warships couldn't be stationed throughout the English Channel to massively disrupt the Battle of Britain.

Battleships without air cover from CVs are merely free meals for dive and torpedo bombers. HMS Repulse and Prince of Wales are prime examples. So are the Yamato and Musashi. There is a reason why battleships stopped being relevant after WW2, they are simply not worth their weight in money if they can just be sunk by carriers.

Would you lose more supplies in the Atlantic and over the world? Maybe. But winning the Battle of Britain is as close to a "decisive victory" as you could get and there was no question UK wanted and needed to win it. It would show the world that Britain was on the winning side, doesn't matter how many more convoys are sunk. How many subs could Germany build anyways? They put most of their money into the army.

Without the USSR pinning down most of the German army and resources, Germany would have had full capability to mass produce their subs to a much greater number, and perhaps may even have finished the construction of their aircraft carriers.

A single UK fleet based in the Indian Ocean already had more tonnage than the entirety of the German submarine force probably,

Lmao. The Japanese would have made quick work of them. 2 carriers and 5 slow, obsolete Revenge-class battleships against the full might of the Kido Butai? Not a chance.

[Neanderthaland]

What are you basing this on?

The reality of supplying the needed men and materials over the channel, the lack of any german ability to actually move enough men and supply over the channel, British success in the air making over channel suppling even more impossible, and the Royal Navy which out classed anything Germany could bring to bear. The best Germany could hope for was to land a few thousand soldiers in England who’d immediately be cut off from mainland Europe. Like all alternate history the success of Sea Lion is a pure fiction that relies on reality shifting to create the one perfect scenario were the Germans had a chance.

Agreed.

The best that the Germans had going for them was the fear that they might be able to invade. With the British not knowing the German's capabilities, only knowing that they themselves were unprepared. Under the right circumstances, I could see the Germans maybe bluffing their way to white peace. Though I don't think it would have ever happened with Churchill running the show.

[Infected Mushroom]

Sorry to cut this one out. But AA on ships are just for defense. All ships are very vulnerable to whatever aircraft it is (Bismarck and Trollfish plane) not to mention, effective AA? Look what happend to Tirpitz or Yamato. They were fitted with the top AA batteries . The ships sunk because of? You guess it, planes.

What your saying is like the AA ball turret in B29 should be use like a gunship instead of defending from fighter planes.

I've spent about a page trying to explain all this to IM, it's a waste of your time.

I think you misconstrue my point.

My point is not: "Historically, the RN could and should have stationed a huge portion of their navy in the English Channel during the Battle of Britain because naval AA is good."

My point is: "The RN is given too much credit in its ability to stop a German invasion of the UK in the event Germany achieves total air supremacy in the region. Given how poorly warships performed against aircraft during the entire war, it's conceivable that without warship superiority, Germany could have invaded. ... The UK historically NOT stationing a ton of warships to participate in the Battle of Britain shows that their high command seems aware of the RN's irrelevance vs aircraft."

[Thermodolia]

It's not like the German routes of attack weren't predictable. The British had superior planning, radar, and within a few exchanges had a pretty good idea on how the German air formations worked and generally operated.

Absolutely no reason (unless they felt the warships didn't have reliable cost-effective AA capability) why large packets of warships couldn't be stationed throughout the English Channel to massively disrupt the Battle of Britain.

Would you lose more supplies in the Atlantic and over the world? Maybe. But winning the Battle of Britain is as close to a "decisive victory" as you could get and there was no question UK wanted and needed to win it. It would show the world that Britain was on the winning side, doesn't matter how many more convoys are sunk. How many subs could Germany build anyways? They put most of their money into the army.

A single UK fleet based in the Indian Ocean already had more tonnage than the entirety of the German submarine force probably, and the KM did no effective commerce raiding with surface ships (most of the German Navy wasn't out there terrorising things, mostly subs). English Channel would have been a swinging point if RN was relevant against aircraft.

This is your brain on HOI4

[The Huskar Social Union]

It's not like the German routes of attack weren't predictable. The British had superior planning, radar, and within a few exchanges had a pretty good idea on how the German air formations worked and generally operated.

Absolutely no reason (unless they felt the warships didn't have reliable cost-effective AA capability) why large packets of warships couldn't be stationed throughout the English Channel to massively disrupt the Battle of Britain.

Would you lose more supplies in the Atlantic and over the world? Maybe. But winning the Battle of Britain is as close to a "decisive victory" as you could get and there was no question UK wanted and needed to win it. It would show the world that Britain was on the winning side, doesn't matter how many more convoys are sunk. How many subs could Germany build anyways? They put most of their money into the army.

A single UK fleet based in the Indian Ocean already had more tonnage than the entirety of the German submarine force probably, and the KM did no effective commerce raiding with surface ships (most of the German Navy wasn't out there terrorising things, mostly subs). English Channel would have been a swinging point if RN was relevant against aircraft.

This is your brain on HOI4

Bro just build 40 width tanks, simples