Which was around 50 divisions and the largest concentration of Panzer forces that Germany had in 1944 (the largest since Kursk). Which is unrealistic in terms.of Germany's ability to keep them supplied, something they still managed to struggle with in France.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Which was around 50 divisions and the largest concentration of Panzer forces that Germany had in 1944 (the largest since Kursk). Which is unrealistic in terms.of Germany's ability to keep them supplied, something they still managed to struggle with in France.
"British resistance", "inhospitable climate", yeah right. Everyone knows how fiercely independent, violently tempered, anarchic and well armed the British WW2 era population was... And what a long history of guerilla warfare and anti government resistance the English people have, right? Right? Ah yes that's exactly NOT what the British are or were ever known for. 
Throughout 1942-1943, and much of 1944, there were considerably fewer troops stationed in France. And the tank divisions were only concentrated in one place after overlord had begun.
BTW, garrison duty in France was often used as vacation time for units that had been depleted in Russia. So the absolute number of panzer divisions doesn't say a lot about the total combat power tied up in garrisoning France.
All in all, while it's true the British isles have a lot of beaches where US/Canadian troops can land, Britain as a whole is considerably smaller than France and modest reserve forces can be garrisoned at a few strategic locations to pretty much cover all invasion scenarios. The by far most important components of a German occupation of Britain would be Luftwaffe's and the Kriegsmarine's units, and of the two, the Luftwaffe the most important. Britain is a huge, unsinkable aircraft carrier so as long as there's a Luftwaffe that is supplied with fuel, replacement machines and replacement pilots, invasion will be a dangerous and uncertain prospect. Battle of Britain, round two, but this time the wannabe invaders have to bomb Britain using only carrier based aviation.
"British resistance", "inhospitable climate", yeah right. Everyone knows how fiercely independent, violently tempered, anarchic and well armed the British WW2 era population was... And what a long history of guerilla warfare and anti government resistance the English people have, right? Right? Ah yes that's exactly NOT what the British are or were ever known for.
Really? And you base that on what? When is the last time the channel was crossed? 1066?
Meaningless saber rattling over ‘what if’s’ gets us nowhere.
If we do not count a Dutch Gentlemen in 1688 then yes. Then it was 1066.
On the other hand that implies that the Germans led by a William had a decent chance for a successful invasion in 1914 but there is no way they could have won in 1940.
The Dutch Gentleman was welcomed with open arms in a Glorious fashion, in the exact same spirit US troops would be welcomed as Infiltrators and Invaders side by side with the British, Canadian and French comrades.
And last time I checked the British Royal Family was very, very German. During the War, the part sympathetic to the Nazis were shown the Frontier with their treacherous bitch wives; but God Bless George V, George VI and Elizabeth II. May William follow and bring peace.
Well William (even though often invader) is much luckier name for an English Monarch as Charles.
I wouldn't overestimate British people will for guerilla style resistance. That would have been no more common than in French case. If it actually happened the Germans would ever have been able to impose terror policy like in Poland. Plus, bear in mind that IRL the French had British support and some hope for future relief. Nothing as such would have remained with Britain occupied by the Germans.
I wouldn't rely so much on the USA either. What was their point to start a war with Germany in such circumstances? I see rather another kind of cold war scenario here.
And Canada was not enough to reconquer Britain, even with the whole Home Fleet evacuated there...
I wouldn't rely so much on the USA either. What was their point to start a war with Germany in such circumstances? I see rather another kind of cold war scenario here.
And Canada was not enough to reconquer Britain, even with the whole Home Fleet evacuated there...
Maybe 'inhospitable' isn't the right word, but the British Isles are not conducive to offensive warfighting. The Northern half of England and Scotland are mixed hills, bogs peaty marshland and in winter it is dark and foggy/over-cast. All of which are 'inhospitable' for offensive operations. If you are ever interested I would suggest a trip to the well known British Army Training areas in Sennybridge, Dartmoor or Otterburn. Hell, even a cursory google search of 'Sennybridge training area (albeit in Wales)' would be highly informative.
... And what a long history of guerilla warfare and anti government resistance the English people have, right? Right? Ah yes that's exactly NOT what the British are or were ever known for.
What long history? Well, there was this thing called 'The Empire' and this Empire spanned a quarter of the planet. In the 200 years prior to WW2, the Empire probably experienced more Guerrilla Warfare than any other nation in history. Some notable examples include:
- The Privateers of the 17th/18th Century
- The colonial wars in North America in the 18th century.
- The American Revolution
- The wars of 1812
- Australian Frontier Wars
- The Peninsula campaign in the Napoleonic wars
- The Boer War (where the term 'Commando' became common military parlance and inspired Churchill to create the 'Commandos' of WW2.
- The Irish Independence campaigns spanning much of the 19th/20th Century
- Lawrence of Arabia and the Arab Uprising
- The Four Anglo-Burmese wars
- The occupation of the 500M souls in India over a period of 100 years.
- Special Night Squads (pre-war)
- The special operations executive
- The Special Air Service (so successful it formed the basis of modern special forces operations)
- The Long Range Desert Group
- The Chindits
- The Commandos Bns
- The Parachute Regiment
- etc.
What is interesting is that the vast majority of these elite/irregular formations were all formed of men that were not 'regular soldiers'. For example, the first commando units were formed from Territorial Army units - those sort of soldiers who liked the adventure of playing at war, but were far too obscure to be good soldiers in the regular sense. David Stirling, Orde Wingate, Freddy Spencer Chapman, Ralph Bagnold, Paddy Mayne. All of these men went on to lead highly successful irregular operations overseas. I see no reason why they wouldn't conduct these operations on the British Isles if push comes to shove.
So ... its actually quite a long history of experience of irregular and insurgency operations which continued in the occupied territories of WW2 and would likely form a strong aspect of any counter to the German occupation.
Eh, the idea that British Exceptionalism and Dad's Army were going to stop the army that rolled up most of Europe in less than half a year of actual fighting seems to be born out of post-war mythmaking (see also Blitz spirit or Dunkirchen), rather than any reality. If the Maginot line did not stop the germans, the rural pillboxes weren't going to.
Besides, France is not exactly a flat plain either, and while most of the fighting did occur in the flatter northwestern part, there was fighting in hills and valleys comparable to English terrain.
(referring more to Andre's post than Esy-Kill's here)
Besides, France is not exactly a flat plain either, and while most of the fighting did occur in the flatter northwestern part, there was fighting in hills and valleys comparable to English terrain.
(referring more to Andre's post than Esy-Kill's here)
Or would the British people do all that when the Germans land, rather than keeping it in store for the USA?
Edward VII would certainly be at the head of the welcoming committee if given half a chance. I'm sure Wallis would be happy to allow Ribbentrop to send her 18, 19, 20 flowers rather than the 17.
But the British people? I don't see that working out well for the Germans.
The Irish? Sure. Pacelli would just send in Roman Catholic priests to welcome their new overlords and all would be well.
I think you are mistaking two things here. The first is that anybody is refuting that a well supplied German Panzer corps could defeat the conventional Riteish military in the early summer of 1940.
The second is that the popular (but highly amusing) TV show "Dad's Army" is representative of the territorial force of the 1940s. This was a force which went on to form many (if not most) of the elite formations of WW2.
While they wouldn't defeat the German garrison forces on their own (either during the German offensive or occupation). They would make the position very difficult and hamper resupply, reinforcement and mobility. This would make a reinvasion more achievable.
That pre-supposes that the territorial force is not disarmed following the defeat of the field army, and that the UK puts up a more spirited guerilla campaign than France. With all due respect, I find both hard to believe.
I am sure that most people found it difficult to believe that France would collapse within a matter of weeks in 1940. They at least have good reasoning for why they found it difficult to believe.
We are also considering a scenario where Germany teleports a well equipped and well supplied Panzer corps over the English channel and achieves something the more superior allies found challenging in 1944. What's more/less believable ... That Germany can achieve this or that the British people resist?
Last edited:
They just... don't know how the Germans used to deal with the locals which appeared not to be enough polite"British resistance", "inhospitable climate", yeah right. Everyone knows how fiercely independent, violently tempered, anarchic and well armed the British WW2 era population was... And what a long history of guerilla warfare and anti government resistance the English people have, right? Right? Ah yes that's exactly NOT what the British are or were ever known for.
When Nazi Germany had to deal with locals, it usually started with mass murder and went downhill from there.They just... don't know how the Germans used to deal with the locals which appeared not to be enough polite
No, not really.
William of Orange was a unique situation, where because of religious conflicts, the English preferred a Dutch Protestant king to an English Catholic one and basically decided not to fight.
In contrast, the SS tried to form a British division and had a go at "converting" British prisoners but there were only ever a handful of recruits, Nazism just wasn't popular.
And of course, we often forget that British territory was occupied by the Germans, the Channel islands were occupied throughout the war. Whilst there was little resistance (but not none)*, the Germans were not welcomed with open arms.
* this is largely because the young men had mostly left to join the British army before occupation and it's a bit tricky to fight a guerrilla war on islands that are only a few square miles and very close to occupied France.