Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
German invasion plans
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Thursday, 26th August 2010
interesting feature on Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ homepage
I have often wondered what the Germans hoped to achieve in the Batle of Britain as they didn't have a proper invasion fleet ready. However it seems they did have a plan... -
Message 2
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 26th August 2010
Was it a cunning plan straight out of Black Adder? Honestly though, the reason they didn't have an invasion plan was due to the fact that nobody on either side expected Germany to over run a country like France in a matter of days. I've just lent a book to a friend though that gives flesh to the invasion plans and is a good read. Again even after France surrended, the likes of Hitler expected the UK to sue for peace. If Lord Halifax had become PM instead of Churchil, I have no doubt that that would have happened.
-
Message 3
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Thursday, 26th August 2010
Of course the trick of wearing Allied uniforms was a feature of the Battle of the Bulge, as viewers of that (admittedly none too accurate) Hollywood film from the 1960s may remember.
-
Message 4
Posted by rooster (U14062359) on Thursday, 26th August 2010
I remember my mother telling me years ago, that my father, an RAF Mosquito pilot, had told her in confidence that an expeditionary force was indeed launched by the Germans after the fall of France. He said that barges had been launched from Holland with the intent of testing out our defences along the eastern seaboard. The RAF dropped oil on the water around them and set it alight with incendiaries. My father had been piloting one of the Mosquito's that dropped the IB's. He was killed in 1944, so of course I never had the chance to hear the story first hand.
My mother wasn't a fanciful person, so I believe her. It seems to me that Hitler would have at least tried something like this before giving up altogether. -
Message 5
Posted by Basking Adder (U5941819) on Thursday, 26th August 2010
Hi
There was a programme on Channel 4 called "The Real Dad's Army", hosted by Francis Pryor. In the second of the programmes, it explained Britain's defence strategies and also showed that a "War Game" was carried out in the 1970's (I think) using the original plans of both sides. If Britain had been invaded the German army would have been repulsed in four days. -
Message 6
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Thursday, 26th August 2010
Your faith in war games is touching!
Unfortunately there is no such thing as 'would have been' in the real world. As in the firmly-held belief in 1940 that any armoured advance through the Ardennes 'would have been' impossible, etc, -
Message 7
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Friday, 27th August 2010
A problem with the appearance of the Mosquito in this story was that the first prototype of the Mosquito bomber flew in September 1941, i.e. after the German attack on the USSR, which at least on the short term removed any invasion threat for Britain. The first Mosquito bombing operation was in May 1942.
That said, during the Battle of Britain -- until 30 September, when the danger was considered to be past -- Bomber Command did focus its efforts on destroying the motley German collection of invasion barges that was being collected in channel ports. I don't think oil and incendiaries were ever used in the described manner, but the tactic does sound consistent with what I know of the plans for defending the beaches in case the invasion would be launched. -
Message 8
Posted by rooster (U14062359) on Saturday, 28th August 2010
Mutandis
You are quite correct re the timing of the Mosquito's introduction to the war.
I know that my father flew one of these planes in a 'pathfinder' squadron until he was killed over the North Sea in May 1944. I don't know what plane he was piloting when the oil and incendiary episode happened, but I see no reason for him or my mother to lie about it.
Many 'secret' and as yet undisclosed missions were carried out during the war, and perhaps this falls into one of those categories.
After all, why wouldn't Hitler at least try to test our invasion defences? We did in the infamous Dieppe fiasco. -
Message 9
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Saturday, 28th August 2010
You can't judge the outcome based on a wargame but I think it would have been difficult for the Germans.
A lot would depend on the capacity of the Luftwaffe - could they have supported the army advance while also protecting the Channel crossing? They would have to deal with the intact Royal Navy, and the RAF would surely have still been a force to reckoned with even if they had lost the Battle of Britain. (by 'lost' I mean forced to retreat from their bases in SE England)
Of course invading the UK would have had a lot of useful side effects for the Germans eg with no 8th Army available to take on the Axis forces in North Africa Hitler has a real chance to grab the Middle East oilfields, etc -
Message 10
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Saturday, 28th August 2010
Let's say that there may have been confusion between events in which your father personally participated, and events in which he thought that Bomber Command had played a role...
For there indeed was a widespread rumor, in September 1940, that the Germans had attempted an invasion and had been defeated. Stories were told of the channel covered in flaming wreckage and dead bodies, of thousands of dead German soldiers washing ashore on British beaches, of fishermen returning home without catch because the ocean was too full of corpses. American newspapers reported that the Germans had lost tens of thousands of men and hospitals in France were full of casualties. Other accounts added landings by parachutists.
It never happened. It isn't clear what the origin of the story was; of course there was fighting in the channel in this period and there would have been dead men found on the beaches, including a few German army soldiers, and casualties brought ashore by the Navy. It appears that British secret agencies deliberately helped the rumor to to reach German soldiers, and (for perhaps less obvious but also understandable reasons) American newspapers.
So it certainly wasn't a secret. (An event like this would have been very difficult to keep secret.) It was widely published and large numbers of people believed it, but it just didn't happen. -
Message 11
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Saturday, 28th August 2010
I think an invasion in Sept 1940 might have been a close-run thing!
If the Luftwaffe could have held sway over the channel, the Royal Navy would have had a very difficult job to intervene effectively - most of the heavy units were at Scapa, with a long run south, attacked by U-boats and Stukas all the way, and air attacks intensifying the nearer they got to the channel. The destroyers had a very bad time at Dunkirk, (and later in Greece and Crete) so RAF support would have been essential.
The coastal defenses were nothing like the strength of the Normandy ones 4yrs later, and state and equipment of the Army was not great either. If the Germans could have got a foothold, they would have been very hard to shift, and if they were willing to accept a lot of casualties on the beaches in in the channel, they might have been very hard to prevent getting ashore.
Against that, of course, they had no experience of doing an invasion, so they might have cocked it up completely!
You never know until it has been tried, and even then, you never know if it might have worked if one or two details had been different, etc. -
Message 12
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Saturday, 28th August 2010
While I agree that the best chance the Germans had was as early after dunkirk as they could i wouldnt rate the Lufftwaffes chances of stopping the RN from intervening.
At the time we are talking about The Germans had no squadrons trained in bombing ships.
At Dunkirk, despite the fact that the ships targeted were mostly stationary they only sank something like 4 RN destroyers. The ones damamged were back in service in a fairly short time.
If you look at Crete and Dunkirk. Despite the Germans best efforts both evacuations continued until the majority of the troops were taken off. despite the best of attempts by the axis. -
Message 13
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Saturday, 28th August 2010
While I agree that the best chance the Germans had was as early after dunkirk as they could i wouldnt rate the Lufftwaffes chances of stopping the RN from intervening.
At the time we are talking about The Germans had no squadrons trained in bombing ships.
At Dunkirk, despite the fact that the ships targeted were mostly stationary they only sank something like 4 RN destroyers. The ones damaged were back in service in a fairly short time. None of the damaged ones was a permenant loss.
If you look at Crete and Dunkirk. Despite the Germans best efforts both evacuations continued until the majority of the troops were taken off. despite the best of attempts by the axis. -
Message 14
Posted by Basking Adder (U5941819) on Sunday, 29th August 2010
"Your faith in war games is touching!
Unfortunately there is no such thing as 'would have been' in the real world. As in the firmly-held belief in 1940 that any armoured advance through the Ardennes 'would have been' impossible, etc,"
I was merely informing the originator of this thread to a programme that they may have found interesting regarding their question. The last sentence of my post, which you seem to have misinterpreted as my view, was the result of that "war game" and not my opinion. -
Message 15
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Monday, 30th August 2010
Against that, of course, they had no experience of doing an invasion, so they might have cocked it up completely!Β
It should be remembered that the Germans had mounted a seaborne invasion against Norway not only the short distance from Denmark but also from the North Sea and were successful despite relatively rapid Royal Navy intervention.
Neverheless, although it has become enshrined in the mythology of WWII as a classic example of Allied military incompetence the Norway campaign may have played a role almost as significant as the attle of Britain in averting invasion across the Channel. Not only did the Germans lose 10 capital ships but a considerable number of landing craft were lost or damaged and these had not been replenished in sufficient numbers by the late summer of 1940 (large numbers of barges had to be expropriated from the Dutch to prepare for invasion).
If Phase 3 of "Sea-Lion" was to be fulfilled not only would sufficient numbers of troops have had to be quickly ferried across the Channel under total air cover to establish bridgeheads in Kent, Sussex and Hampshire but large amounts of armour would have had to accompany them.
The fact that the Kriegsmarine did not have enough vessels to achieve this was as much a factor in Hitler calling off the invasion as the Luftwaffe's failure to establish daylight air supremacy. After all, it took the Allies over two years to accumulate enough vessels to go the other way and that was with the vast economic resources of the United States at their disposal. -
Message 16
Posted by Bubble Works (U14532674) on Monday, 6th September 2010
where does Rudolph Hess fit into this? I always thought the Germans wanted to work with England, not against? I don't think they fancied invading an island nation much and it would have helped them cover the Western front? Of course things changed later, I am talking about 1940/41 here
-
Message 17
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Monday, 6th September 2010
"...I don't know what plane he was piloting when the oil and incendiary episode happened..."
Actually, you specifically claimed in message 4 that a Mosquito was involved, according to family legend. This is, as has been pointed out, an impossibility.
Someone somewhere in your family has made something up.
I would be fascinated as to how the RAF could possibly have set the sea aflame at any point in WW2. The technology did not exist. I doubt it does now. Even letting an oil tanker spill its contents would struggle to attain the catastrophic assault on the invader over the wide area necessary. RAF incendiaries were designed for ground use where explosives had opened up buildings, not the open sea.
Furthermore, it does not make sense to 'test the defences' in this way. Most historians believe that the Germans would struggle with an all out assault. You can't test the defences in a seaborne invasion in this way. Either you invade or you don't.
The Dieppe raid, mistake though it was, was of a different nature, and had specific targets to destroy, and a (failed) retreat plan.
Nor can I think of a sound reason as to why Britain should hush up such a resounding success. Victories tend to be boasted about as loudly as possible. -
Message 18
Posted by rooster (U14062359) on Monday, 6th September 2010
TimTrack
Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but may I point out that oil on water does indeed readily combust, and that the resulting fire burns with much ferocity. There have been many accidental fires of this nature around the world. Since WW2 oil companies have been experimenting with water filled containment booms as a way of getting rid of surface oil from a spill by purposefully setting fire to it.
Now, how can you say that the Dieppe raid was any different to what the Germans might have tried? Was the Dieppe debacle not seaborne?
Surely enemies will 'test the water' as it were, any way they can.
My father was killed defending this country, so he cannot substantiate what my mother told me.
Perhaps the old dear (bless her) did get the planes mixed up a little, but she told me the story twenty years after the event so can be forgiven that. BUT, I never knew her to tell a lie!
I have a faded old photo of my father dating from 1944; he was standing by his Mosquito dressed in pilot gear and smiling broadly, so perhaps it was I that misheard.
As for the 'hushing up' you mention, if we did indeed burn to death hundreds if not thousands of men in one fell swoop, I don't think we would have been too proud of it. -
Message 19
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Monday, 6th September 2010
My Grnadmother told me as a child that the British had set fire to the sea and tthat germans had been recovered,funnily enough my wifes grandparents gave a similar account.
I agree with Mutantis and Tim however,the British did try to set fire to the sea initially with not much success.....
-
Message 20
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 6th September 2010
Addendum to message 19.
VF,
in addition to your link:
Read the chapter on the Channel in fire.
It is from a retired American military...but nevertheless
it seems to be an expert...
Kind regards,
Paul. -
Message 21
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Tuesday, 7th September 2010
On the question of setting fire to oil spread on the surface. It was circulated in 1940 that Britain did have plans to set fire to oil which was to be pumped out from the coast. Problem ... tides - have a look at the tidal races around the coast and the the difficulty of setting fire to diesel oil. This had a very high flash point and it takes a great deal of energy to ignite it. A long burst by flame-throwers would certainly be needed. But where to place the flame-throwers without injury to the operators? Petrol has much lower flash point but burns off much too fast to do any serious damage to invading ships. Better off with hydrocyanic gas. Very effective against exposed flesh both human and equine!
-
Message 22
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 7th September 2010
Those of us that are old enough will remember the RAF attempting to set the oil from the Torry Canyon on fire in the late 60s with a very limited success using nalpan. The only effect that had was to have the left wing brigade screaming about the UK having such nasty weapons.
-
Message 23
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Wednesday, 8th September 2010
Absolutely Grumps!
I think that the Ministry of Information released a film purporting to demonstrate this invasion deterrent. I have a vauge memory of it anyway. It may have improved the British morale but it wouldn't have had much influence with German scientists. -
Message 24
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Wednesday, 8th September 2010
"...There have been many accidental fires of this nature around the world..."
Yes, possibly. But, as has been pointed out there is, rather ironically, a difference between an accident and a deliberate act.
To stop an invasion there would need to be a huge infrastructure inp lace to deliver massive quantities of oil at exactly the point the Germans landed on. That is before the problem of igniting it in the right place crops up.
I think that it was experimented with, which is one possible source of the rumours, but it was not put in to use because the experiment proved a failure.
"...Now, how can you say that the Dieppe raid was any different to what the Germans might have tried? Was the Dieppe debacle not seaborne?..."
Because it had a different specific objective. And, funnily enough, it made the newsreels, dead bodies and all.
"...Surely enemies will 'test the water' as it were, any way they can...."
Not in 1940. The Germans either invaded or they did not. 'Testing the water' would merely tip off the British as to their intentions. Besides, the Germans would have struggled with an actual invasion, let alone wasting resources on an attack which, it seems, you state was not to be the full invasion.
"...As for the 'hushing up' you mention, if we did indeed burn to death hundreds if not thousands of men in one fell swoop, I don't think we would have been too proud of it..."
The RAF burned to death 10s of thousands. Men, women, children. No attempt was made to hush that up.
Oddly, no German, soldier, sailor, airman or civilian support has come forward either. So, unless you are going to say that the British deliberately wiped out an entire large scale attack to the last man, your case falls over.
Given that such an attack would have required massive German preparations, including airborne elements, there must have been survivors.
Sorry, the whole thing is pants.
"...I have a faded old photo of my father dating from 1944; he was standing by his Mosquito dressed in pilot gear and smiling broadly, so perhaps it was I that misheard..."
Any one who fought for democracy against fascism deserves our un-reserved gratitude. -
Message 25
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Wednesday, 8th September 2010
As a codicil to TimTrack's post could I also add that even if we knew in advance where the invasion was to be, the installation of the pumping station and the requisite fuel would have to take account of the force and time of the tides for the oil to be efficiently spread.
How far out would the oil have to be pumped to be effective? What if the German's decided to invade on an incoming tide with a strong on-shore breeze? As I have already pointed out tides around our shore can be notoriously fickle as any coastal sailor will tell you. At best it is a Heath-Robinson concept.
Besides, Hitler was at best lukewarm as to an invasion as was the German Navy.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.