Poll: Can England be invaded
- Thread starter Blitzkrieg8
- Start date
Hitler didn't listen to his generals. Which is why he lost the war. He could have very well won it too.Evil Jak said:
Butt-fucked how? Britian was under around the clock bombing. If germany had kept up the pressure on factories and RAF runways.. It would have been over for Britain practically.
Didnt you guys get succesfully invaded at the same time as Norway in 1940... 5 years before the end of the war... 1 year after the start?Christemo said:
Yeah, good job they got you out of the way or they couldnt have gone on fighting for 5 more years against Britain, France, America and Russia. And if you are reffering to the BEF then that was really thanks to Germany that most of them returned safely, as they decided to wait and all that.
Would you trust youre generals after so many assassination attempts?Bulletinmybrain said:
Ireland arent a military power, thats how... although they are good at fighting between themselves and bombing us although not so much anymore.
Also because Germany failed to gain air supremecy they couldnt have mounted an invansion and an invasion attempt under such circumstances could have lost them the war... a fact Hitler was all too aware of.
Also Germany didnt continue raids on the runways and factories because because after Britain bombed Berlin, Hitler was outraged and ordered attacks on British cities (Mostly London) which relieved pressure fomr the runways and thanks to Lord Beaverbrook we had 3x more fighter production than the Germans were even aware of.
It is true that the Irish don't do much on a global scale. But when they want to make a point it generally gets across. Unfortunately all you ever hear about are the glorified terrorists. The Irish are damn good at what they do. Whatever that may be.Evil Jak said:
that's not only racist but only partly accurate. the British saw that (back in the middle ages) and gave them big-ass chunks of metal, pointed them at a foe, and said have fun. they were amazing at killing things with "swords" that most people couldn't even swing.Bulletinmybrain said:
Why invade someone when you can just solve your problems with the proper use of nuclear explosions?
Mr. J Churchill was doing it right. You charge into battles with ridiculous compensating weaponry!axtr said:
In that time, it meant a bunch of people charging and swinging wildly with swords that would slice you in half. You can thank germans for that. Say what you want about them, but they are born fighters.
Well you could invade, but if you would win or not is another question. The best army in the world, great genetically moulded people (saxon, norman all the badass races got absorbed into our bloodline), brilliant position as an island and just good old fashioned British spirit, it got us through 2 world wars and helped us rule the empire where the sun never sets.
But if they've got nukes then were so screwed.
But if they've got nukes then were so screwed.
Please note that the figures I provide are not only a year out of date, but also including the Gurkha Rifle regiments, who (strictly speaking, according to the 'rules) we would actually be fighting against.ChromeAlchemist said:
I'd just like to mention that the UK forces is nowhere near the 28 million stated.
Between your lovely garden and the hordes of barbarians, stand an almighty 174,000 (rounded up, from the DASA Quarterly Manning Report, APR 08) fully-trained servicemen and women.
That's across all services, and over 5,000 people UNDER the recommended level.
Of those, 11.9% and 8.9% of the officers and other ranks respectively, are female, so will not be front-line combatants.
As already mentioned, the 105-vessel fleet (including RN Auxiliary) would be dwarfed by the naval capabilities of many larger nations, and equalled by all but the most land-locked countries.
With reference to the incredibly high military budget, I can provide this beautiful quote:
That's not the only example, as I'm sure you are aware. The budget is most certainly not being spent on the squaddies or hand-held pewpewlaserguns (unfortunately).Wikipedia - HMS Astute(S119) said:
Also, the reason why the Hurricane downed more aircraft than the Spitfire was because the Spitfire was equipped with .303 (7.7mm)calibre machineguns, while the Hurricane used 20mm cannons. The only reason why the Spitfire was more widely liked was due to it's elliptical wing-shape, which made it differ from the 'boxed' ends of the Messerschmidt.
While the Hurricane also had elliptical wings, they were less pronounced, so the poor little Londoners didn't know who to root for in the dogfights. Eventually the Spitfire was refitted with the same cannons, but it was a lighter aircraft and the wings weren't deep enough for a similar ammo capacity. Before it could be refined further, dear old Adolf topped himself.
In conclusion, and back on the original topic, yes England could be invaded.
Even if you add in all the Scots, Welsh, N.Irish and Gurkhas to bring the armed forces to full manpower, un-drydocked all the navy vessels, and had every aircraft ready to fly.
Britain is an island. This is it's greatest defence, but also it's biggest curse.
Lots of beaches for landing on.
Not much room to spread population centres out.
Very few ports able to hold the larger navy vessels, and a lack of airfields to service all the aircraft.
Britain could certainly hold out for a while, and most of the initial landings would be met with a large amount of defensive force, however with over 61 million people trying to live off 1,700sq km of irrigated land (estimated in 2003, CIA report) all the attacking force would need to do is adopt a siege mentality and simply starve the population to death.
You can guarantee the rioting would start long before then, particularly in the city centres, which would overstretch the police, and mean understaffed and malnourished armed forces would be recalled from the already undermanned coastlines, opening new avenues for attack in the event the aggressor wished for a rapid conclusion.
