[Douglas]

If Germany never invaded Russia and became a distraction and if it then won the battle of Britain then how would an attempted invasion pan out?

Were the British preparations enough to save it?

[Oxymoron]

If Germany didnt invade Russia, then Russia would have invaded Germany the following year.

As far as the battle for Britain, it couldnt have been won without Strategic bombers , and an invasion couldnt procede without proper landing craft, and some kind of parity navaly.

[Igor Antunov]

and some kind of parity navaly.

Not really, once German air superiority is established across the channel, British navy could not intervene to stop the invasion. Those 8,000 aircraft lost fighting Russia would have come in handy...

But ultimately Germany had to invade the USSR as promptly as possible before USSR geared up fully for war, otherwise it would have been attacked in the back by Stalin as it was busy finishing off Britain.

[Thunderhawk]

Not really, once German air superiority is established across the channel, British navy could not intervene to stop the invasion.

British Submarines would do wonders against large troop transports, while smaller transports could be targeted by field guns.

[Smilin' Dave]

Not really, once German air superiority is established across the channel, British navy could not intervene to stop the invasion.

The Luftwaffe didn't really have that good a record against shipping. Attempts to attack Channel shipping were not a great success in terms of effect or the costs involved.

In a way even if the Germans had won the Battle of Britain, they were in no position to win the air war. The Luftwaffe's planes could not reach all the airfields in Britain, and indeed large sections of the RAF were never engaged. So the RAF always had the option of covering southern England, although with a slight disadvantage. Lack of air superiority would certainly count against any invasion force.

Given that the British army (particularly with the addition of units from its empire) wasn't completely unarmed in 1940, the terrain involved and the investment in fortifications (and perhaps the militia/stay behind type programs) it is hard to see a German victory in Britain. In fact, a successful landing would have worse for the Germany military than a failed one. A successful landing could eventually be cut off (the German plan to mine the Channel would only have held the Royal Navy for so long), leaving troops trapped on an island with no supply. The desire to do anything to 'save' this situation would only lead to more resource wastage.

I also agree with the assessment that this just gives the Soviets another year to complete redeployment and reequipping their forces. I also agree that Stalin would probably have intervened at an opportune moment.

On a different angle, an invasion of Britain might have accelerated US intervention. After all there would be threat of the last bastion of Western Europe falling, of the loss of a fairly strong status quo power in exchange for a more expansionist one rapidly running out of local foes.

[GandalfTheGrey]

There is absolutely no reason to think that Stalin would have invaded Germany - in fact everything indicates that he desparately wanted to avoid conflict.

As for the British navy, they would be powerless against German submarines

[Thunderhawk]

As for the British navy, they would be powerless against German submarines

History had proven otherwise.

[Smilin' Dave]

There is absolutely no reason to think that Stalin would have invaded Germany - in fact everything indicates that he desparately wanted to avoid conflict.

- Soviet pre-war military doctrine was not built on the defence at either the tactical or strategic level.
- Soviet troop dispositions, reorganisation and rearmament were not entirely consistent with a defensive stance.
- Tension with the Nazis prior to the war had been high, and was building up again prior to Barbarossa.
- Stalin's attempts to avoid war breaking out in 1941 are not inconsistent with a desire to delay until reorganisation was complete.
Note this is not an argument to suggest that the Axis somehow preempted a Soviet invasion. In a way it is more an argument that the Soviets were open to the possibility of preempting the Axis.

As for the British navy, they would be powerless against German submarines

The Navy had proven quite effective against German submarines. The issue during the war was the merchant marine, which was far less able to protect itself.

[GandalfTheGrey]

- Soviet pre-war military doctrine was not built on the defence at either the tactical or strategic level.
- Soviet troop dispositions, reorganisation and rearmament were not entirely consistent with a defensive stance.
- Tension with the Nazis prior to the war had been high, and was building up again prior to Barbarossa.
- Stalin's attempts to avoid war breaking out in 1941 are not inconsistent with a desire to delay until reorganisation was complete.

Really this is, at the very best, an extremely weak case for arguing that Stalin was just about to attack.

The Navy had proven quite effective against German submarines.

Yes, at a time when the German submarine forces were hopelessly thread thin from the north sea, to the Mediterranean to attempting to cover the entire Atlantic ocean. The purpose of their deployment being pretty much entirely devoted to neutralizing Britain. Now in this scenario we are talking about no eastern front, and Germany having a free hand to try and conquer Britain. So where previously the British navy could pick off thinly spread u-boats one by one, suddenly its a completely different ball game when the entire German fleet can be concentrated in and around the English channel - with support available from their formidable air force as well as their navy.

[Oxymoron]

Anyone who thinks Stalin didnt have intent to invade Germany is living on Mars. He invaded Finland, he invaded Mongolia, he invaded the Baltic and Poland. HIs intent was to spread the Soviet umbrella over Europe. You dont invest in paratroopers, Strategic bombers, mass offensive fast highly armored tanks, if you want to defend against a possible invasion. The Soviets planned to invade Germany, no later then then spring of 1942.

[Smilin' Dave]

Really this is, at the very best, an extremely weak case for arguing that Stalin was just about to attack.

1. I never said it was guaranteed, only that the Soviets were clearly considering the option.
2. The case for Stalin avoiding war at all costs is weaker still.

Yes, at a time when the German submarine forces were hopelessly thread thin from the north sea, to the Mediterranean to attempting to cover the entire Atlantic ocean.

While mass would have helped, the simple reality is that submarines feared destroyers, and the British had no shortage of those. If we really want to go into detail, the German submarine fleet of 1940 wasn't as qualitatively strong as it was during its height, which would surely count against it.

with support available from their formidable air force

In long range operations, the Luftwaffe was far from unbeatable, hence its failure in the Battle of Britain. It also failed to have a significant impact in operations against shipping.

as well as their navy.

The German navy was in poor condition after the Norwegian campaign, and the German admiralty were well aware of this. Hence why their invasion plans for Britain was premised not on a battle fleet or an airforce but mine fields.

[GandalfTheGrey]

The case for Stalin avoiding war at all costs is weaker still.

I'm not saying that Stalin would have allowed himself to be backed right into a corner, but there is a big difference between proactively preparing to meet a German attack and actually attacking Germany first.

While mass would have helped, the simple reality is that submarines feared destroyers, and the British had no shortage of those. If we really want to go into detail, the German submarine fleet of 1940 wasn't as qualitatively strong as it was during its height, which would surely count against it

Yes, but we are talking about virtually the entire uboat fleet concentrated on protecting the english channel - not to mention the support they would have from the luftwaffe and the German navy - despite it being weakened

In long range operations, the Luftwaffe was far from unbeatable, hence its failure in the Battle of Britain. It also failed to have a significant impact in operations against shipping.

Didn't the Germans have airfields in northern France?

[Smilin' Dave]

I'm not saying that Stalin would have allowed himself to be backed right into a corner, but there is a big difference between proactively preparing to meet a German attack and actually attacking Germany first.

Again, I refer you to Soviet military doctrine, where the best defence was considered to be an offensive move. IIRC it wasn't until 1942 or maybe 1943 that the field manual had its defence section expanded beyond a handful of pages. I further note that the Soviets consistently used pre-emption as justification at Finland and the Baltic states, which would suggest that in Soviet political discourse it was considered a viable justification for war.

If the plan was solely defensive, why were the supply dumps and headquarters so far forward?

Yes, but we are talking about virtually the entire uboat fleet concentrated on protecting the english channel

Can you actually think of an example of a British fleet being stopped by subs? I can only think of Jutland (which is unfortunately WWI), where a German submarine screen had negligable effect. Given the difficulties in coordinating submarine groups, and their vulnrability while transmitting, more might not have been better.

not to mention the support they would have from the luftwaffe and the German navy - despite it being weakened

Well again, the German naval command disagree with you on this. They didn't think their fleet was numerically or qualitatively up to the job of taking on the Royal Navy, and they didn't think the Luftwaffe would help them turn the tables either.

Didn't the Germans have airfields in northern France?

They did, and in Scandinavia too from memory, and throughout the air war there were big chunks of Britain they could not reach, or where only the bombers could reach (and unescorted they were quite vulnerable). The Luftwaffe had been optimised for supporting ground forces, rather than strategic operations. This was again highlighted during the invasion of the Soviet Union.

[soron]

Well again, the German naval command disagree with you on this. They didn't think their fleet was numerically or qualitatively up to the job of taking on the Royal Navy, and they didn't think the Luftwaffe would help them turn the tables either.

Who gave you that idea ? The Channel Dash succeeded when the war against Russia was already on. With all the resources from that campaign available in the theatre, the Home Fleet would have been hard pressed to prevent the invasion. Their location was well-known and they would have had to leave their heavily protected anchorage at Scapa Flow and face the Luftwaffe with only their own AAA. And how well even the newest British battleships fared against aircraft HMS Prince of Wales' destiny clearly demonstrates.
The reason the Luftwaffe was not particularly effective against shipping was because the aircraft of choice - the Stuka - clearly only could operate under a friendly sky.
With the scenario as it is - the Battle of Britain won by the Luftwaffe - the use of Stukas not over the British Islands but over the Channel and in the North Sea would certainly have been possible.

[Smilin' Dave]

Who gave you that idea ? The Channel Dash succeeded when the war against Russia was already on.

The Channel Dash didn't involve much of the Royal Navy, in fact there wasn't anything bigger than a destroyer on hand for the RN. That the Germans were concerned enough about British airpower to move the ships in the first place, and moved them in such a way as to avoid a counterstrike suggests a lack of confidence in victory.

With all the resources from that campaign available in the theatre, the Home Fleet would have been hard pressed to prevent the invasion.

The Eastern Front wasn't a notable sponge for Kriegsmarine resources. What could have changed?

Their location was well-known and they would have had to leave their heavily protected anchorage at Scapa Flow and face the Luftwaffe with only their own AAA.

As you go on to note, the Luftwaffe wasn’t well equipped to attack shipping, and wouldn’t have been decisive. Consider also that the Luftwaffe would be busy supporting any kind of landing, in accordance with German doctrine and in accordance with their intended use.

And how well even the newest British battleships fared against aircraft HMS Prince of Wales' destiny clearly demonstrates.

Prince of Wales was sunk with torpedo bombers, which the Germans were not big on. The ship was an easy target thanks to an early lucky hit on the propeller shaft, which severely limited its mobility. Force Z was also a relatively small formation, compared to the bulk of the Royal Navy. I don’t know what British carriers were like (or their availability) in this period, but this too might have changed in a fleet sized engagement. Force Z on the other hand was deprived of all air cover.

With the scenario as it is - the Battle of Britain won by the Luftwaffe - the use of Stukas not over the British Islands but over the Channel and in the North Sea would certainly have been possible.

The Stuka wasn’t particularly good as a dive bomber on land, against shipping it wasn’t any better. Even if the Luftwaffe somehow won the Battle of Britain, the Stuka would still have been the wrong tool for the job you envision. Let’s not forget it’s short range.

[soron]

The Channel Dash didn't involve much of the Royal Navy

It involved more than 1000 German aircraft so I don't blame them for staying out of the way.

That the Germans were concerned enough about British airpower to move the ships in the first place, ...

Not if - as in the scenario - the Luftwaffe would have won the Battle of Britain

...and moved them in such a way as to avoid a counterstrike suggests a lack of confidence in victory.

...as opposed to the RN staying safely tucked away instead of taking the opportunity to kill 3 out of 4 of Germany's latest capital ships ?

The Eastern Front wasn't a notable sponge for Kriegsmarine resources. What could have changed?

Quiet obviously all the aircraft that were used on the Eastern Front, for example.

Prince of Wales was sunk with torpedo bombers, which the Germans were not big on. The ship was an easy target thanks to an early lucky hit on the propeller shaft, which severely limited its mobility. Force Z was also a relatively small formation, compared to the bulk of the Royal Navy. I don’t know what British carriers were like (or their availability) in this period, but this too might have changed in a fleet sized engagement. Force Z on the other hand was deprived of all air cover.

The Stuka wasn’t particularly good as a dive bomber on land, against shipping it wasn’t any better. Even if the Luftwaffe somehow won the Battle of Britain, the Stuka would still have been the wrong tool for the job you envision. Let’s not forget it’s short range.

A 2000 pound bomb dropped by a Stuka does a battleship quiet nicely as you can see here, also Stukas have no trouble hitting ships, even smaller, maneuvering ships like HMS Gloucester and HMS Fiji which btw are also a good example that even rather small bombs dropped by fighter airplane can cripple a ship.
Aircraft carriers - the only RN aircraft carriers the Royal Navy was operating prior to 1942 were Ark Royal, the old Hermes, and 4 Illustrious class carriers. The bulk of British carriers were Escort carriers, mostly Bogue class, which only were brought into service starting 1942. They carried Fairey Swordfish and Blackburn Skua - aircraft for which the same is true as for Stukas, they could only operate under a friendly sky.

[Smilin' Dave]

It involved more than 1000 German aircraft so I don't blame them for staying out of the way.

Again, this is ignoring that the main reason the British didn’t deploy more resources is because they were taken by surprise. That the British had 600 of their own planes available would suggest that the Luftwaffe wouldn’t have had complete air superiority had the British responded in force anyway.

Not if - as in the scenario - the Luftwaffe would have won the Battle of Britain

Winning the Battle of Britain would not necessarily have ended the threat of British airpower. If you read the whole thread, you would see notes about many British airfields (and a good part of the RAF) being outside the operational range of the Luftwaffe’s planes. So you can’t no, you can’t wave away this point on the basis of an artificial scenario.

...as opposed to the RN staying safely tucked away instead of taking the opportunity to kill 3 out of 4 of Germany's latest capital ships ?

I imagine they preferred to get the RN concentrated to repel any attempt of a landing, particularly if they had no information about the movement of those four capital ships.

Quiet obviously all the aircraft that were used on the Eastern Front, for example.

Those are not Kriegsmarine resources, so my point still stands. Luftwaffe assets have already been discussed, and as I pointed out to you, would have been heavily engaged supporting the landing forces rather than against the RN.

A 2000 pound bomb dropped by a Stuka does a battleship quiet nicely as you can see here,

Hitting a ship that wasn’t moving and may not have even been properly manned... I’m unimpressed.

even smaller, maneuvering ships like HMS Gloucester and HMS Fiji which btw are also a food example that even rather small bombs dropped by fighter airplane can cripple a ship.

About the Glouster, from the article you just linked: “to this, the despatch of Gloucester, alone and low on fuel and anti-aircraft ammunition (less than 20% remaining), into danger was a "grievous error".”
So, a ship unprepared for combat and operating on its own. Does this sound like the bulk of the RN sallying forth from Scapa Flo to you?

Out of interest how many German planes were lost in exchange for these two ships?

Aircraft carriers - the only RN aircraft carriers the Royal Navy was operating prior to 1942 were Ark Royal, the old Hermes, and 4 Illustrious class carriers. The bulk of British carriers were Escort carriers, mostly Bogue class, which only were brought into service starting 1942. They carried Fairey Swordfish and Blackburn Skua - aircraft for which the same is true as for Stukas, they could only operate under a friendly sky.

So the British had aircraft carriers (and I’m guess RN aircraft were not depleted by the Battle of Britain), while the Germans did not. Sounds like another advantage for the RN to me.

[soron]

Again, this is ignoring that the main reason the British didn’t deploy more resources is because they were taken by surprise. That the British had 600 of their own planes available would suggest that the Luftwaffe wouldn’t have had complete air superiority had the British responded in force anyway.

I'm not ignoring it I am disputing it. You can't seriously suggest that the British wouldn't have been able to deploy aircraft to attack some ships in the English channel at the height of the war, with squadrons being on alert all the time ? Come on, I can fly to Biggin Hills from here in less than 2 hours. You're not suggesting that aircraft in Britain can not in time reach the Channel to intercept ships moving in that limited body of water at 25 knots or so ?

Winning the Battle of Britain would not necessarily have ended the threat of British airpower.

It would have significantly reduced that threat. 'Winning the Battle of Britain' means having air superiority. So yes, there might have been airfields out of operational range of most of the Luftwaffe's airplanes (not all, tho). It does not matter. In order to do something those British aircraft would have had to leave their airfields and come into reach of the Luftwaffe.

If you read the whole thread, you would see notes about many British airfields (and a good part of the RAF) being outside the operational range of the Luftwaffe’s planes. So you can’t no, you can’t wave away this point on the basis of an artificial scenario.

I have seen you mentioning it but since it is not part of the scenario it does not hold weight, since those aircraft would have to engage within range of the Luftwaffe to be effective. Aircraft sitting on out of range bases doing nothing do not help winning the war.

I imagine they preferred to get the RN concentrated to repel any attempt of a landing

No, they preferred to keep the Home Fleet concentrated because in WW1 this strategy had worked out. It had kept the German battlefleet at bay most of the time without the ships actually doing anything. They accomplished their mission just by being there.
Unfortunately the German Naval Command did have the ability to learn. Hence, the 'pocket battleships' which were, in retrospect, rather crappy designs. But at that time, given a proper spin on the information available, they did an excellent job at stirring up the British admirality: Heavily armed, swatting light cruisers like a fly, taking on heavy cruisers with comfort, their sole presence as commerce raiders was posing a threat. And they were successful in that role, as is demonstrated when the British reintroduced the convoy system for mercantile shipping: At the beginning, a convoy's escort could include everything up to a battleship - because of those 'pocket battleships' sporting their 28cm heavy artillery.
Something similar can be said for the other German capital ships, Bismarck, Tirpitz, etc.: Other than in WW1 the German admirality didn't let those ships sit around in German ports in a replay of WW1's 'staring you down' contest. Those ships went out and participated in operations, forcing the RN at least for some time to do the same.

...particularly if they had no information about the movement of those four capital ships.

They had the radar stations lining the English shore, they had reconnaissance airplanes and spotters at the coast - what you suggest is rather insulting to the Brits.

Those are not Kriegsmarine resources, so my point still stands. Luftwaffe assets have already been discussed, and as I pointed out to you, would have been heavily engaged supporting the landing forces rather than against the RN.

That's nonsense. You're seriously suggesting that the German Command would just have ignored the RN because everybody was just busy climbing the rocks of Dover ? Rest assured there would have been plenty of reserves just waiting for the RN to move out of the protection of their anchorage, and obviously aircraft would have been the instrument of choice for the job, along with whatever submarines would have been waiting.
Do not forget that the Brits had created huge mine fields to restrict the movement of shipping - in that case it would have restricted their own movement as well, restricted it to narrow corridors of approach, making timely interception rather likely.

Hitting a ship that wasn’t moving and may not have even been properly manned... I’m unimpressed.

The point was that a Stuka was quiet capable of sinking a battleship with a single bomb, something you disputed. So I made my point.

About the Glouster, from the article you just linked: “to this, the despatch of Gloucester, alone and low on fuel and anti-aircraft ammunition (less than 20% remaining), into danger was a "grievous error".”

It is irrelevant wether they were 'low on fuel and a-a ammo. They still had fuel and ammo when they were sunk. 'Oh we could have only fought on for another hour or two if you hadn't sunk us first' don't cut it.

Out of interest how many German planes were lost in exchange for these two ships?

I can't be bothered to search for that info, do it yourself if you think it matters, but I think that, in terms of 'how long does it take to build the cruiser' vs. 'how long does it take to build a couple of aircraft' the losses were quiet acceptable.

So the British had aircraft carriers (and I’m guess RN aircraft were not depleted by the Battle of Britain), while the Germans did not. Sounds like another advantage for the RN to me.

What good would those ships have done during the invasion ? Aircraft carriers are nothing but a landing strip and some defensive guns. Having that landing strip when there's 1000 miles of water in each direction, great asset. But with the wholeness of the British islands sitting 10 miles to the West, and an airstrip for such 'low and slow' flying aircraft being build by pioneers in a day somewhere in the green - what advantage would those ships have provided ? None. Just more targets.

[Smilin' Dave]

You can't seriously suggest that the British wouldn't have been able to deploy aircraft to attack some ships in the English channel at the height of the war, with squadrons being on alert all the time ? Come on, I can fly to Biggin Hills from here in less than 2 hours.

Again, this presupposes that the British knew what was going on at the time. If the aircraft had been scrambled and the report had turned out to be false, those aircraft would not have been available to counter a direct threat to Britain. I’m sure you could fly to Biggin Hill in 2 hours, but there isn’t a war on at the moment.

A cross-channel invasion force would not have come as any kind of surprise to the British and would have been met by a coordinated effort. Your example is not comparable.

'Winning the Battle of Britain' means having air superiority.

Now you’re just moving the goal posts. Having demonstrated that the Battle of Britain as we know it wouldn’t lead to your desired scenario, you simply change it.

In order to do something those British aircraft would have had to leave their airfields and come into reach of the Luftwaffe.

True, but British planes would have still had more loitering time (given the defenders advantage and possibly better combat range) than their German counterparts. The British also had radar, giving them an advantage in coordinating against German aircraft.

I have seen you mentioning it

We’ll come back to the veracity of posters as sources of information a bit later...

Unfortunately the German Naval Command did have the ability to learn. Hence, the 'pocket battleships' which were, in retrospect, rather crappy designs.

Lesson well learned then...

But at that time, given a proper spin on the information available, they did an excellent job at stirring up the British admirality: Heavily armed, swatting light cruisers like a fly, taking on heavy cruisers with comfort, their sole presence as commerce raiders was posing a threat. And they were successful in that role, as is demonstrated when the British reintroduced the convoy system for mercantile shipping: At the beginning, a convoy's escort could include everything up to a battleship - because of those 'pocket battleships' sporting their 28cm heavy artillery.

Fascinating, but we are not discussing the efficacy of the German navy in commerce raiding. If we were I would suggest submarines are a more relevant item of discussion.

They had the radar stations lining the English shore, they had reconnaissance airplanes and spotters at the coast - what you suggest is rather insulting to the Brits.

Finding out the ships have moved after it has begun is too late to mobilise the necessary resources to counter them. This is overwhelmingly apparent for the narrative provided on Wikipedia, which you yourself linked to. It repeatedly notes units were not equipped for action, not on station and in the case of six destroyers, were undergoing exercises at the time of the alert.

You really are just cherry picking your information to suit your case, while ignoring what is right in front of you.

You're seriously suggesting that the German Command would just have ignored the RN because everybody was just busy climbing the rocks of Dover ?

I’m saying that contrary to your scenario, they couldn’t have ignored the cliffs of dover completely. The Luftwaffe was designed and intended for action against land targets, and it is farcical to think they would allocate all or even the majority of their resources to try and hunt the Royal Navy to the exclusion of all else.

Do not forget that the Brits had created huge mine fields to restrict the movement of shipping - in that case it would have restricted their own movement as well, restricted it to narrow corridors of approach, making timely interception rather likely.

True, but keep in mind the British knew where their own minefields were, so it was not an absolute impediment.

The point was that a Stuka was quiet capable of sinking a battleship with a single bomb, something you disputed. So I made my point.

I stated no such thing. To introduce as evidence a stationary, possibly unmanned Russian ship, in a discussion about a fleet sized engagement with the premier naval force of its time does not prove your point. In fact, it just highlights how you grasp at straws and change what the objective is to suit your ramblings.

It is irrelevant wether they were 'low on fuel and a-a ammo. They still had fuel and ammo when they were sunk. 'Oh we could have only fought on for another hour or two if you hadn't sunk us first' don't cut it.

So you don’t think sending ships which were limited in their mobility and firepower into battle is any disadvantage at all, as long as they have something? I suppose you endorse the Russians of WWI going into battle without rifles?

I can't be bothered to search for that info, do it yourself if you think it matters, but I think that, in terms of 'how long does it take to build the cruiser' vs. 'how long does it take to build a couple of aircraft' the losses were quiet acceptable.

Now, on the veracity of posters. I’m expected to believe whatever your argument is, without evidence (which shouldn’t be that hard for you to find)? But apparently a point I raise is automatically suspect. In fact, if I query you on something, I have to do the research myself?

Hey, tell you what? Why don’t you just switch off the computer and I will conduct your half of the argument as well, shall I?

Aircraft carriers are nothing but a landing strip and some defensive guns.

Pearl Harbour and Midway were both significant battles between ‘landing strips’... which were mobile, this making them nothing like landing strips. Apparently all subsequent naval development in the area of carriers was redundant because all they did was carry planes.

what advantage would those ships have provided ? None. Just more targets.

That was why the Kriegsmarine were so keen to acquire a carrier of their own, right? Because apparently carriers were completely useless?

Your argument just lapsed into completely absurdity.

[soron]

Again, this presupposes that the British knew what was going on at the time. If the aircraft had been scrambled and the report had turned out to be false, those aircraft would not have been available to counter a direct threat to Britain. I’m sure you could fly to Biggin Hill in 2 hours, but there isn’t a war on at the moment.

A cross-channel invasion force would not have come as any kind of surprise to the British and would have been met by a coordinated effort. Your example is not comparable.

Why don't you read up on Operation Cerberus before making such unsubstantial claims ? The British Admirality knew those ships were on their way from the moment they slipped moorings.
Efforts were made to intercpt those ships, and they failed. So I suppose this ends this nonsense about the German Navy not daring to enter the Channel or the British stopping them by pure force of will.

Now you’re just moving the goal posts. Having demonstrated that the Battle of Britain as we know it wouldn’t lead to your desired scenario, you simply change it.

No, I don't. You apparently didn't understand - or knew - in the first place what the Battle of Britain was all about: The defeat of the Royal Airforce as a prequel to Operation Sea Lion, the invasion of Great Britain. Air superiority is not 'moving the goal posts' but the logical result of that Battle. I assumed this would be understood, as it is really the basis of the entire discussion.

True, but British planes would have still had more loitering time (given the defenders advantage and possibly better combat range) than their German counterparts. The British also had radar, giving them an advantage in coordinating against German aircraft.

Airplanes arriving from airfield somewhere in the West or even from Scotland would hardly have more loitering time over the English channel than aircraft taking off from bases right across on the French side, especially since the German airforce also used auxillary tanks.
Also the advantage radar would give them wouldn't be that big: After all they would be going after the bombers, and where the bombers are the German airforce would know well enough. All the German fighters would have to do is to stay near the bombers and between them and the approach vectors which must be used by the British fighters.

Finding out the ships have moved after it has begun is too late to mobilise the necessary resources to counter them. This is overwhelmingly apparent for the narrative provided on Wikipedia, which you yourself linked to. It repeatedly notes units were not equipped for action, not on station and in the case of six destroyers, were undergoing exercises at the time of the alert.

You really are just cherry picking your information to suit your case, while ignoring what is right in front of you.

I suppose if you read the link provided above about the British attempts at intercepting the ships, this paragraph should be answered as well.

I’m saying that contrary to your scenario, they couldn’t have ignored the cliffs of dover completely. The Luftwaffe was designed and intended for action against land targets, and it is farcical to think they would allocate all or even the majority of their resources to try and hunt the Royal Navy to the exclusion of all else.

I really don't know where you pick up all that nonsense about the Luftwaffe not being able to operate against naval targets. The Luftwaffe was heavily involved in the mediterranean theater for example, also in the North Atlantic
The Luftwaffe initially used the aircraft to support the Kriegsmarine, making great loops out across the North Sea and, following the fall of France, the Atlantic Ocean. The aircraft undertook maritime patrols and reconnaissance, searching for Allied convoys and warships that could be reported for targeting by U-boats. The Fw 200 could also carry a 900-kilogram (2,000 lb) bomb load, or naval mines, to use against shipping, and it was claimed that from June 1940 to February 1941, they sank 331,122 tonnes (365,000 tons) of shipping despite a rather crude bombsight arrangement. The attacks were carried out at extremely low altitude in order to "bracket" the target ship with three bombs; this almost guaranteed a hit. Winston Churchill called the Fw 200 the "Scourge of the Atlantic" during the Battle of the Atlantic due to its contribution to the heavy Allied shipping losses.[1]
Source

True, but keep in mind the British knew where their own minefields were, so it was not an absolute impediment.

Yes there was, they wouldn't have run across their own mines but they would have had to follow the safe corridors nonetheless.

I stated no such thing. To introduce as evidence a stationary, possibly unmanned Russian ship, in a discussion about a fleet sized engagement with the premier naval force of its time does not prove your point. In fact, it just highlights how you grasp at straws and change what the objective is to suit your ramblings.

You wrote: The Stuka wasn’t particularly good as a dive bomber on land, against shipping it wasn’t any better.
Don't chicken out on me. When operating without being harrassed by fighter aircraft this aircraft was capable of very precise bomb drops.
Dive bombers were used by all major players in that role: The British used the Blackburn Skua, the USN had their Curtiss SB2C Helldiver and there was the D3A and D4Y in the Japanese Navy. Germany even had a naval version of the Ju 87 Stuka for later use with 'Graf Zeppelin' and 'carrier #2' (no name was suggested for that one yet).

So you don’t think sending ships which were limited in their mobility and firepower into battle is any disadvantage at all, as long as they have something? I suppose you endorse the Russians of WWI going into battle without rifles?

Unfocused rambling. I agree the decision wasn't a good one, but as I said: They still had both fuel and ammunition to fight when they were sunk. You keep mentioning straws, but you keep grasping at them yourself: Dou you really think there was any major difference between a land based aircraft and a carrier aircraft ? The only difference I can think off is that a land based aircraft doesn't have to deal with the kind of compromises a carrier based aircraft has to (folding wings and hooks, adding weight and complexity, or the extremely short runway which puts a limit on the payload - the same aircraft can carry a heavier load if taking off from a land base with a long runway.

Now, on the veracity of posters. I’m expected to believe whatever your argument is, without evidence (which shouldn’t be that hard for you to find)? But apparently a point I raise is automatically suspect. In fact, if I query you on something, I have to do the research myself?

Hey, tell you what? Why don’t you just switch off the computer and I will conduct your half of the argument as well, shall I?

Excuse me, my fault. I obviously thought you would give me enough credit to know when you're just stalling, without me explicitely saying so. Since this isn't the case: Stop stalling! A cruiser weighting 10.000 tons or so, care to calculate how many aircraft you could build with similar amounts of materials ? A cruiser has hundreds of crew, care to think about how many aircraft crews that would make ?
Even if those ships killed 100 airplanes that day (which they did not for sure or it would have gone down in history) it would have been cheap in terms of cost, materials, crew, time to replace. So how exactly were you not just stalling here ?

Pearl Harbour and Midway were both significant battles between ‘landing strips’... which were mobile, this making them nothing like landing strips. Apparently all subsequent naval development in the area of carriers was redundant because all they did was carry planes.

Did you even finish reading the hole paragraph ? I explicitely wrote: 'great asset when there is water all around you'. But in this scenario, the aircraft carrier's airplanes could simply take off from nearby land bases - which I pointed out. So risking the carrier on the frontline wouldn't accomplish anything. Those aircraft wouldn't hit harder because they knew the carrier was somewhere nearby gently rolling with the waves.
Since you like things pointed out straight, here you go: Yes, the RN could also count on a couple of wings from those aircraft carriers, in addition to aircraft from those remote airstrips. But as I said ... Fairey Swordfish and Blackburn Skua, both would require a friendly sky, or they would suffer the same losses in the face of Messerschmidts as the Stukas did against Hurricanes and Spitfires.