Poll: Can England be invaded

[Christemo]

if it wasnt for us in denmark, you guys in tea-drinkingland (sorry, bad joke) would have been invaded by dem nazis under ww2. luckely for you, they saw us as a bigger prick.

 

[Fingolfin High-King of the Noldor]

Why would we invade when we can bomb?

 

[God's Clown]

If we are talking straight 1v1 fight, hell yes. If your talking whole world versus England, your dumb for even thinking it's possible that England would last an hour. England may have what USED to be the best navy, they may also have a decent airforce, but China could win, out of shear force of numbers, USA could win. North Korea may or may not do well. Israel would prob give them a run for their money.

 

[Kinguendo]

Pff. England? Invulnerable? If you didn't have such good pilots you'd be posing that question in German. Answer to your question being, no.

They would still be posing that question in german, if hitler hadn't gotten bored with bombing britian into a shell, wandering off to russia.

So you are saying if we didnt train our military to do what they were supposed to then we would have lost... yeah, I think the same applies for anyone really.

And "if" Germany had continued bombing London (Not Britain) rather than turning on Russia (Which broke their agreement) then Russia wouldnt have engaged Germany and you would be speaking German too. Also, you make it sound as though Nazi Germanys entire army was right on our doorstep by saying "wandering off to russia", they didnt withdraw all of their forces to launch an offensive on Russia you know.

Oh and Nazi Germany never set foot in Britain during World War 2, you cant speculate on how that would have gone as it didnt even nearly happen.

 

[LilGherkin]

I want to select the bottom two options

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

I'll probably get a lot of hate for this but,

If America can be invaded, then England can be invaded.

America is huge, and not an island.
History has shown that the more spread out an army is, the more chance of it falling. With England being an island, you can focus troops to likely areas of invasion.
Just simple geography of the matter.

But that's where America's "Shock and Awe" tactics would be extremely effective. It's a small island, and your point about tight concentrations of troops logically means that more of them would die per carpet bombing strike or cruise missile.

It's like in Command and Conquer: I love it when my opponent gathers all his combatants into a small area, because an AoE strike (Daisy Cutter, carpet bombing run, cruise missile and what-have-you) is able to level a huge amount of their units in one fell swoop.

We have the greatest army in the world except on numbers (America and China beat us there). I'm sorry, USA, but it's true, we do have a better army, you simply beat us on numbers, but our technology is actually just as good as or better than yours on pretty much all fronts.

This statement comes from the misconception that America's armed forces are given a minimum of training and thrown to the front lines in waves until the enemy can no longer sustain themselves. While this may have been true of our soldiers during the Viet Nam war, in modern times even the unimportant American Marine can't pass training unless they prove that they are able to consistently hit man-sized targets at six hundred metres with iron sights on a standard infantry rifle, and move cohesively with their squad as a tactically capable unit.

Also, sorry to burst your bubble on this as well, but technology on both fronts is about dead even. Keep in mind that America is one of the most pro-war nations in the world as it stands. The techs with brilliant ideas about new weapons and armor? They come to America, because they know that if their idea is up to snuff, our war-mongering government will greenlight its production on an enormous scale and make them filthy rich.

You've got tanks with CHOBHAM armor? We've got the Abrams, and a lot more of them.


Take note of how it keeps going.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying this as a matter of national pride. America's no better than the rest of the world. I'm just trying to set the armchair generals straight.

 

[ElephantGuts]

Pff. England? Invulnerable? If you didn't have such good pilots you'd be posing that question in German. Answer to your question being, no.

Good pilots & moral, not to mention the genius who invented the spitfire. Not to mention an amazing navy.
May want to brush up on your history.

You might want to brush up on your history, since the Hurricane got more kills during the Battle of Britain than the Spitfire. And the Royal Navy wasn't a particularly big obstacle for Hitler in invading Britain; they didn't have enough of a presence in the English Channel to prevent an invasion. And morale doesn't stop a Panzer III from gunning you down.

I'd love to see where you got that fact from, as there were more Spitfires than Hurricanes, and the Spitfire was the one of the finest fighter planes for the time.
If the Navy wasn't an obstacle, then why did Hitler make the Bismark? Seems excessive for a threat which wasn't there. As for moral, I was talking about the civilian moral. And yes, it does make a big difference. Read up on the soldiers who've been awarded VC's - they put Rambo to shame, literally.

From Wikipedia, under the Battle of Britain in the Hurricane article:

At the end of June 1940, following the fall of France, the majority of the RAF's 36 fighter squadrons were equipped with Hurricanes. The Battle of Britain officially lasted from 10 July until 31 October, 1940, but the heaviest fighting took place between 8 August and 21 September 1940. Both the Supermarine Spitfire and the Hurricane are renowned for their part in defending Britain against the Luftwaffe's might ? generally the Spitfire would intercept the German fighters leaving Hurricanes to concentrate on destroying the bombers, but despite the undoubted abilities of the "thoroughbred" Spitfire, it was the "workhorse" Hurricane that scored the highest number of RAF victories during this period, accounting for 1,593 out of the 2,739 total claimed. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hurricane ]

That's like praising the guy in an FPS who camps spawn points, while shooting only the autistic players. The Hurricane didn't suck, but the Spitfire was clearly the better plane, why else was that the one in the dog-fighting?

Hitler built the Bismark mainly to continue the work of the U-boats in raiding Allied shipping convoys and disrupting shipping across the Atlantic. He did not intend it to wipe out the Royal Navy.

And the civilians of Britain may have had high morale but that wouldn't defeat a foreign invasion. It comes down to weapons and military force. If they didn't have guns they couldn't fight the Germans. The civilians of other countries occupied by the Germans, such as France and Denmark, also had high morale and had fairly successful resistance movements. However this was clearly not enough to protect the country from invasion or liberate it once it was occupied.

Actually the Bismark was built to wreak havok to the British Navy, hence the reason it's measurements were considerably larger than those agreed by Europe prior to the war, giving it far superior fire power.
France? High morale? With people handing in their own resistance, that doesn't seem like a general, wide spread high morale.
Plus you are forgetting the fact that Britain is a small island, with only few beachheads, meaning any land invasion could be both spotted and prepared for (railways).

I'm not saying the Hurricane was better than the Spitfire, just that the Hurricane did more, there were more of them, it could hold its own in a dogfight against a BF109, and the RAF wasn't relying on the Spitfire to win the Battle of Britain.

And just because the Bismark was made to be stronger than opposing ships doesn't mean it was strictly made to fight those ships, jsut to be able to beat them. Look up the Bismark's first mission. If it was made to destroy the Royal Navy, why was it sent into the Atlantic to attack shipping?

And France did have plenty of people with high morale. Should I remind you of the achievements and persistence of the French Resistance?

And yes Britain is a small island with only few beachheads. And yes that makes it highly defensible. I never said it wasn't. But that doesn't make it invulnerable.

Without turning this into a WW2 thread Lets get one thing straight though:

If he would be posting that question in German, so would you.

Well unfortunately, as you can see from my discussion with this guy it has sort of become a WW2 thread. But in response to your statement: Not necessarily. The US wasn't depending on Britain to save it from invasion. After all, Hitler was still going to invade the Soviet Union, and deal with all the trouble that came with that. Even Hitler wasn't crazy enough to launch an invasion of the United States across the Atlantic Ocean while he's fighting in the Soviet Union. And the US's massive production capabilities would have still been a serious problem to the Germans.

 

[Kinguendo]

Because we're such nice blokes, America would be like "Amgz, we like dem Brits. Dis' ain't hapnin'".

Also, our Navy would bollock your face off if you tried anything from the sea. Our airforce is good as well. However, our army isn't much so we might be screwed there. We're really the back-up guys when it comes to wars now.

Pfft. Royal Marines, SAS and 28 million british armed forces say otherwise. 90 ships of the Royal Navy says they don't even touch down on British soil. We haven't fought alone since the Falklands, but we have the second largest military expenditure in the world, which covers science, engineering and technology. 20 quid and your spare hand grenade says we crack out the lasers if we are threatened with invasion.

Bloody good points actually, we invented the RADAR way back when... do people really think we have been sat around twiddling our thumbs? Also arent out nuclear missiles in subs all around Britain? Tridents or something like that?

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

Pff. England? Invulnerable? If you didn't have such good pilots you'd be posing that question in German. Answer to your question being, no.

They would still be posing that question in german, if hitler hadn't gotten bored with bombing britian into a shell, wandering off to russia.

So you are saying if we didnt train our military to do what they were supposed to then we would have lost... yeah, I think the same applies for anyone really.

And "if" Germany had continued bombing London (Not Britain) rather than turning on Russia (Which broke their agreement) then Russia wouldnt have engaged Germany and you would be speaking German too. Also, you make it sound as though Nazi Germanys entire army was right on our doorstep by saying "wandering off to russia", they didnt withdraw all of their forces to launch an offensive on Russia you know.

Oh and Nazi Germany never set foot in Britain during World War 2, you cant speculate on how that would have gone as it didnt even nearly happen.

Hitler sent the bombers to public centers, hoping to break you british boys morale. That was the first flaw, the second being opening up the second theater while still leaving britian open.

Hitler also had the idea that he was the best general ever... German had most of the finest generals in the world..

Anyways, ireland was about to side with germany, along the lines of it.


EDIT: I can no longer take this discussion seriously anymore. After that tank clip... Not possible.

 

[PirateKing]

Of course England can be invaded.
A better question, can Switzerland be invaded?

 

[Birras]

Yes, it is possible to invade England. It's not hard. Get together about ten freinds, buy enough weapons (not necesarily firearms) for all of you, inform British television that you intend to invade Enland and then go to England. You've invaded England, congratz. If the Territoral Army hasn't yet captured and/or killed you, you can tell us how it went.

 

[Veylon]

Why is this even a question? Invasion (I'm assuming you mean a successful invasion) is a simply a matter of saturating the place with nuclear weapons and planting desired flag(s) on the glassy glowy rubble.

If you're looking for a more conventional answer, the process is for the rest-of-world's Air Force to knock out the British Naval & Air Forces, and then ship and airlift in endless waves of Chinese infantry backed by Russo-Euro-American tank and artillery support.

 

[MrSnugglesworth]

... IF everyone did, it would not be invulnerable.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

Why is this even a question? Invasion (I'm assuming you mean a successful invasion) is a simply a matter of saturating the place with nuclear weapons and planting desired flag(s) on the glassy glowy rubble.

If you're looking for a more conventional answer, the process is for the rest-of-world's Air Force to knock out the British Naval & Air Forces, and then ship and airlift in endless waves of Chinese infantry backed by Russo-Euro-American tank and artillery support.

Send the M1's first.

As the previous picture shown.. You can't kill an m1. It just becomes cover. Or it keeps going. Either way its bad news for the enemy.


Hell, M1's are more scared of each other then the enemy.

 

[Blitzkrieg8]

Why is this even a question? Invasion (I'm assuming you mean a successful invasion) is a simply a matter of saturating the place with nuclear weapons and planting desired flag(s) on the glassy glowy rubble.

If you're looking for a more conventional answer, the process is for the rest-of-world's Air Force to knock out the British Naval & Air Forces, and then ship and airlift in endless waves of Chinese infantry backed by Russo-Euro-American tank and artillery support.

A successful invasion for me would be destroy London and have a successful amphibious Assault across the English Channel

 

[jboking]

England is far from invulnerable, if the right forces press on them, they are done.

Of course England can be invaded.
A better question, can Switzerland be invaded?

Only if everyone is willing to sacrifice the money they have stored there.

 

[Kinguendo]

Pff. England? Invulnerable? If you didn't have such good pilots you'd be posing that question in German. Answer to your question being, no.

They would still be posing that question in german, if hitler hadn't gotten bored with bombing britian into a shell, wandering off to russia.

So you are saying if we didnt train our military to do what they were supposed to then we would have lost... yeah, I think the same applies for anyone really.

And "if" Germany had continued bombing London (Not Britain) rather than turning on Russia (Which broke their agreement) then Russia wouldnt have engaged Germany and you would be speaking German too. Also, you make it sound as though Nazi Germanys entire army was right on our doorstep by saying "wandering off to russia", they didnt withdraw all of their forces to launch an offensive on Russia you know.

Oh and Nazi Germany never set foot in Britain during World War 2, you cant speculate on how that would have gone as it didnt even nearly happen.

Hitler sent the bombers to public centers, hoping to break you british boys morale. That was the first flaw, the second being opening up the second theater while still leaving britian open.

Hitler also had the idea that he was the best general ever... German had most of the finest generals in the world..

Anyways, ireland was about to side with germany, along the lines of it.

EDIT: I can no longer take this discussion seriously anymore. After that tank clip... Not possible.

Hitler thought more than just being the best general ever, he thought he was invincible and chosen by God because of his abnormal luck. Also, Goering, the luftwaffe commander, was not a good general in the position he was assigned.
IF Ireland was planning to defect, which I find highly unlikely, we would have "butt-fucked" them into submission.