The British army has admitted it is no match for Russia

[Deleted]

Not really though - With air superiority, Germany could simply starve and wait out the UK.

It was also a opostion to make pace, somthing what was fast forgotten when the fortunes of war changed. If Germany keeps up the pressure, can Churchill continue his war to the end politic. There was a reason Rudolf Hess was hidden away.

[Deleted]

It was also a opostion to make pace, somthing what was fast forgotten when the fortunes of war changed. If Germany keeps up the pressure, can Churchill continue his war to the end politic. There was a reason Rudolf Hess was hidden away.

True if they had lost air superiority, and with the US not currently in it, they might have been forced to cut their losses.

[Skroe]

Ok let me try to explain this to you once and for all so your brain might finally get it. Lets assume for a moment we believe the USA propaganda about the big bad Russia and how they want to conquer Europe or retaliate or w/e. Do you actually think the Aegis site would be a problem?
Step 1: Saturate the site with a bigger than 24 missiles volley. This can be done with kalibr-m from the ships in black sea and a regiment of Iskander-M. Easy gg.
Step 2: Launch the IRBMs with a couple of minutes difference so they have not time to respond.

And voila its as easy as that. Offensively that site posses no danger what so ever for Russia. However IT IS A HUGE HEADACHE if USA decides to use it in a first strike and thats where their problem is.

This should be simple to understand even for you.

Between the two Aegis Ashore Facilities and the four Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Ships, plus the Patriot missile and MEADs batteries that the US and NATO allies have placed in Europe, there are more than enough missiles to counter Russia's short to intermediate range arsenal. SM-3s in Aegis BMD systems would mostly deal with the upper end (Intermediate Range), of which Russia has comparatively few of. Patriot, which is extremely numerous, and MEADS, which is more capable and newer, have thousands of missiles in Europe. Both are optimize for short-to-medium range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles, which together constitute the bulk of Russia's tactical arsenal. And that doesn't even include THAAD that is the most advanced of the bunch.

Not to mention in a crisis the US would move more Aegis BMD ships to Europe rather than the 4 stationed there permanently.

Comprehensively, it severely reduces the likelihood of Russian success because a saturation attack wouldn't be possible. The batteries would be widely dispersed if a crisis began, and Russia would have to get near-real-time intelligence as to their locations in order to hit them. It's the same reason that the China's DF-21D is a nothing-burger - the kill chain is very, very long.

Here's the slides that explain it.


The European Plan

[caervek]

Not really though - With air superiority, Germany could simply starve and wait out the UK.

You can't starve a self sufficient island.

The British ability defend from an invasion would have been weak

Nonsense, repelling an invasion was planned for far in advance, we had sea forts, forces/equipment ready. It wasn't possible for them to land at any beach without us knowing beforehand and all the viable landing points had been fortified (hell some were so fortified that some of the fortifications are still there today because demolishing them would be a waste of money).

Put simply their invasion force would have been weaker than the one we used in D-day and our defensive ability would have been better than theirs at D-day, their chances of success made invading Russia in winter look like a good plan lol.

[Deleted]

You can't starve a self sufficient island.

The UK is not, and was not self sufficient.

Nonsense, repelling an invasion was planned for far in advance, we had sea forts, forces/equipment ready. It wasn't possible for them to land at any beach without us knowing beforehand and all the viable landing points had been fortified (hell some were so fortified that some of the fortifications are still there today because demolishing them would be a waste of money).

With Air superiority the Germans could have levelled those fortifications, they could have air dropped troops, or they could just have stormed those beaches - At this point in time, the German divisions were not depleted on the eastern front.

Put simply their invasion force would have been weaker than the one we used in D-day and our defensive ability would have been better than theirs at D-day, their chances of success made invading Russia in winter look like a good plan lol.

No they could bring more troops to bear, and your defences would have been worse.
Stop saying 'we' the US contributed the majority of the troops at D-day.

[Kellhound]

You really can't know how many missiles are stored there and what type.



I think that thing in order to fire tomahawk just needs software nothing else if it isn't already there. My guess is the specific installation is ready to go for w/e mission is given. You would expect that especially seeing that is next door to Russia. Noone said mixing missiles in a cell. I said mixing missiles in the cells aka First cell SM-2, second Tomahawk, according to the article always.


Your ships will be way further if they ever fire. And how much you try to defend this you can't. Bahhh polution w/e lets start smoking, reasoning.



I am linking non stop articles from lockheed and the official aegis ashore site and you ask this retarded question?
- - - Updated - - -




Ok let me try to explain this to you once and for all so your brain might finally get it. Lets assume for a moment we believe the USA propaganda about the big bad Russia and how they want to conquer Europe or retaliate or w/e. Do you actually think the Aegis site would be a problem?
Step 1: Saturate the site with a bigger than 24 missiles volley. This can be done with kalibr-m from the ships in black sea and a regiment of Iskander-M. Easy gg.
Step 2: Launch the IRBMs with a couple of minutes difference so they have not time to respond.

And voila its as easy as that. Offensively that site posses no danger what so ever for Russia. However IT IS A HUGE HEADACHE if USA decides to use it in a first strike and thats where their problem is.

This should be simple to understand even for you.

Considering I have seen an overhead picture of the installation, yes I can say they do not have much missile storage space at all.

No, it requires the correct specific fire control equipment unique to the Tomahawk, and installing it would violate the INF treat and the US has no need to do so.

Further away???? Do you even look at maps? The USN can launch from the Black Sea, Baltic Sea, and the Barents Sea. All of those are closer than the fixed site. Just because you have swallowed Russia's propaganda to the point you are not able to think critically is not my problem.

Linking is not the same as understanding, and your comments show you do not comprehend anything you post that isnt RT, and I am not even sure you comprehend those.

Aaaaannndddd what I said just went completely over your head. FYI, the SS-N-30 is a cruise missile and would not be engaged by the Aegis system.

I know this is very hard for you to understand, but please try to think logically. 24 TLAM-Cs launched from a known fixed location are nothing compared to the hundreds of TLAM-Cs the USN can fire from ships and subs from locations all around Russia that can move at will and in the case of the subs are likely not even located.

As a final thought for you, if the USN wanted to install TLAMs ashore, they would not have gone through the expense of installing the Aegis system. Or as A77 pointed out, we would just bring back the mobile launchers.

[Ulmita]

Between the two Aegis Ashore Facilities and the four Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Ships, plus the Patriot missile and MEADs batteries that the US and NATO allies have placed in Europe, there are more than enough missiles to counter Russia's short to intermediate range arsenal. SM-3s in Aegis BMD systems would mostly deal with the upper end (Intermediate Range), of which Russia has comparatively few of. Patriot, which is extremely numerous, and MEADS, which is more capable and newer, have thousands of missiles in Europe. Both are optimize for short-to-medium range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles, which together constitute the bulk of Russia's tactical arsenal. And that doesn't even include THAAD that is the most advanced of the bunch.

Not to mention in a crisis the US would move more Aegis BMD ships to Europe rather than the 4 stationed there permanently.

Comprehensively, it severely reduces the likelihood of Russian success because a saturation attack wouldn't be possible. The batteries would be widely dispersed if a crisis began, and Russia would have to get near-real-time intelligence as to their locations in order to hit them. It's the same reason that the China's DF-21D is a nothing-burger - the kill chain is very, very long.

Here's the slides that explain it.


The European Plan

I like your way of thinking. Is very simplistic.

In your scenario you:

a) Believe that the Aegis ships wont have their hands full, aka subs, ships, and airforce going after them
b) Russia doesn't have enough missiles to saturate
and lastly
c) Patriots can actually shoot down anything. (see latest embarrassing story with the Israelis)

Actually you assume way too much like that all the countries hosting the US missile shield will get involved in a American Russian war etc. and that everything will go according to plan, heavily favoring the americans

- - - Updated - - -

As a final thought for you, if the USN wanted to install TLAMs ashore, they would not have gone through the expense of installing the Aegis system. Or as A77 pointed out, we would just bring back the mobile launchers.

Listen buddy.

I will play your game, just sign the legal assurances already.


Lastly, aegis is more than capable of intercepting cruise missiles.

[Skroe]

I still ask you again why bother using a fix and vulnerable base, then there are better alternative to deploy ground launched Tomahawks...

The BGM-19 Ground Launched Cruise Missile (a ground based Tomahawk launcher) was retired in 1991 as part of US compliance with the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces treaty (the same treaty that Russia is flagrantly violating). The Tomahawks in these launchers were ONLY of the nuclear variety with the W84 warhead.

The US has kicked around a successor system for years, and one could reportedly pretty easily be reconstituted on a standard truck. Other budget priorities just keep coming up. As part of the US response to Russia's INF Treaty violation, Congress ordered a study done on just that for FY2016. That probably won't happen though because the US is winding down Tomahawk production through 2020 (once the stockpile is enlarged) and deciding what to build next: an all new cruise missile or an upgraded "Tomahawk-II". Don't be surprised if that system has a ground based launcher. But building one for Tomahawk now isn't probably the best idea from a budget perspective.

Tomahawks would be among the most potent weapons to use against Russia though. Unlike the US which has invested heavily into ABM and anti-cruise missile systems, Russia has done very little (besides saying that systems like S-400 and S-500 could do it in theory). The tests are expensive and Russia both can't afford them and doesn't stage them, leaving Russia's proven ability to defend against maneuvering cruise missiles extremely low compared to the West.

Personally, I think the US should just grow the Tomahawk stockpile huge (as is the plan) and then hold off on a successor until investing in a land-launched variant of a Prompt Global Strike Hypersonic cruise missile past 2030. The US could in theory (emphasis, theory) put ground based launchers as far away as Afghanistan and be able to strike Western Russia in around 10 minutes. They're a big part of the Third Offset Strategy as it is publically declared, and it just seems wasteful to buy an interim capability (like a Tomahawk-II or a significantly modified JASSM-ER) that we'll be saddled with for twenty years. But that said the other key goal of Third Offset is A.I. weapons and giving future cruise missiles the ability to use AI to target select (including targets of opportunity) and make tactical decisions to evade defenses.

I guess it just depends what the Military wants and how much it wants to pay. PGS would be extremely difficult for Russia's nearly non-existent missile defense capability to defend against, however the second option is likely nearer term by a 7-10 years. Worth talking about because from a budget and tech perspective, the Pentagon will pick a direction in the next year or two.

[Ulmita]

The BGM-19 Ground Launched Cruise Missile (a ground based Tomahawk launcher) was retired in 1991 as part of US compliance with the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces treaty (the same treaty that Russia is flagrantly violating). The Tomahawks in these launchers were ONLY of the nuclear variety with the W84 warhead.

The US has kicked around a successor system for years, and one could reportedly pretty easily be reconstituted. As part of the US response to Russia's INF Treaty violation, Congress ordered a study done on just that for FY2016. That probably won't happen though because the US is winding down Tomahawk production through 2020 (once the stockpile is enlarged) and deciding what to build next: an all new cruise missile or an upgraded "Tomahawk-II".

Tomahawks would be among the most potent weapons to use against Russia though. Unlike the US which has invested heavily into ABM and anti-cruise missile systems, Russia has done very little (besides saying that systems like S-400 and S-500 could do it in theory). The tests are expensive and Russia both can't afford them and doesn't stage them, leaving Russia's proven ability to defend against maneuvering cruise missiles extremely low compared to the West.

Personally, I think the US should just grow the Tomahawk stockpile huge (as is the plan) and then hold off on a successor until investing in a land-launched variant of a Prompt Global Strike Hypersonic cruise missile past 2030. The US could in theory (emphasis, theory) put ground based launchers as far away as Afghanistan and be able to strike Western Russia in around 10 minutes. They're a big part of the Third Offset Strategy as it is publically declared, and it just seems wasteful to buy an interim capability (like a Tomahawk-II or a significantly modified JASSM-ER) that we'll be saddled with for twenty years. But that said the other key goal of Third Offset is A.I. weapons and giving future cruise missiles the ability to use AI to target select (including targets of opportunity) and make tactical decisions to evade defenses.

I guess it just depends what the Military wants and how much it wants to pay. PGS would be extremely difficult for Russia's nearly non-existent missile defense capability to defend against, however the second option is likely nearer term by a 7-10 years. Worth talking about because from a budget and tech perspective, the Pentagon will pick a direction in the next year or two.

Also. what a77 is missing is that even if those were around, if USA brought them to Romania lets say instead of installing the AEGIS, you would be close to full out war. He doesn't understand the political cost of such movement. Also, i doubt Romania would agree on having these on their country.

[Deleted]

Also. what a77 is missing is that even if those were around, if USA brought them to Romania lets say instead of installing the AEGIS, you would be close to full out war. He doesn't understand the political cost of such movement. Also, i doubt Romania would agree on having these on their country.

and Ulmita is naging about the Tomahawk misiles again and again, and now you say it only will happen if "close to full out war" make up your mind...

[Kellhound]

- - - Updated - - -



Listen buddy.

I will play your game, just sign the legal assurances already.


Lastly, aegis is more than capable of intercepting cruise missiles.

A: I am not you buddy, your are unworthy of that.
B: We have no reason to even make the Russians think they are important enough to do that, that is something equals do.
C: I said would not, I didnt say could not. But if you knew as much as you think you do, you would understand why I said that.

- - - Updated - - -

Also. what a77 is missing is that even if those were around, if USA brought them to Romania lets say instead of installing the AEGIS, you would be close to full out war. He doesn't understand the political cost of such movement. Also, i doubt Romania would agree on having these on their country.

But Romania is Ok with the US putting TLAMs into the Mk-41s....

[Skroe]

Also. what a77 is missing is that even if those were around, if USA brought them to Romania lets say instead of installing the AEGIS, you would be close to full out war. He doesn't understand the political cost of such movement. Also, i doubt Romania would agree on having these on their country.

Russia wouldn't go to war over it. The US placed them (and worse, like Pershing II) in Europe and Russia did nothing before. Because the same principle as everything else Kellhound has been discussing applies. To Russia, the cruise missile threat from Virginia class attack subs and Ohio-class SSGNs utterly dwarfs any kind of land-based approach. And Russia has lived with that for years and will live for it in spades as the Virginia Payload Module is being added to the Virginia's being built now (which adds more VLS tubes to the class).

And the US has other things it's considering. One possibility is taking the San Antonio-class Amphibious Transport dock design and refitting it as the "Ballistic Missile Defense" ship, with a wopping 288 VLS tubes.




(and for contrast the baseline ship)



The LPD-17 hullform is very popular with Congress and the Navy. I'ts cost effective. It's highly modular (it's being adapted for another naval support purpose presently as well). At 25,000 tons, it's also big, which means you can put a very big S-Band Radar on it, on the order of 30-35 feet, much larger than the 14 foot radars on the Arleigh Burke destroyers or the Tichondergia cruisers. This would allow missile/area defense over an absolutely vast area, in combination with a very big clip (again, 288 VLS tubes, more than even an Ohio class SSGN).

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/loc...-ne-1770342034

The chances of it getting built are pretty good, considering the Navy wargame scenario'd with it last year reportedly, and again, the LPD-17 hullform is extremely well liked. The whole class represnets one of those smashingly successful, but not marquee, procurement programs, kind of like P-8 Poseidon.


Point is, if the US wants to up the cruise missile threat to Russia, land based launchers aren't the best way to go about it.

But if we did... Romania already allowed Aegis Ashore to go there, so your point was disproven before you even typed it.

- - - Updated - - -

I like your way of thinking. Is very simplistic.

In your scenario you:

a) Believe that the Aegis ships wont have their hands full, aka subs, ships, and airforce going after them

The Russian Air Force going after Aegis Ships is a death trap for Russian pilots. The range of the SM-6 is greater than every anti-ship missile the Russians have. Why do you think the US didn't exactly crap itself over BrahMos? Because a Hypersonic missile with a 160 nmi range is worthless when it would be going up against ships armed with anti-air missiles with 290 nmi range.

As for Russia's modest attack sub force, testified by a MMO-OT's ex-submariners as extremely loud due to poor maitenence, they'd be far busier loking for Ohio-class SSBNs and running for their lives from the combined NATO attack sub force, to be going after our ships. It's not just the US's attack subs they'd have to contend with, but Europe's extremely capable Diesel-Electric ones.

b) Russia doesn't have enough missiles to saturate
and lastly

In terms of tactical missiles? No Russia does not.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL32572.pdf
Page 18.

Russia is believed to have around 2000 active non-stratic warheads

One recent source concludes that,
within its total, Russia has approximately 170 warheads for Army missiles, 430 warheads for
missile- and air-defense forces, 730 warheads for the air force, and 700 naval nonstrategic nuclear
warheads.87 Another source, using a different methodology, concludes that Russia may have half
that amount, or only 1,000 operational warheads for nonstrategic nuclear weapons.88 This
estimate concludes that Russia may retain up to 210 warheads for its ground forces, up to 166
warheads for its air and missile defense forces, 334 warheads for its air force, and 330 warheads
for its naval forces.89

This is the Congressional assessment. It gets better.

Russia had also reportedly reduced the number of military bases that could deploy nonstrategic
nuclear weapons and has consolidated its storage areas for these weapons. According to
unclassified estimates, the Soviet Union may have had 500-600 storage sites for nuclear warheads
in 1991. By the end of the decade, this number may have declined to about 100. In the past 10
years, Russia may have further consolidated its storage sites for nuclear weapons, retaining
around 50 in operation.90

Russia hasn't had tens of thousands of tactical nuclear weapons since the 1980s (also in the report).

But between all the systems I mentioned, the anti-ballistic missile / anti-cruise missile defenses vastly out number Russia's tactical arsenal.

c) Patriots can actually shoot down anything. (see latest embarrassing story with the Israelis)

You mean this one?
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...574214,00.html

The IDF confirmed Tuesday morning that a Syrian fighter jet was shot down by an Israeli patriot missile over the Golan Heights. It was the first time in over thirty years a Syrian jet has entered Israel and the IDF think the jet crossed into Israel by accident en route to attacking rebel positions on the Golan.

"A jet was successfully intercepted by our aerial defense system along the Syrian border," the IDF said in a statement. According to a military source, the jet entered Israel for a couple of seconds, penetrating a few hundred meters before turning back, at which point he was hit by the patriot missile.

PAC-3's work superbly. The problems with the original Patriot are cdecades behind it.

Actually you assume way too much like that all the countries hosting the US missile shield will get involved in a American Russian war etc. and that everything will go according to plan, heavily favoring the americans

That's a safe assumption based on two factors:

(1) NATO allies have made very clear their commitment to continental security is very serious, and specifically have bought these systems for THEIR use with Russia in mind. What use does Germany have for Patriot Missiles? Only to defend against Russia.

(2) Depending in the manner of the Russian attack, the US would act militarily decisively to raise the costs for Russia so high, so fast (while offering an exist ramp) as to deter a prolonging of hostilities.

There is also the likely probability that if the US believed Russia was moving to attack, it would launch a first strike to a major pro-active defensive action (like air dropping anti-vehicle and anti-personnel mines on the border or moving B-2's to Germany).

[caervek]

The UK is not, and was not self sufficient.

We may import our champagne and caviar but when it comes down to the basics the UK has been self sustaining for centuries, hell a millennia ago the only imports we had were invaders haha.

With Air superiority the Germans could have levelled those fortifications

That's really not as easy as it sounds, hence why we didn't level the German fortifications in France.

they could have air dropped troops

Mass suicide is a pretty poor plan lol.

or they could just have stormed those beaches

You make it sound really easy but in practice it would have been nigh on impossible. To put it in perspective the beaches in question would have been just as hard if not harder to storm as the ones we stormed in France, and the equipment/etc they had to do it with at the time their plan was scrapped wasn't in the same league as what we used in France (we even built floating docks that could be sunk into place).

No they could bring more troops to bear, and your defences would have been worse.

Wrong on so many levels, every respected historian and even the generals Hitler had at the time all disagree with you.

Stop saying 'we' the US contributed the majority of the troops at D-day.

we
wiː/Submit
pronoun
1.
used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together.
"shall we have a drink?"

Yes I know the US contributed slightly more troops than the UK, are you saying the US weren't part of the allies?

[Kalis]

Stop saying 'we' the US contributed the majority of the troops at D-day.

The D-Day landings were approximately 46% US troops, 40% British and 14% Canadian, you make it seem as if the vast majority were American, which was not the case.

[ringpriest]

Erm, your information is out of date.

http://insidedefense.com/daily-news/...lding-decision



THis is the Navy budget:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita..._7_pb_2016.pdf

Last two pages for individual year production quantitites by lot. The Navy has on average been recieving ~120 per year thus far. 2018 that's 138, 154 in 2019 and 233 in 2020.

IOC was in 2015.

The Air force for it's part is aiming for 245 AIM-120Ds in 2017.
http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/me...160209-036.pdf
page 40.

For 2016 the Pentagon asked for 429 AIM-120Ds.
http://tucson.com/business/local/pen...1e204e362.html

If you want a comparison, in the late Cold War, the Pentagon was asking for 420 AIM-54s (which the AIM-120D is closest to in terms of capability) per year.
http://www.forecastinternational.com...fm?ARC_ID=1066
Page 6.
So you really can't claim that it exists in "insufficient numbers", especially considering the comparative size of the 1990 F-14 fleet to the Raptor fleet. If you want a specific STOCKPILE number, the "inventory objective" in 1990 for the AIM-54 was 2200 missiles.

So basically if the US is able to hit, over the next few years, the 2200 missile target with the AIM-120D, it would in fact be meeting it's Late Cold War requirement (which is probably different from the actual current requirement) for missiles of that exact same capability, invalidating your claim of insufficient inventory. With 1000 procured since 2013 and an order of 400-ish per year, how long do you think it will take to hit that target?

Perhaps you were referring to the increment 3.2B upgrade to the Raptor fleet that allows it to fire the AIM-9X and the AIM-120D? That's already been completed on the front-line Raptors, including those in Alaska. It was mostly a 2013-2016 program.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita..._5_pb_2015.pdf

Over a year ago the retrofit was through 64 of the Raptors. I couldn't find how many it is today.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...y-hits-414341/


In any event the parts are here. The Pentagon has many AIM-120Ds in it's inventory and is ordering hundreds per year. And it's most advance air superiority fighter is progressively gaining the ability to fire it. AIM-120D isn't some far off futuretech. It's here, now.

- - - Updated - - -

(I do want to state by the way, regardless, to my amtaeur eye, I'm much more of a fan of the MBDA Meteor than the AIM-120D).

Yep, I was out of date - you're right and I was wrong; when DoT&E says it's operational (with minor bugs that do not affect its field effectiveness), in strength, that's really all there is.

I was not thinking of the Raptor upgrade, but rather the last reporting on the 120-D that I recalled, which was (after doing a little digging) apparently from early 2013 (that should teach me to post without doing my due diligence first).Thank you for the exhaustively detailed rebuttal/correction.

Objectively, it is nice to see that the Air Force has realized it may need to actually be able to fight a war in the near future, and is making some solid moves in that direction (the Navy has at least somewhat had the same realization, but afaik, is not moving towards near-peer warfare capability with any particular success, though they too are making many moves in the right direction, just with marginal success to date - imho, of course).

[Deleted]

We may import our champagne and caviar but when it comes down to the basics the UK has been self sustaining for centuries, hell a millennia ago the only imports we had were invaders haha.

Self-sufficiency in food in the UK has been eroded since the 1980s: about 60% of food currently consumed here is grown here, down from nearly 80% in the mid 1980s, even though more varieties of food previously thought exotic are now grown in the UK.

That's really not as easy as it sounds, hence why we didn't level the German fortifications in France.

because you didn't have air superiority and needed the element of surprise.

Mass suicide is a pretty poor plan lol.

What happened at D-day i wonder?

You make it sound really easy but in practice it would have been nigh on impossible. To put it in perspective the beaches in question would have been just as hard if not harder to storm as the ones we stormed in France, and the equipment/etc they had to do it with at the time their plan was scrapped wasn't in the same league as what we used in France (we even built floating docks that could be sunk into place).

true your landing craft would have been better - but that is about it.

Wrong on so many levels, every respected historian and even the generals Hitler had at the time all disagree with you.

You get that with Air superiority, the kriegsmarine could just have anchored outside some landing grounds and reduced everything to rubble?
I don't think you see the power of Air superiority and how it would have negated the RN.

Yes I know the US contributed slightly more troops than the UK, are you saying the US weren't part of the allies?

I'm saying that they wouldn't have been around to defend.

The D-Day landings were approximately 46% US troops, 40% British and 14% Canadian, you make it seem as if the vast majority were American, which was not the case.

I though the Americans supplied 6 divisions, the British 3, and the Canadians one.
Regardless, they would not have been around to defend is my point.

[Deleted]

What happened at D-day i wonder?

Ref: Parachute-insertion en mass; Those days are long gone. Might've worked in 1944 (just!) but it's a logistical cluster fuck and because of the nature of the beast when planning these Ops you have to accept that every man you drop won't come back.

[Kalis]

You get that with Air superiority, the kriegsmarine could just have anchored outside some landing grounds and reduced everything to rubble?
I don't think you see the power of Air superiority and how it would have negated the RN.

Air superiority would not have negated the Royal Navy, the Luftwaffe were not equipped to deal with fast moving boats or battleships. The Kriegsmarine did not believe they could have successfully launched an invasion even with air superiority, due to how overwhelmingly powerful the Royal Navy was.

It would have taken Germany years and years of preparations to build up the specialised forces required to invade Britain, during which time Britain would have progressed their defences as well. Germany's best hope was a negotiated settlement with Britain that took them out of the war, it was probably the most sensible course of action for both nations, however Churchill had no interest in that and virtually singlehandedly dragged Britain into fighting on.

This is why Churchill is virtually worshipped in Britain, in spite of him being a pretty shoddy politician outside of WWII and even during it in many instances - his greatest achievement was so great that it overshadowed his numerous flaws.

After that the US implementing Lend Lease under FDR - from a British point of view, the greatest US President bar none - was the second part which allowed Britain to carry on fighting, eventually leading to D-Day and the liberation of Western Europe by the Allied forces.

[zmp]

All the UK have to do is go to Iraq and look for the WMD that are stored there somewhere and they may be good to go. Although the US been looking since 2003, so might be a bit hard to find. Prophet Bush ensured they were around somewhere..

[caervek]

Self-sufficiency in food in the UK has been eroded since the 1980s

The 1980s took place 50 years after the German invasion was planned too.

What happened at D-day i wonder?

It went a lot better than a German invasion of the UK would have, one of Hitlers generals actually told him it would be a "reverse Dunkirk", does that sound like something good?

true your landing craft would have been better - but that is about it.

So only about the most important part, I see.

I don't think you see the power of Air superiority and how it would have negated the RN.

I think you are overvaluing it TBH, having supremacy of the skies doesn't grant invulnerability to AA fire...

I'm saying that they wouldn't have been around to defend.

They wouldn't have been needed, our defence would have been too much for the Germans to overcome, hence every competent historian and Hitlers own advisors agreeing it wasn't possible.

I though the Americans supplied 6 divisions, the British 3, and the Canadians one.
Regardless, they would not have been around to defend is my point.

The American D-day forces landed numbered 73,000, the British 61,715, and the Canadians 21,400 (there were also French, Australian, Polish, etc forces). But I think you are missing a major point, those forces (and luck) were required to storm the beaches, it takes much less to defend. The British army and home guard have more than enough to deal with all the forces Germany had planned to use in an invasion.