garyscary

No problem, just thought it was interesting to compare what could have happened compared to what you proposed.

Based on the simulations they ran according to historical data, they concluded that the Germans would have thought they had air supremancy even if that was impossible, even with the Germans continuing to bomb RAF bases long after they switched to cities.

Honestly, I figured the GP would get a kick out of reading about a hypothetical war game of the scenario they envisioned.

Could you explain in what quantifiable quality German tanks were the best-in-class. You mention performance but German tanks were not the best for mileage, ease of repair or survivability, which make up the holy trinity of tanks: firepower, protection and mobility.

Firepower is also arguable, plenty of Allied tanks could engage German tanks at comparable ranges. For example, after the war, the Soviets tested their tank guns against German ones and concluded that they had similar performance and penetration. Also, in the beginning of the war, the Soviet T-34 and Kv-1 outclassed all German tanks of the early war.

Check out this actual war game they conducted in 1974 where they concluded that the invasion would have been a resounding failure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion_(wargame)

Well, going by superiority in tech is putting it very simply. The different sides had very different logistical/tactical concerns. For example, the SCR-536, which was a man portable radio was a bigger technical feat than any tank or battleship.

You don't think that the US, the leading industrial power at the time, couldn't build better tanks. The Sherman got the job done that they needed it to do.

Guess we’re lucky not to have rats here in Alberta.

I guess we’re lucky in Alberta to not have rats