1804/1805 Napoleonic Invasion of Britain?

What if a more competent Admiral like Louis-René Levassor de Latouche Tréville had been in command of the invasion fleet rather than the overly cautious Admiral Villeneuve for taking control of the channel in order to let the Grande Armee cross?
And if he can take control of the channel, if only temporarily, are the barges for the French troops truly capable of getting them and their supplies across? Or are they like Sealion German river barges and doomed to sink beneath the Channel?
 
The barges were quite flimsy, though some would make it across. The problem was that the French estimated that in order to cross the Channel and not be hopelessly exposed, they needed to cross at night. Unfortunately for the French, this would create chaos, and they knew it. Boats would end up along probably as much as 25 or 30 miles of the English coast, and there would be a British response by sea as well as land. The simple problem is that after the French under Villeneuve failed to drag the Royal Navy off to get lost and leave themselves exposed, they knew that they couldn't dominate the Channel. So they pretty much planned for the Royal Navy to make an appearance, counting on the sheer mass of ships to flock past the British vessels. This means they were expecting to lose large numbers - probably most of which would flee home, rather than drown at sea. So you've got to take into account that if the French did manage to get across, it would be something akin to the parachute drops on D-Day - men scattered all around for miles, battalions taking days to reform, and a large degree of organisational failure. Also you have to remember that the UK doesn't have continental commitments in 1804/5 so they have a large number of regular regiments to face down this invasion, and a large amount of militia. You could feasibly get something like the Battle of Stamford Bridge, where skirmishes rage on the edge of the beachhead as units struggle to reform on the beaches and march towards the fighting, and the British respond in kind to disrupt the French, leading to a series of small-unit fights which grounds the invasion force virtually immediately.

Just some observations, anyway. I'm not trying to predict how it would go. If anything, I'd say that any competent admiral wouldn't have the nerve to give the order to cross the Channel, anyway.
 
It would also be a logistical nightmare. Keeping a really dispersed army supplied w/powder/bullets etc probably isnt going to happen if you're randomly sneaking parts of an army across at night.

Doing that again and again w/supply ships and the Royal navy recalling more ships to the channel while the French are just trying to figure out where their troops are to resupply...

I dont think its really feasible to actually successfully invade unless u can establish at least naval parity for the long haul in the channel...
 
Well the scenario I had in mind assumes that the original plan of leading Nelson's ships off into the Caribbean and then sailing full speed for the Channel to gain local naval supremacy works under more aggressive leadership....The main doubt for me is the transports. Does anyone have any information on how flimsy these ferries were?
 

67th Tigers

Banned
plus, the British had managed to raise a force of 600,000 men to defend the home islands, so many they couldn't provide muskets for them all.

The invasion area itself is immediately opposed by 2 Armies (under Dundas and Pulteney), with the Duke of Cambridge having a Corps close by and able to support, Burrard could lead his Corps down from London quickly enough and elements of Craig's Eastern Army are close enough. The divisions of Gwynn and Tarleton could easily march, England could lead a division of Simcoe's Corps as well.

Rather quickly Napoleon's 6 Corps (if he gets them all ashore) are opposed by 7 Corps.
 
The situation seems impossible for the French, if they fail they lose large numbers of men to the royal navy's guns, and if they succeed they have an army stuck in a highly mobilised enemy country.... the point is, the Royal Navy would reform in the Channel within hours of the break through regardless of whatever trick the French pulled. Cutting off the invasion force, and leaving the French army massively overextended, think of Russian invasion, with General Channel in place of General Frost.
 
plus, the British had managed to raise a force of 600,000 men to defend the home islands, so many they couldn't provide muskets for them all.

I know the response is going to be "The mathematics prove that the average English militia was every bit the equal of the Imperial Guard," but question whether or not the forces Britain was fielding would've ofought well.
 
I know the response is going to be "The mathematics prove that the average English militia was every bit the equal of the Imperial Guard," but question whether or not the forces Britain was fielding would've ofought well.

Faeelin

The militia not a professional force and would of course suffer problems in terms of leadership and organisation in some cases. However they are defending their homes against a despised enemy and as Tiger's points out there is a hell of a lot of them. Coupled with the regular army and the French have serious obstacles even if they get ashore. The French 'Army of England' I think totalled at most about 200,000 men and as said would suffer heavy losses even if not opposed by the navy. Say as many as half of them get ashore and their heavily outnumbered, restricted in a small area [or possibly scattered widely in some disorder and in a highly dubious supply situation. If the RM aren't somehow totally out-manoeuvred or there's a storm in the channel when the invasion force crosses things are far, far worse for the French.

All in all, if Napoleon had gained a brief naval superiority and his force crossed over I suspect it would end the Napoleonic conflict very quickly, but not in a way he would like.

Steve
 
I know the response is going to be "The mathematics prove that the average English militia was every bit the equal of the Imperial Guard," but question whether or not the forces Britain was fielding would've ofought well.

You have a point, of course, but I'm not sure this would matter hugely. Any situation decent, hardened French troops like the Guard would march into would be one with a number of units, when the two armies had at least part assembled. In such a set piece battle, the Guard are not going to be sent against the militia regiments, so their ability to stand will matter little. The regular British regiments will hold the centre of the line and all logic dictates that is where the French will attempt to break the English line. So long as the centre holds, the militia regiments on the wings will probably hold the courage to face off the feints the French will launch there. The militia cavalry regiments were filled with the sorts of sons of gentrymen who made England famous for cavalry charges which broke any cavalry they faced before charging off into the distance to return long after the battle, and those militia will probably hold their own in any cav-on-cav skirmish.

Yes, of course the militia can't stand against the French man-for-man, but really before London falls the British will have plenty of time to ensure that their own hardened regular units face the French when they need to.

Again, nothing here to state that the French definitely wouldn't win any battles...
 

67th Tigers

Banned
We should be careful, since "The Militia" aren't militia in the way Americans etc. use the phrase; they're war raised regulars only engaged to serve within the bounds of the British Islands. They formed standing infantry brigades within the home army etc. The equivalent in America was the "Provincials".

The "Volunteers" or "Local Militia" (as they were sometimes called) are the equivalent of militia in America, and their ability to much is questionable.

So equivalents to Prussia and the use in British America:

Regulars = Regulars = Regulars
Militia = Reserves = Provincials
Volunteers = Landwehr = Militia
 
Faeelin

The militia not a professional force and would of course suffer problems in terms of leadership and organisation in some cases. However they are defending their homes against a despised enemy and as Tiger's points out there is a hell of a lot of them. Coupled with the regular army and the French have serious obstacles even if they get ashore. The French 'Army of England' I think totalled at most about 200,000 men and as said would suffer heavy losses even if not opposed by the navy.

Oh, sure. Although I hae to wonder at French intelligenc,e, if it was unaare of all of this.
 
Top