So the Nazis decide to carry out Sealion; Do they fail at sea, or on the beaches?

[StevoJH]

Originally Posted by patch_g

The original question was would the Germans fail on land or at sea. I think the Germans would probably succeed on land but fail at sea. I reckon the German invasion forces of September 1940 would stand a good chance of defeating the British and Empire forces in Britain. Fortunately for the British, there's no way to get the German forces to England in September 1940 and keep them adequately supplied. A British admiral from the Napoleonic wars put it best. "I'm not saying they can't come. I'm just saying they can't come by sea."
As an intellectual exercise, one day I want to try a gamed version of Sealion with only the land forces involved.

There are something like 25 Divisions in Britain. By September 1940, even the ones who fought at Dunkirk would have likely been fully re-equiped.

Even *if* the Germans can get an army across the Channel without losing large numbers of men and large amounts of equipment, do they have the coastal shipping to keep that Army supplied?

My thoughts are 'no'. Because if they had the shipping to keep the army supplied, they would not be considering using river barges on a roll of the dice to get across the Channel.

[patch_g]

There's little doubt the Germans would have found keeping their forces supplied near impossible, but the land forces were very evenly matched.
The British had 27 infantry divisions and 4-6 infantry and machine-gun brigades, many of which lacked heavy equipment. There were 2 armoured divisions and ?3? army tank brigades.
The Germans had 19 infantry, 4 motorised, 4 panzer divisions and 2 motorised brigades as well as the airborne forces allocated to the attack. It would be an interesting match-up.

[MattII]

The Germans wouldn't have got anything close to their full forces in though, The Dover-based destroyers would have seen moderate losses in the first wave before going down, and with another 12 destroyers and a cruiser within a couple of hours, the second wave would have suffered horrendous losses.

[Byzer Bob]

Originally Posted by patch_g

There's little doubt the Germans would have found keeping their forces supplied near impossible, but the land forces were very evenly matched.
The British had 27 infantry divisions and 4-6 infantry and machine-gun brigades, many of which lacked heavy equipment. There were 2 armoured divisions and ?3? army tank brigades.
The Germans had 19 infantry, 4 motorised, 4 panzer divisions and 2 motorised brigades as well as the airborne forces allocated to the attack. It would be an interesting match-up.

Getting them across the Channel though is a tad problematic, "Approximately 2,400 barges were collected from throughout Europe (860 from Germany, 1,200 from the Netherlands and Belgium and 350 from France). Of these, only about 800 were powered (some insufficiently). The rest required towing by tugs."

1st wave 67,000 men + I airborne div (to take Brighton!)
Amphib tanks equaled 160 Panzer IIIs, 42 Panzer IVs and 52 Panzer IIs

Compared to D-Day where..... "The invasion fleet ... comprising 6,939 vessels: 1,213 warships, 4,126 transport vessels (landing ships and landing craft), and 736 ancillary craft and 864 merchant vessels."

130,000 men landed
23,000 paras
approx 900 avf's

Even without the RAF and RN the Sea Lion Plan is a logistical nightmare