Could Operation Sealion have worked?
- Thread starter RCTFI
- Start date
Raids?
Maybe raiding with Fallschrimjaegeren could be partially sucessful, but how about this - increased focus on the RAF, increased production of combat aircraft, torpedo bombers and dive bombers making raids against Royal Navy ships, and the main invasion taking place once the demoralized RAF and Royal Navy have taken sever poundings. (Adding in, of course, the destruction/capture of the BEF at Dunkirk, which I think would have been possible...)
Then, once they've been pounded on for a while, Fallschrimjaegeren and glider-borne elite light infantry are landed inland of the main target, to capture key points and cause panic... while the main invasion force concentrates on just four or five main points. I'm not talking about Operation Sealion in all its idiotic historical details - I'm talking about a sucessful German invasion of England period.
Maybe raiding with Fallschrimjaegeren could be partially sucessful, but how about this - increased focus on the RAF, increased production of combat aircraft, torpedo bombers and dive bombers making raids against Royal Navy ships, and the main invasion taking place once the demoralized RAF and Royal Navy have taken sever poundings. (Adding in, of course, the destruction/capture of the BEF at Dunkirk, which I think would have been possible...)
Then, once they've been pounded on for a while, Fallschrimjaegeren and glider-borne elite light infantry are landed inland of the main target, to capture key points and cause panic... while the main invasion force concentrates on just four or five main points. I'm not talking about Operation Sealion in all its idiotic historical details - I'm talking about a sucessful German invasion of England period.
Another Operation Sealion thread - 370 pages and still going strong!
To answer your questions:
Then Britain accepts the peace offer. It would be mad to fight on without the BEF.
Germany didn't have a functional heavy bomber design, and as far as I know this still leaves the problem of pilot training. But it would certainly help in the war of attrition.
Many new historians - Overy and Bungay, for example - would argue that the shift of focus was not critical to the outcome of the campaign. They argue that, contrary to popular belief, Fighter Command was not close to disintegrating and that only 11 Group had really been hit. Dowding and Park still had signifigant reserves - as an example, 92 Squadron (Spitfires) was pulled out of the line shortly after Dunkirk and based in South Wales. It was a Reservists squadron that had been stiffened by some regular pilots, including the likes of Brian Kingcombe and Bob Tuck. Park moved it back into 11 Group for the start of the big September battles, while Tuck took command of 257, which was in urgent need of strong leadership. In essence, the battle might drag on a little longer, but the Luftwaffe was taking too much of a beating and Hitler was to disinterested for Sealion to go ahead.
To answer your questions:
RCTFI said:
Then Britain accepts the peace offer. It would be mad to fight on without the BEF.
Germany didn't have a functional heavy bomber design, and as far as I know this still leaves the problem of pilot training. But it would certainly help in the war of attrition.
Many new historians - Overy and Bungay, for example - would argue that the shift of focus was not critical to the outcome of the campaign. They argue that, contrary to popular belief, Fighter Command was not close to disintegrating and that only 11 Group had really been hit. Dowding and Park still had signifigant reserves - as an example, 92 Squadron (Spitfires) was pulled out of the line shortly after Dunkirk and based in South Wales. It was a Reservists squadron that had been stiffened by some regular pilots, including the likes of Brian Kingcombe and Bob Tuck. Park moved it back into 11 Group for the start of the big September battles, while Tuck took command of 257, which was in urgent need of strong leadership. In essence, the battle might drag on a little longer, but the Luftwaffe was taking too much of a beating and Hitler was to disinterested for Sealion to go ahead.
And if...
And if Hitler's peace terms came up to effective surrender of England? Would they really surrender then, and be occupied? Maybe, maybe not... I'm also pretty sure they had a heavy bomber design - I'll check and see if I can find it.
Anyway, the point is that they keep up operations, and try to beat the RAF through numbers and attrition... while they also hammer the Royal Navy with torpedo and dive bombers.
Let's also say that they use some of the time they spend waiting to reduce the RAF and Royal Navy building a combination of true deep water transports... that's not too much to add, is it? Anyway, so they do that - could it work then?
And if Hitler's peace terms came up to effective surrender of England? Would they really surrender then, and be occupied? Maybe, maybe not... I'm also pretty sure they had a heavy bomber design - I'll check and see if I can find it.
Anyway, the point is that they keep up operations, and try to beat the RAF through numbers and attrition... while they also hammer the Royal Navy with torpedo and dive bombers.
Let's also say that they use some of the time they spend waiting to reduce the RAF and Royal Navy building a combination of true deep water transports... that's not too much to add, is it? Anyway, so they do that - could it work then?
MrP
Banned
You'd need a helluva PoD to get Hitler to want to impose occupation on GB. Remember he quite liked us - fellow Aryans and all that rot.
MacCaulay
Banned
I'm sorry, but I just can't see any situation with a pre-1940 POD where any large scale invasion works without fundamental changes.
Suppose that the Wehrmacht and Kriegsmarine come to an understanding: we can beat France quickly, and then jump the channel. So resources are allocated to the building of invasion boats. Where do those resources come from? Planes? If there's less Stuka's made, then the invasion of France goes slower since the Wehrmacht won't have such good air cover.
It would have to be a change way back in the '30s, when the Luftwaffe was trying to figure out what kind of bombers it wanted. Say...the Ju-88 has some bad luck in test flights. Bad weather, bad acts of God. After all, this is the Nazis, and I'm pretty sure God wasn't on their side, if you want to get biblical.
So the Luftwaffe, in 1939, desides to begin building the Ju-288, which had double the bomb load of the Ju-88, and the fuel capacity to hit everywhere in the British Isles.
But even this would count on a complete turnaround in production. No new Ju-88s after the decision is made to produce Ju-288s. Then, if the Germans get to the channel, the 288s go over the water and the Luftwaffe has more options. It would tax Fighter Command even more. Though I will admit that I think the British could still defeat the bombers. It might even lead to a naval battle in the North Sea, with the British launching carrier-based fighters against the bombers on their swing route from France-to-Britain-to-Norway.
Just a thought, though.
Suppose that the Wehrmacht and Kriegsmarine come to an understanding: we can beat France quickly, and then jump the channel. So resources are allocated to the building of invasion boats. Where do those resources come from? Planes? If there's less Stuka's made, then the invasion of France goes slower since the Wehrmacht won't have such good air cover.
It would have to be a change way back in the '30s, when the Luftwaffe was trying to figure out what kind of bombers it wanted. Say...the Ju-88 has some bad luck in test flights. Bad weather, bad acts of God. After all, this is the Nazis, and I'm pretty sure God wasn't on their side, if you want to get biblical.
So the Luftwaffe, in 1939, desides to begin building the Ju-288, which had double the bomb load of the Ju-88, and the fuel capacity to hit everywhere in the British Isles.
But even this would count on a complete turnaround in production. No new Ju-88s after the decision is made to produce Ju-288s. Then, if the Germans get to the channel, the 288s go over the water and the Luftwaffe has more options. It would tax Fighter Command even more. Though I will admit that I think the British could still defeat the bombers. It might even lead to a naval battle in the North Sea, with the British launching carrier-based fighters against the bombers on their swing route from France-to-Britain-to-Norway.
Just a thought, though.
MacCaulay
Banned
Yeah. They would've had to. I'm not even sold on it, and I'm the one that thought it up, but the Germans couldn't just slide into this. They'd have to have this in the produciton stage at least a year in advance, if not more.
Or you could go even earlier and take the route of one of the scenarios in "Hitler Victorious," and have Germany emphasize naval power from the get-go in a Japanese fashion.
TAMWNSNBM*
I like this view of the Subject
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=39058
As for losing the BEF and Dunkirk, leading to a Negoated truce. ?Didn't Britian have almost as many troops in the South that they pulled out thru the Medertterian Ports?
*the Aquatic Mammal whose name shall not be mentioned
I like this view of the Subject
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=39058
As for losing the BEF and Dunkirk, leading to a Negoated truce. ?Didn't Britian have almost as many troops in the South that they pulled out thru the Medertterian Ports?
*the Aquatic Mammal whose name shall not be mentioned
I haven't laughed this much in days.
Anyone of you fanatical "anti-sealion"-ers (don't know how else to call you) know anything about the Battle of Norway ? We had a far superior Royal Navy whos naval bases were closer. And what happened ?
Even in Narvik, the germans resisted. And all across Norway, airpower proofed decisive. What you people don't understand is that you doo not need a continous supply by sea for an attack to take place and then hold the ground gained. Assuming the germans had air superiority over Dover, they could also bring in men and suplys by air, wich leaves only the heavy equpiment, wich of course, can be brought in stages, not neceserally forcing youre way through a hundret big and mighty, unsinkable, creme-de-le-creme very beutifull battleships and cruisers, wich u people seem to like so much. Again, look what happened in Norway. Question: how much time does the RN need to get from Scapa Flow to Dover. Once it got there, any large scale supply by sea would be halted, but then, the fleet would suffer and bleed from the wee hours of the morning to late in the night. Let's just imagine a slightely larger Norway, even Crete, and will see what happened...
Anyone of you fanatical "anti-sealion"-ers (don't know how else to call you) know anything about the Battle of Norway ? We had a far superior Royal Navy whos naval bases were closer. And what happened ?
Even in Narvik, the germans resisted. And all across Norway, airpower proofed decisive. What you people don't understand is that you doo not need a continous supply by sea for an attack to take place and then hold the ground gained. Assuming the germans had air superiority over Dover, they could also bring in men and suplys by air, wich leaves only the heavy equpiment, wich of course, can be brought in stages, not neceserally forcing youre way through a hundret big and mighty, unsinkable, creme-de-le-creme very beutifull battleships and cruisers, wich u people seem to like so much. Again, look what happened in Norway. Question: how much time does the RN need to get from Scapa Flow to Dover. Once it got there, any large scale supply by sea would be halted, but then, the fleet would suffer and bleed from the wee hours of the morning to late in the night. Let's just imagine a slightely larger Norway, even Crete, and will see what happened...
Hmm. All I ever seem to think of is alternate tech. What about helicopters, hovercraft, and/or bazookas? Could an earlier adoption of any of these by the Germans be helpful in an invasion? Of course that would all probably take years to develop.
Wait... here's something that isn't tech related... what if the Germans decided not to cross the channel? What if they invaded some remote shore of Scotland? Not being in the channel, the U-boats could be brought to bear on whatever RN ships were in the vicinity. Hmmm. But then you'd have river barges crossing the open sea. Can anyone say sitting ducks? Oh well. I tried.
Wait... here's something that isn't tech related... what if the Germans decided not to cross the channel? What if they invaded some remote shore of Scotland? Not being in the channel, the U-boats could be brought to bear on whatever RN ships were in the vicinity. Hmmm. But then you'd have river barges crossing the open sea. Can anyone say sitting ducks? Oh well. I tried.
Burton K Wheeler
Moderator
Are you claiming that the invasion and occupation of Britain would be comparable at all in scale to Norway or Crete?
well, in Norway, not all of the Lufwaffe took part, and except for the paratroopers and 2 mountain divisions, german troops were, let's just say, not the best. In England, as far as I know, there was no Atlantic wall, and the initial oposition would be by home guard, who would stay, fight and die, in the short space of less than 1 hour. (elite paratroopers vs home guard 7-1, had it been a soccer game). But wait, we can't have England loose...
I forgot.
I forgot.
Well that ignores a few things:
1. Time- How long to build a warship? Well between three and five years for a Battleship (okay if you do a Vanguard you could perhaps speed it up).
2. British responce -Do you logically think the poms will let such an action go unchallanged? Try it and expect all naval treaties to immediatly become mute... and the poms to lay down an utter mass of warships.
Now onto other matters:
The Germans attack a neutral and acchieve complete suprise. Now that is by and largely irrelevent to a Sealion discussion.
1. Norway was a complete suprise... the Norweaigans didn't have the time to destroy supplies, stores, transport etc. Try the same scenario BUT with all the fuel and food needing to come in by air.
2. The Norwiegan campaign involved a comparitivly small number of troops so air supply is feasible... scale that up to the size of the force proposed in sealion and it becomes untenable (see Stalingrad).
3. Heavy equipment wasn't such a problem in Norway. The Norweaigans didn't have much by way of tanks etc. plus the major sites were seized by complete suprise early in the campaign. Now consider Sealion... well you have a moderatly well equiped force (most of the equipment losses should be made good in the two or three months before a landing can be attempted) that will be striking back after you land and will also be dug in and fortrified at any place of value... hence that heavy equipment (tanks, artillary) will be sorely missed.
1. Perhaps 12 to 18 hours to get from scapa to the Channel. However there is a quite considrable number of Destroyers, Sloops, Corvettes,MTBs etc. already in the Channel. Add to that additaional Destroyers and Cruisers coming in from the Atlantic...
2. "any large scale supply by sea would be halted" Yes at a particularly vital moment when the Germans are still on the beach head and have not had any time to entrentch.
3. "the fleet would suffer and bleed from the wee hours of the morning to late in the night" Any German surface naval forces would be more or less eliminated* the moment the British draw into range. The small number of German torpedo bombers would rapidly either be shot down, damaged or withdrawn due to crew exhaustion (flying multiple sorites a day does that...). The remaining level bombers will prove ineffective. The Dive bombers will be needed to both act as artillary and attack the naval vessels... quite simply there will not be enought to go round. U-Boats may be a threat but with the large number of escorts they shouldn't be too much of an issue.
*Yes I exagerate a bit... I would however expect any such engagement to be over within two or three hours at the most.
Burton K Wheeler
Moderator
Great, German paratroopers can outfight English home guards. So we have drop zones secured. Paratroopers really can't do much else without logistic support. Let's take a look at the scale of the invasions.
Crete=2 airborne divisions (16,000 soldiers)
Norway=5 divisions (60-70,000 soldiers)
Sea Lion=At least 160,000 soldiers for INITIAL landing
The difference between subduing an island with a population of less than a million, or a small country with a couple million people few to no land routes between population centers, and invading a major industrial nation (which had quite a bit more than just a few home guards defending it) should be instantly apparent.
War is not like a game of Risk. The invasion of England would require sustaining 10 times the forces that invaded Crete for weeks at least. Getting to troops to England would be just the start.
1. In Stalingrad, you had longer distances and 600.000 people too feed and arm, plus half a panzer army to fuel (4th panzer was not completely encircled). So why would airsupply be a problem ?
How many tanks did Britain have after Dunkirk ? From what I hear, exactly after, there were no more than 100. Not a thousand, not ten thousand, but a hundret. Now that has to be a problem, don't u think ?
Also, the ideea was not only to take the beaches, but also a cuple of airfields where to lad troops. Even if those airfields fell to a british counterattack, they would stilll delay them long enough for the troops on the beach to dig in.
And what "heavily fortified" B.S. are you talking about ? MG positions in houses or the traditional single trench, occupied by 3 old men and one of their grandsons ?
How many tanks did Britain have after Dunkirk ? From what I hear, exactly after, there were no more than 100. Not a thousand, not ten thousand, but a hundret. Now that has to be a problem, don't u think ?
Also, the ideea was not only to take the beaches, but also a cuple of airfields where to lad troops. Even if those airfields fell to a british counterattack, they would stilll delay them long enough for the troops on the beach to dig in.
And what "heavily fortified" B.S. are you talking about ? MG positions in houses or the traditional single trench, occupied by 3 old men and one of their grandsons ?
youre right, getting the follow-up troops would be a problem, IF u had the RN sinking transports, but then, the british would probably try to cut the invasion off early on, an then get hammered by the Luftwaffe, wich was so ineficient in Norway, that it decided the outcome and in Crete, where it decimated the RN. Those Stukas ar so dam inefficient, hell knows why they even built them. How long do u honestly expect the RN to last near Dover ?
And yes, the Kriegsmarine would be destroyed, IF it stood and fought ....
And yes, the Kriegsmarine would be destroyed, IF it stood and fought ....