Plausibility Check: Sealion in 1941

Onkel Willie

This is the second unmentionable seamammal thread I've posted. I don't know if there have been threads on this before since the search function isn't too great, but WI Sealion had been postponed until 1941? Suppose Hitler gets it into his thick skull somewhere around 1939-'40 that Britain is prepared to fight for a long, long time for Poland (at least if it's left up to Churchill) and orders preparations for Sealion to commence and orders to gear for this invasion after France is defeated. The OKH and the Kriegsmarine tell him that they can't pull it off because their navy is too small, they don't have landing craft and because the Luftwaffe of that fatass Goering couldn't establish air superiority over southern England. Goering is radically demoted and others like Ernst Udet and Erhard Milch takeover (de facto anyway).

Both Milch and Udet know the numbers and urge Hitler to switch to total war production if he wants to knock Britain out by 1941 which leads to increases in production, not only in the Luftwaffe, but in the Wehrmacht and Kriegsmarine too. The navy gains more funding to build landing craft and assorted escorts such as destroyers, corvettes, light cruisers, U-boats and S-boats. The H-class battleships are put on hold indefinitely to use their 16 inch (406 mm) guns as coastal batteries at Calais and Cherbourg. The invasion is set to begin between April and July 1941.

Bear in mind that I fleshed this scenario out in five minutes. Is it plausible or not?

btw, we will assume for the sake of this thread that Stalin does not go bonkers and invades in the east as soon as the first German boots step down in Britain. If he invades, it'll be in '42-'43.
 

The Red

It has a much better chance of success, however it will still probably fail even with a revised plan. However, if the Germans aren't going to attack Russia in '41 it would be better to concentrate on a Med strategy, that would have a much better chance of success.
 

Dilvish

If it is in 1941, is it still Sealion? I do notice that despite this being an alternate history forum, and the widespread acceptance of butterflies, that Sealion remains a fixed, unalterable part of the time stream.
 

Onkel Willie

Dilvish said:
If it is in 1941, is it still Sealion? I do notice that despite this being an alternate history forum, and the widespread acceptance of butterflies, that Sealion remains a fixed, unalterable part of the time stream.
Click to expand...

Ah, I just meant an invasion. It's called Sealion, but that of course doesn't necessarily mean it has to be the exact same plan as IOTL in this alt-1941-German invasion.
 

BlairWitch749

Banned
Well the Germans could focus on it non stop for a year for an attempt but it would be a bad idea (British army was almost without weapons after Dunkirk by 1941 they had recovered somewhat)... a well thought out and executed Mediterranian strategy would be far less risky and still have a decent chance of brining Britain to the table described by various members including my own Manstein in Africa
 

Astrodragon

1941 could be an even bigger disaster for Germany.
Over the winter, they have to build landing craft. They havent got time to build anything much bigger. (lets be generous and say they make them very simple, so they can start straight away.)

So in, say, may, they have lots of landing craft. They dont have so much army stuff for Barbarossa, since the steel and so on was going into ships, but...

They first have to get control of the air. How? The British have been outbuilding them in the air for a year (and by a pretty big margin), plus the US supplies. So they have to beat the RAF, on its home turf, with inferior numbers..er, right, surely no problem.

Then they have to get all those landnig craft across the channel. Well, they will (hopefully) be seaworthy. Sort of. (Note the allies unloaded landing craft a few miles from the beaches, not a 100 or so, but what the hell..:p)
They dont have nay heavy escorts (although they will have mended the ships damaged in Norway). So more targets for the RN.

Now since all this preparation work is not really hideable, the British have had 9 months to improve their defences. Good luck taking a port here, guys. And of course the army is FAR stronger than it was in 1940. Plus better coast defences, mined beaches, coastal guns, all that fun stuff.

So Germany has to allocate a lot more resources, and will end up losing them all. Not to mention the distraction from Russia (if the LW is getting ground down to nothing over Kent, it isnt ready to attack Russia). So Barbarossa has to go back a year, by which point the russian army is far stronger. Ooops.


All in all, any attempt to paddle plump sea mammals over the channel is a losing proposition for Germany. I guess it might make sense AFTER defeating Russia, since then they would have time to build up the naval and air forces needed (as long as Hitler hasnt DOW'd the US, of course!), but in that case they could probably get a peace with Britian without all the effort.
 

Bearcat

Banned
I tend to agree - even IF Hitler could be convinced not to go after the USSR (which IMHO is damned near impossible), this is always going to be beyond the Wehrmacht's ability.

Only way this could work is a POD before the war, with a Kreigsmarine that has more destroyers, torpedo boats and amphibious shipping. They * might* be able to do that, starting in say, 1937-38, without completely spurring the Brits to match them, so long as this acceleration does not include capital ships and carriers. However, it requires a major maritime influence on Hitler's thinking. Maybe Heydrich rises further and faster, and convinced Hitler that even though he despises Raeder, his strategy makes sense?
 

Astrodragon

Bearcat said:
I tend to agree - even IF Hitler could be convinced not to go after the USSR (which IMHO is damned near impossible), this is always going to be beyond the Wehrmacht's ability.

Only way this could work is a POD before the war, with a Kreigsmarine that has more destroyers, torpedo boats and amphibious shipping. They * might* be able to do that, starting in say, 1937-38, without completely spurring the Brits to match them, so long as this acceleration does not include capital ships and carriers. However, it requires a major maritime influence on Hitler's thinking. Maybe Heydrich rises further and faster, and convinced Hitler that even though he despises Raeder, his strategy makes sense?
Click to expand...

I dont think there is ever going to be a chance of Britain not responding. Their best chance is to hope the British adopt the wrong counter to a cross-channel attack, and thats difficult to see..maybe the Air Marshalls claim more bombers can sink then en route?
Otherwise I'd just expect the RN to redevelop its light coastal forces earlier and faster.
 

Bearcat

Banned
Astrodragon said:
I dont think there is ever going to be a chance of Britain not responding. Their best chance is to hope the British adopt the wrong counter to a cross-channel attack, and thats difficult to see..maybe the Air Marshalls claim more bombers can sink then en route?
Otherwise I'd just expect the RN to redevelop its light coastal forces earlier and faster.
Click to expand...

Well, before France falls, light and coastal and amphibious German forces look a lot less threatening. Remember the Brits really didn't want to rearm at first, but felt they had no choice. If you have ASB-convenient timing, you just might have a capability the Brits haven't matched yet.

No that it matters - Hitler will still screw it up, even on the one in a million chance the Kreigsmarine and Wehrmacht can pull this off.
 

stevep

Guys

The problem is that while Germany might be stronger if properly organised and going in advance for a 41 attack Britain will be a hell of a lot stronger. The RAF will be much more powerful and also the navy while the army will be massively more developed than in 1940. Also the Germans will have to contribute considerable resources to developing the landing craft and other equipment needed to attempt a serious invasion. This will be on top of what they will need to defeat a more powerful RAF, maintain a deterrent against Russia and support the Italians in the south.

Given how difficult an amphibious invasion is I think the Germans might be able to make a bid and get forces ashore but their unlikely to win. It could be a version of Michele's better performing Luftwaffe write large with huge German losses. The sheer difficulty of supplying the invasion force once ashore is likely to bled their navy and airforce white, along with a lot of the logistical facilities.

Also even a failed invasion is going to ramp up American concerns about the situation in Europe. It might also encourage Stalin to consider a bid against Germany in 42 depending on how much the Germans seem to have been weakened.

The thing that really makes this ASB however is that it requires Adolf to forget his desire to head east. ;)

Steve
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
There can't be ANY sort of cross-Channel invasion (by either side) until the invader owns the air. End of line.

The scope of any effort requires a massive amount of shipping. One of the real weaknesses of most Sealion scenarios is that they ignore one really important fact; you need LOTS of transport. You can NOT, ever, ever, ever, dispatch your landing craft (barges, floating rafts, whatever) from one side of the Channel and sally forth. You can do that with a limited number of specialty amphibious vessels (LST, maybe LCT or their equivalent) but the vast majority of you landing will need to be made by small craft. ANY of the larger units that you send across the Channel have to be written off in your planning, same for half of the small craft used in the assault waves (failure to plan for this was one of the reasons for the huge butcher's bill at Tarawa). You will NOT be able to reuse them time after time, attrition will be murderous. Germany could not produce the requisite amount of medium transport ships (5,000 ton & up) needed to move the troops to the debarkation site(s), much less the number of small craft, while still producing armored vehicles, trucks, pipes, belt buckles, etc. The need for steel to produce the landing craft for Normandy actually made the UNITED STATES industrial machine to stutter (see: steel crisis). If the U.S. couldn't manage it without some resource allocation that included delaying or canceling several capital ships, what chance does the Reich have?

Every minute the Germany are building, the British (and Americans) are building. BOTH the U.S. and UK had greater industrial output than the Reich. The UK is producing the next generation of its aircraft and armor (without having to fight with the small craft builders for steel) while American production is pouring into the UK. It is a simple case of the hurrier the Reich goes the behinder it gets.
 

eternalkerri

I just don't forsee the Nazi's having the ability to have any sort of success with it.

1.) The Nazi's didn't control the English Channel. The Channel was so heavily mined that it would have been impossible to maneuver in without taking horrible losses from the RAF and the RN.

2.) Landing beaches were limited baring an overwhelming naval victory or containment. Any landing craft constructed would probably have been close to the design of the famous Higgins Boats of Overlord. These would not have been able to withstand a concentrated asault over a great distance or held up the rough seas of the Channel or the North Sea. This leaves really only the Pas-de-Calaix region. Add to the fact that the RN still maintained surface superiority in both firepower and numbers and could have slaughtered the landing craft as they came in makes it highly likely that they could have picked off the landing craft at will.

3.) The Killing Fields of England. Quite a few farmers today in southeast England still use the bunkers built on their land as storage sheds. This was no Maginot line to go around. It the GHQ, which was a ring of fortifications that circled the city of London (the obvious target of Seelowe) one behind another. This would have been a grind like the Hurtgen forrest that would have made mincemeat out of any German troops. Add to the fact that just about every man that could hold a rifle would have and cheap pipebombs and Molitov cocktails are surprisingly effective, half the invading forces would be needed to secure just about every village in the occupied zone to prevent partisan activities...that or they would have to execute everyone. Throw in the fact that the British would have used chemical warfare...


Simply put, logistically strategically and physically Sealion is doomed to failure at the beginning. There simply is just no way.
 
Last edited:

Jukra

eternalkerri said:
2.) Landing beaches were limited baring an overwhelming naval victory or containment. Any landing craft constructed would probably have been close to the design of the famous Higgins Boats of Overlord.
Click to expand...

Umm, why did Germany construct LCT-equivalents etc. then? (MFP's)

eternalkerri said:
3.) The Killing Fields of England. Quite a few farmers today in southeast England still use the bunkers built on their land as storage sheds. This was no Maginot line to go around. It the GHQ, which was a ring of fortifications that circled the city of London (the obvious target of Seelowe) one behind another. This would have been a grind like the Hurtgen forrest that would have made mincemeat out of any German troops.
Click to expand...

German Army did break through several lines of much more powerful fortifiacations in 1940-1942, it's hard to see how rather amateurish GHQ line would have been more powerful deterrent than others.

eternalkerri said:
Add to the fact that just about every man that could hold a rifle would have and cheap pipebombs and Molitov cocktails are surprisingly effective, half the invading forces would be needed to secure just about every village in the occupied zone to prevent partisan activities...that or they would have to execute everyone
Click to expand...

And why would British ill-trained or irregular troops would have been any more effective than Finnish emergency outfits on the last days of Winter War or German suicide squads of the Battle of Berlin? Irregular troops or emergency outfits, like Home Guard, would have been mincemeat to regular well-trained trops.

There's also this curious British thing that is common in every country which was not truly invaded in Second World War, that "every man, woman and child" would have resisted the occupation from the outset. If so, how did partisans of Guernsey operate? For comparison, similar myths do exist in Finland as very few civilian communities were captured by Red Army due to working evacuation.
 

Redbeard

Banned
CalBear said:
There can't be ANY sort of cross-Channel invasion (by either side) until the invader owns the air. End of line..
Click to expand...

Exactly, and the British airdefence is at least double strength in 1941 compared to 1940. A German decision to go to total war production mode taken after Fall of France (when the British refused peace) is not likely to have enough effect by 1941. An earlier PoD would require substantial changes in the whole Nazi regime - and Hitler's mindset as well - or risk Germany loosing the Battle of France.

But even if we somehow have the Germans win air superiority over the Channel and southern England in 1941, the British Army will be tremendously much more strong than in 1940. Not only in materiel (UK in 1941 produced more of practically anything than Germany, Italy and Japan combined!), but more importantly they at least now were able to operate reasonably well at Divisional and Armycorps level. That makes it impossible for the Germans to rely on landing a handful or two of Divisions on the English coast and defeat the British army battalion by battalion. That MIGHT have been an option in 1940, but not in 1941.

Anyway they still need to get past the RN, who also was stronger and better in 1941 than in 1940. The German trying to build a navy capable of challenging the RN by 1941 will most likely mean Hitler being deposed in 1938.

CalBear said:
The scope of any effort requires a massive amount of shipping. One of the real weaknesses of most Sealion scenarios is that they ignore one really important fact; you need LOTS of transport. You can NOT, ever, ever, ever, dispatch your landing craft (barges, floating rafts, whatever) from one side of the Channel and sally forth. You can do that with a limited number of specialty amphibious vessels (LST, maybe LCT or their equivalent) but the vast majority of you landing will need to be made by small craft. ANY of the larger units that you send across the Channel have to be written off in your planning, same for half of the small craft used in the assault waves (failure to plan for this was one of the reasons for the huge butcher's bill at Tarawa). You will NOT be able to reuse them time after time, attrition will be murderous. Germany could not produce the requisite amount of medium transport ships (5,000 ton & up) needed to move the troops to the debarkation site(s), much less the number of small craft, while still producing armored vehicles, trucks, pipes, belt buckles, etc. The need for steel to produce the landing craft for Normandy actually made the UNITED STATES industrial machine to stutter (see: steel crisis). If the U.S. couldn't manage it without some resource allocation that included delaying or canceling several capital ships, what chance does the Reich have?

Every minute the Germany are building, the British (and Americans) are building. BOTH the U.S. and UK had greater industrial output than the Reich. The UK is producing the next generation of its aircraft and armor (without having to fight with the small craft builders for steel) while American production is pouring into the UK. It is a simple case of the hurrier the Reich goes the behinder it gets.
Click to expand...


I will still claim that logistics will not be the main problem. In occupied Denmark alone they could gain access to enough tonnage of well suited vessels to supply across the channel. BTW I don't agree that 5.000 tons vessels are needed. I would recommend much smaller coastal freighters and railway ferries. The last supplemented with mobile ramps, wavebreakers etc. to enable quick disembarkation of loaded lorries.

Someone once commented that the German army threated a Channel crossing like it was a river-crossing. Seen from allied school of thought that certainly wasn't meant as a compliment, but nevertheless IMHO how a German army should be handled - preferring to travel with as little luggage as possible (a mot. Division needing ca. 200-300 tons pr. day in combat).

But even if a sufficient set-up could be provided to land an army and supply it successfully for the initial battles, I just don't see how the Germans can keep control of the Channel zone for long enough to defeat a 1941 British Army. But that is not a logistic problem.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 

Neala

Jukra said:
German Army did break through several lines of much more powerful fortifiacations in 1940-1942, it's hard to see how rather amateurish GHQ line would have been more powerful deterrent than others.
Click to expand...

There is a general mistake poeple often make with Britain's intended strategy should the Germans invade in WW2. Britain's fortified lines, including the GHQ lines and the beach fortifications were never truly intended to stop a German advance, despite them being called 'Stop Lines'. They were intended yo slow down a German advance and make them use up valuable fuel and ammunition fighting their way through the fortifications. Whilst this was going on the Grand Fleet would mince the German logistic lines across the Channel. Once this had happened the defeat of the invasion would be inevitable. Logistics (which the WAllies were generally quite good at and the Germans weren't) trumps Strategy (again, the Allies were generally better at this than the Axis) trumps Tactics (OK, the Axis were far better at this. Did them a lot of good didn't it)

I've said it before and I'll say it again. a lot of the German Generals were massively overrated, especially Rommel whilst a lot of the British Generals were massively underrated, especially Montgomery. Personally I think Montgomery was a far better General than Rommel because he understood logistics whereas Rommel didn't, or if he did he hid it well
 

MUC

The question is not if a Sealion 1941 would be successfull, but if it would be plausible.

I think that it is plausible and that the Germans would have been in a much better shape to attempt Sealion in an 1941 ATL without Barbarossa on their minds.

However the British would be alot more prepared in 1941 to stop the Germans.


So, although a Sealion 1941 is plausible it would still not be successfull.

The only way I see the Germans having better chances in having a successfull, is by making the British bleed a lot more on other fronts. This means that a lot of British aircraft, good pilots, ships and tanks would have to be destroyed in "side fronts" like the Balkans or North Africa during 1940-1941.

Other than that, the Germans would have to vastly improve their ship-killing techniques. One good POD would be the earlier introduction into service of radio or wire guided bombs/missiles (like the Fritz X), which would be used for the first time during the invasion process against the Royal Navy, so that the British don't have enough time to produce effective countermeasures.
Not losing the Bismark would have also helped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top