What if the Germans attempted Sealion...
- Thread starter Guildencrantz
- Start date
If it's a big enough disaster the army could depose Hitler in the manner attempted in 1944 in 1941 or 42, particularly if he still orders the invasion of Russia in Spring 1941.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
i think you guys are drastically underestimating what a disaster this would be for the Germans. First of all, they would have had to divert significant resources, military and industrial, to the effort. This would cost them all their remaining naval power, incalculable air forces, hundreds of thousands of troops, and leave them dangerously exposed everywhere. This could end the war very, very early.
Most of the shipping that would be lost were commondered shipping so the loss to the navy would be marginal. The bulk of the naval power was 'yet to be built' Uboats and other coastal craft like Mboots/Sboots/RBoots/KFK etc .
So loss of the surface fleet would have marginal impact since it had only marginal impact anyway. Loss of prestige for Hitler would weaken him and force him to reconsider his options in the east, since acting in 1941 was motivated to indirectly isolate the UK. The loss of Naval & air armaments plus man power would be offset by similar losses on UK side. It might have the effect of creating a 'stalingrad' level seachange in Hitlers thinking... and put him at risk of being over thrown.
The loss to the Kriegsmarine would be marginal, but the loss to the German economy wouldn't. Germany would be hard-pressed to replace those barges in wartime. We're talking a 30-40% loss in traffic along the Rhine and other inland rivers. That, coupled with a loss of material, is going to set Germany's wartime economy back enormously. On equipment and industrial loss alone, we'd likely see Barbarossa delayed until 1942, unless Hitler does his typical "press ahead at all costs" maneuver, which isn't out of the question.
As butterflies, you might see a potential expanding of Free French forces. The problem with this (if we imagine a mid/late-July Sealion attempt) is that the British shelling of the French fleet at Oran is less than a month gone. Any increase in French interest is going to be more than set off by the Oran Incident. You could see the French African colonies joining de Gaulle sooner (in OTL, they joined in autumn) but beyond that, there's not many allies to inspire towards victory.
And indeed, if the failed invasion is bloody enough, it may have a counter-effect from what we all think likely. If a Britain, having barely survived a German invasion (even if they just think that they barely survived), sits alone facing the rest of the German army, with no allies in Europe, Britons could ask themselves if it's all worth it. Given the "fight on" spirit we saw in OTL, I don't think it's likely, but I'd like to throw that out there as an option.
As to the course of history, I honestly don't think we'll see massive changes down the road. Japan will still bomb Pearl Harbor, bringing the United States into the war on the side of the Allies. Germany will still invade the Soviet Union (in 1942, if not 1941), and the Allies will still win by grinding the Axis down with superior logistics and nuclear weapons.
In the short run, I could see Hitler not wanting to send the Afrika Korps to help Italy. This would be somewhat countered by the loss of British soldiers who in OTL were deployed in Africa in the Battle for Britain. But there will still likely be a coup d'etat against Yugoslavia's pro-Axis Prince Paul, forcing the Germans to intervene just as in OTL. They'll then get drawn into a Balkan-Greco campaign, just as in OTL, but with no Cretan invasion.
Hitler would likely follow the same pattern that he did following the immense loss of paratroopers in OTL's Battle of Crete. In OTL, he never again used large numbers of paratroopers en masse via air drop. After being burned in Sealion, he'd never again commit the Wehrmacht to a location not accessible by land. But because of the Sealion losses, Hitler now has a full year to regroup before Barbarossa. That's a good thing for the Soviets, who will be far more ready for the German invasion, when it comes. Perhaps Stalin will even take the warnings seriously this time, and meet force with force.
By 1943, with Germany bogged down in Belorussia, the Allies are ready to launch operation Sledgehammer, and push forces ashore in France. The drive across France is successful, and after a winter of fighting along the Rhine, the Allies advance into Germany. Soviet and Allied forces meet along the Elbe, and Germany surrenders on June 6, 1944.
Ibn Warraq
Banned
If Hitler suffered such a humiliating defeat would he even attempt an Operation Barbossa.
Ironically enough, this defeat might actually save Nazi Germany since Hitler absent invading Russia I could see the Reich lasting for quite a while.
Ironically enough, this defeat might actually save Nazi Germany since Hitler absent invading Russia I could see the Reich lasting for quite a while.
Possibly , but maybe not. The german barges assigned to Sealion [850] were about 30% of the inland transport system.Reportedly 3000 barges were eventually commondeered for Sealion of which 2175 were forwarded to be converted into landing craft and eventually only 1975 converted....so their was more than enough left over to replace lost barges in the German inland water transport system. That whole line of argument could have been another Navy ploy to stall the invasion.
The Luftwaffe suffers greatly due because RAF pilots shot down but surviving get a new plane, Luftwaffe pilots shot down go to a POW camp.
Far worse is that the German airborne are used. This would require the use of most of Germany's air transport and guess who was assigned to fly such missions? The Luftwaffe's instructors! Awfully hard to rebuild the Luftwaffe when you must first replace a large portion of the instructors.
Losses to the Wehrmacht would not be very important. Even if the entire first wave was destroyed or captured that would amount to fewer Germans than were lost at Stalingrad. More likely would be an early failure consuming the first day's effort and part of the second, with a figure of 100-150 thousand lost a reasonable base.
Losses to the Kriegsmarine would be serious but certainly recovered from within a year's time, less for the U-boats. The major combatants were mostly undergoing repair following Norway including both battlecruisers and one of the pocket battleships so they survive.
Since there is now no chance of the Germans taking the UK by frontal assault this frees up substantial British forces for North Africa by the end of 1940. The question would be what Germany does in response.
Far worse is that the German airborne are used. This would require the use of most of Germany's air transport and guess who was assigned to fly such missions? The Luftwaffe's instructors! Awfully hard to rebuild the Luftwaffe when you must first replace a large portion of the instructors.
Losses to the Wehrmacht would not be very important. Even if the entire first wave was destroyed or captured that would amount to fewer Germans than were lost at Stalingrad. More likely would be an early failure consuming the first day's effort and part of the second, with a figure of 100-150 thousand lost a reasonable base.
Losses to the Kriegsmarine would be serious but certainly recovered from within a year's time, less for the U-boats. The major combatants were mostly undergoing repair following Norway including both battlecruisers and one of the pocket battleships so they survive.
Since there is now no chance of the Germans taking the UK by frontal assault this frees up substantial British forces for North Africa by the end of 1940. The question would be what Germany does in response.
Hey Addul and others:C.S. Forester had an article in the Saturday Evening Post in the late 1950s called "If Hitler had invaded England".Basically the writer gives a detailed account of the invasion which fails badly due in part of the failure of the Luftwaffe.Do not know if the article has been reprinted.I believe the War did end sooner than OTL but how soon I don't know.Any one read this article?
It's included in his collection Gold From Crete. Also, it wasn't an "article",it was a story.
The Navy wiped out the Kriegsmarine and destroyed the supply flotillas. The Luftwaffe was overstretched. Forester points out that supply was very important.
There was a study done by the MOD some years ago about sea lion, wikipedia mentions it a bit I think. They concluded Germany could make a beach head and advance a bit inland before being totally cut off.
Not too long ago some idiot tried to argue sealion was possible with me by quoting that being mentioned on wikipedia...completely forgetting it then goes onto say it was beaten.
Not too long ago some idiot tried to argue sealion was possible with me by quoting that being mentioned on wikipedia...completely forgetting it then goes onto say it was beaten.
Well, Hitler likely wouldn't be doing anything crazy like attacking the Soviets anytime soon.
However, you can bet that the Soviets would solve that little problem within a couple years, and invade Germany.
However, you can bet that the Soviets would solve that little problem within a couple years, and invade Germany.
What would the Germans really lose in a defeated Sealion?
The majority of the German naval surface forces would be destroyed, but some would escape - I would guess less than half. But the German surface navy is of little importance, except in the Baltic, There would be enough units to support a war in Russia. There would be an even greater shift to the U-boats. In the long run, this could hurt British commerce even more than in OTL.
Losses to the Luftwaffe would be massive, but would they be greater than the Germans suffered in the continuimg bombing of Britian (esp. London) thru the rest of 1940 and early 1941? I assume with the defeat of Sealion in 1940, the bombing campaign would be reduced due to these losses.
The airborne forces would be lost, except for the last few reinforcement battalions, which would not be sent due to the deteriorating situation in Britiam. The main use of the airborne troops is Crete. Repacements could be trained (its only a couple of divisions), but they likely would not be ready by mid-1941. Maybe the Italians join in on Crete - or most likely it doesn't occur at all. The British could use Crete to attack Rumania oilfields, but it will be a few years before they have enough bombers to do any real damage. And the Luftwaffe can bomb the British bases from Greece.
The Heer will lose several divisions in the fight before it is decided to abandon the fight. This will amount to 2-3% of the army's strength. This will not affect any plans for Russia. Tank losses will be minimal also, as the early waves were mostly infantry. Few of the tanks of 1940 were able to stand up to the Soviet newer machines, so their loss is not important. Maybe this will cause an increase in production to replace these losses with better tanks.
Losses in barges and merchant shipping will be heavy. As the German overseas trade was somewhat limited during the war, the merchant ship losses will be sustainable. The losses in barges will cause a problem in river traffic. Again, will it be worse than that caused in OTL by those sunk in bomber raids AND those kept away from commerce waiting for a non-occuring invasion? Barges can, and were built in significant numbers during the war. Large numbers, at least half, would have been recovered after the invasion and made available for commerce again.
A failed Sealion would not affect Hitler's plans for Stalin in 1941.
The majority of the German naval surface forces would be destroyed, but some would escape - I would guess less than half. But the German surface navy is of little importance, except in the Baltic, There would be enough units to support a war in Russia. There would be an even greater shift to the U-boats. In the long run, this could hurt British commerce even more than in OTL.
Losses to the Luftwaffe would be massive, but would they be greater than the Germans suffered in the continuimg bombing of Britian (esp. London) thru the rest of 1940 and early 1941? I assume with the defeat of Sealion in 1940, the bombing campaign would be reduced due to these losses.
The airborne forces would be lost, except for the last few reinforcement battalions, which would not be sent due to the deteriorating situation in Britiam. The main use of the airborne troops is Crete. Repacements could be trained (its only a couple of divisions), but they likely would not be ready by mid-1941. Maybe the Italians join in on Crete - or most likely it doesn't occur at all. The British could use Crete to attack Rumania oilfields, but it will be a few years before they have enough bombers to do any real damage. And the Luftwaffe can bomb the British bases from Greece.
The Heer will lose several divisions in the fight before it is decided to abandon the fight. This will amount to 2-3% of the army's strength. This will not affect any plans for Russia. Tank losses will be minimal also, as the early waves were mostly infantry. Few of the tanks of 1940 were able to stand up to the Soviet newer machines, so their loss is not important. Maybe this will cause an increase in production to replace these losses with better tanks.
Losses in barges and merchant shipping will be heavy. As the German overseas trade was somewhat limited during the war, the merchant ship losses will be sustainable. The losses in barges will cause a problem in river traffic. Again, will it be worse than that caused in OTL by those sunk in bomber raids AND those kept away from commerce waiting for a non-occuring invasion? Barges can, and were built in significant numbers during the war. Large numbers, at least half, would have been recovered after the invasion and made available for commerce again.
A failed Sealion would not affect Hitler's plans for Stalin in 1941.
Again I would remind you guys that the german barges diverted to Sealion ended up being superfelous to the mission , so they could be returned to the 'economy' without unduly effecting either the invasion or the economy. So they would not have had additional long term impact had they been lost.
A more interesting question arises since naval exchanges of the period between the allies and the KM resulted in Allies loseing more vessels than the Germans. If the German surface fleet is wiped out then RN is going to lose similar amounts. The German naval fleet being assembled for Sealion counted 320 vessels. How would the loss of a similar number of RN vessels effect long term british naval policy.
A more interesting question arises since naval exchanges of the period between the allies and the KM resulted in Allies loseing more vessels than the Germans. If the German surface fleet is wiped out then RN is going to lose similar amounts. The German naval fleet being assembled for Sealion counted 320 vessels. How would the loss of a similar number of RN vessels effect long term british naval policy.
MrP
Banned
Two interesting points. However, to answer them in reverse, I would suspect that a mass engagement over several days both during the day and the night will be less favourable to Kriegsmarine units than a number of smaller actions involving minimal numbers of ships. Mainly because there'll be more "things that go boom" in the area.
As for the first, I would be very interested to see figures for the productivity of industries that relied on the Rhine barges during this period. It seems a bit odd that there would be sufficient slack in the system to permit 30% of it to go without any trouble. There is, of course, the possibility that some aspects of the Rhine barge trade were seasonal and thus would appear not to suffer losses of productivity at certain times of year. But I would like to know, either way.