Could Sealion have worked If?
- Thread starter Churchill
- Start date
Sachyriel
Banned
I think the soldiers who escaped gave the British a large moral boost, and without it, they wouldn't have done so well in their war efforts. There'd be less men, yes, and they'd be less prepared, but the British People would fight German invaders off, with heavy casualties on both sides, ending the German advance West for a bit, while both sides regroup.
I also think that if Dieppe had been a glider-assisted invasion, it could have been a more successful raid.
Anaxagoras
Banned
No, Sealion would still not have worked. But it is conceivable that, the loss of the entire BEF could bring down Churchill's government and bring in a prime minister ready to sue for peace.
Churchill
Banned
In wargames conducted at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in 1974, which assumed the Luftwaffe had not yet won air supremacy, the Germans were able to establish a beachhead in England by using a minefield screen in the English Channel to protect the initial assault. However, the German ground forces were delayed at the "Stop Lines" (e.g., the GHQ Line), a layered series of defensive positions that had been built, each a combination of British Home Guard troops and physical barriers. At the same time, the regular troops of the British Army were forming up. After only a few days, the Royal Navy was able to reach the Channel from Scapa Flow, cutting off supplies and blocking further reinforcement. Isolated and facing regular troops with armour and artillery, the invasion force was made to surrender.
Dunkirk
I'm inclined to agree Sealion as planned would not have succeeded but had the BEF been lost at or near Dunkirk, it would have been a serious blow.
In OTL, vast amounts of materiel and armour were lost making what was left in southern England a conglomeration of mostly semi-mobile infantry divisions apart from some elements of two armoured divisions. There was also a serious shortage of anti-tank weaponry.
That said, it's the political and psychological impact of a loss of thousands of troops at Dunkirk that is significant. Would Churchill be ousted and a new Cabinet sue for peace ?
I'm inclined to agree Sealion as planned would not have succeeded but had the BEF been lost at or near Dunkirk, it would have been a serious blow.
In OTL, vast amounts of materiel and armour were lost making what was left in southern England a conglomeration of mostly semi-mobile infantry divisions apart from some elements of two armoured divisions. There was also a serious shortage of anti-tank weaponry.
That said, it's the political and psychological impact of a loss of thousands of troops at Dunkirk that is significant. Would Churchill be ousted and a new Cabinet sue for peace ?
in RH English corps had lost al its technic in france. And the main problem for nazi-RAF
By June 1940 the army was increasing in size due to the TA, pre-war militia conscripts being recalled in addition to the early classes of wartime conscripts. There was also a Canadian division the UK and IIRC, also some Australian and NZ units, as well as regular units recalled from overseas. Totally lacking heavy weapons and ammunition, but then so was the BEF when it came back.
To have had 200,000+ POWs taken with no Dunkirk, as stated I think the main difficulty would be political, not military. It also means you'd probably be without me here!
To have had 200,000+ POWs taken with no Dunkirk, as stated I think the main difficulty would be political, not military. It also means you'd probably be without me here!
Svartekaptenen
Banned
Granted if the BEF were lost in northern France it would be a serious
blow to Britain but I think that the Royal navy would have sacrificed
itself just to defeat the Germans intercepting the flow of supplies
What would have happened in the aftermath is an open question though.
blow to Britain but I think that the Royal navy would have sacrificed
itself just to defeat the Germans intercepting the flow of supplies
What would have happened in the aftermath is an open question though.
While I doubt Sealion could ever work, I always have issue with the "war games" proving it was doomed to failure. The war games always have the German units surrendering instantly, no major skirmish, no hold outs, just British troops find the Germans and they win.
At the time if Sealion was attempted I am positive it could take weeks, even months before people realized the operation was a failure. I mean say what one wants but Germans had damn fine soldiers. I am always of the opinion that in some manner sealion would work not as a military victory, but a paniced victory. Much like how France reacted to their swift defeat, and the Germans mobility, I could see the UK over reacting in some way to enemy troops on British soil.
At the time if Sealion was attempted I am positive it could take weeks, even months before people realized the operation was a failure. I mean say what one wants but Germans had damn fine soldiers. I am always of the opinion that in some manner sealion would work not as a military victory, but a paniced victory. Much like how France reacted to their swift defeat, and the Germans mobility, I could see the UK over reacting in some way to enemy troops on British soil.
Anaxagoras
Banned
Dude, if you're going to cut and paste from Wikipedia, forum etiquette dictates that you say that is what you're doing.
Churchill
Banned
That’s basically what the some of the British veterans said in the documentary I posted on another thread said.