Operation Sealion FAILS!

ooooh the sacred words were said

Now OS would NEVER have worked (Rhine barges? come on!) but lets say the Germany attempts to launch Opperation Sealion, and suffers a dramatic failure, the Rhinebarges sink, loosing many troops, etc.

What are the effects of a failed Sealion be?

The Allies will pounce, but how they pounce depends on how poorly Sealion fails.
If it's a spectacular failure (tons of dead Germans, few dead Brits), then the Allies would invade Normandy almost immediately. (net result -- beating the Soviets to Berlin?)
If it's a bloody mess, then Operation Torch and Operation Whatever-We-Called-The-Greek-One speed up. (net result -- Yugoslavia and Albania become capitalist NATO members?)

Tom Veil said:

The Allies will pounce, but how they pounce depends on how poorly Sealion fails.
If it's a spectacular failure (tons of dead Germans, few dead Brits), then the Allies would invade Normandy almost immediately. (net result -- beating the Soviets to Berlin?)
If it's a bloody mess, then Operation Torch and Operation Whatever-We-Called-The-Greek-One speed up. (net result -- Yugoslavia and Albania become capitalist NATO members?)

Click to expand...

Almost makes you wish they had tried.

When exactly would the operation take place? If it's still in late 1940, it might make efforts to fully consolidate the occupied territories in France quite a bit more difficult. Besides, losing all of those Rhine barges is bound to screw up German industry quite a bit, postponing further military expansion while they try to make up the shortfall.

Was it really possible for Britain to launch offensives into Normandy and France in 1940? Even with so many dead Germans, was the invasion capability and troop numbers actually there?

I think the most likely effect this could have for Britain would be to raise morale dramatically, even more so than the Battle of Britain did IRL. In Germany, depending on casualty numbers, this could be enough for Hitler to call off barbarossa all together (at least for 41/42) IMO which probably means greater involvement in North Africa. So ultimately Britain may loose its dominance in the Middle East. Depending on what Stalin does or the Japan-US situation, Britain is unlikely to fair well alone.

It also might depend on just how much damage the Germans do to British industry during the attack, along with whatever damage is done to the port facilities during the initial invasion and the British withdrawal. How much of Britain's shipping was coming in through the Channel and Thames River ports? (Including London)

This is partially dependent on how the invasion failed. If the leading waves of 4 divisions are destroyed at sea and the rest get chewed up on landing, it is a huge embarassment losing say 75,000 men and 200 tanks but not much else in the way of equipment (the permananent loss of several hundred river barges will have a bad impact long term on the German economy) If WC launches an immediate counterinvasion it's Dieppe on Steroids.

Alan Clark in Barbarossa makes a big deal of how the Army was initially a threat to Hitler but his triumphs in France and the early stages of Barbarossa solidified his position. A balls up Sea Lion erases much of Hitler's prestige from the Fall of France. It could well leave him vulnerable to a coup if he still tries to invade Russia.

Suppose in the Blitz, the Germans start bombing civilian targets instead of finishing off the RAF on the ground?

Considering the British loss of equipment in Dunquerque the victory and morale boost would be BIG. But hopefully not big enough to do a reverse Sea Lion! The German army would be shaken but not defeated. The morale boost would have effects in occupied and perhaps Vichy France and Yugoslavias might reconsider their position and not consider going along Germany. No coup 1941. The important effect on Britain would be deployment of Commonwealth troops, that could now be sent to the Mid East instead of backing up home defence. So a bigger reserve in Egypt to go both into Libya AND into Greece.

It could do more damage than benefit to the british. The german losses would not be critical, compared to the ones they suffered in the russian battles. The british would loose a lot of men, planes and ships. How many ships? I don't know, but the RN would send them all under heavy air attack to sink the barges. If Hitler rages and decides to sink GB no matter the cost before attacking the USSR, things go bad. He can take the Med and the Middle east and its oil in half a year. The british have less ships to counter the U-Boat menace...
Another point. Churchill was ready to use gas on the beaches. It would end the gas taboo. So the germans would use their own gas, nerve gas that was far more deadly, and the outcome of several battles could be different, specially in the east front when it comes to be.

EvolvedSaurian said:

Almost makes you wish they had tried.

Click to expand...

On the other hand, this page concludes that a failed sealion might have won Germany the war in the east.

Oddity said:

On the other hand, this page concludes that a failed sealion might have won Germany the war in the east.

Click to expand...

Interesting thread, problems:

1. The German economy was already mobilized for war, France is already being plundered and exploited fairly thoroughly

2. The North African supply lines could only take 4 divisions anyway (Von Thoma in his post war interrogation)

Wozza said:

Interesting thread, problems:

1. The German economy was already mobilized for war, France is already being plundered and exploited fairly thoroughly

2. The North African supply lines could only take 4 divisions anyway (Von Thoma in his post war interrogation)

Click to expand...

Regarding no 1: not quite, production was actually cut back after the fall of France and total war not declared until after the invasion of Soviet Union. Total war economy would mobilize women for munitions factory jobs for freeing men for frontline duty.

Am I the only one who remembers this?

http://www.geocities.com/drammos/sealion1.html

Even Hitler wasn't mad enough to realize Sealion IOTL. Hm, I wonder whether he might try it after Stalingrad. (That's completely crazy of course, but at that time he might be crazy enough to do it.)

Don't think a invasion of France would work at the time, Britain had yet to fully pull ourselves together again.- a invasion of Norway or maybe something in the mediteranian could happen though.


I don't think it would come to using gas really. Most of the German ships would have a hard time reaching Britain out of a war never mind with the royal navy and RAF facing them down.
Most of their ships were so bad we could just send in a few fast cruisers amongst them to swamp them (after removing the escorts of course)

Leej said:

Don't think a invasion of France would work at the time, Britain had yet to fully pull ourselves together again.- a invasion of Norway or maybe something in the mediteranian could happen though.


I don't think it would come to using gas really. Most of the German ships would have a hard time reaching Britain out of a war never mind with the royal navy and RAF facing them down.
Most of their ships were so bad we could just send in a few fast cruisers amongst them to swamp them (after removing the escorts of course)

Click to expand...

Leej

I agree that there was no way the British army was anything like in a condition to try invading France. However there was an interesting option with Norway. A while back I remember reading that the Swedish government had been deeply concerned by the German occupation of Denmark and Norway, which apart from anything else largely isolated them. It said that some secret negotiations had gone on about joint action with Britain for a liberation of Norway but it fell through because Britain lacked the landing craft for its part in the suggested operation. While that would still have been a problem I wonder if possibly something might have been arranged, possibly in 41. [Would be excellent for 23/6/41!] This would also remove the other main potential threat, of Stalin 'helping out' his ally by a new attack on Finland to get to Sweden.

There is the danger as mentioned that a quick but bloody defeat for the Germans might have persuaded Hitler to concentrate on Britain, delaying Barbarrosa for a year. This would be logical but Hitler was desperately concerned about #missing the boat' as regards Russia and given Soviet re-equipping might have been the case so not sure whether he would. Also, unless he goes for a long war with heavy air and naval expenditures this is unlikely to work as logistics limits his abilities in the Med. [Unless an attack through Turkey.

Possibly more likely that the shock of the check and need to replace military losses prompts an earlier fuller mobilisation. This could be a more serious problem. Once the Germans finally got their act together economically and industrially their production increased dramatically.

The most dangerous prospect might be that Hitler decides he can't afford too much conflict with naval powers as he doesn't have the resources and can't spare them, or the time. This will not affect matters with Britain as unless things change dramatically they won't make peace. However if it means Hitler does more to avoid war with the US and doesn't do a Dow after Pearl Harbour things could get very nasty.

Steve