I've been reading recently about the 1974 wargame at Sandhurst. In the intial invasion on 22 September 1940, the Germans were able to land 80,000 men in England and only lost 25% of their barges. The Home Fleet did not attack the barges for fear of air attack. The Second landing had barge losses of 65% because the luftwaffe didn't get permission from Hitler to switch from bombing London to bombing the Home Fleet. What if The actual Sealion had played out just like the wargame but Hitler gave permission for the luftwaffe to attack the Home Fleet. In this scenario, a signifcantly higher percentage of barges on the second landing attempt would get through which would mean more tank, heavy artillery and men. Would Britain still win?
German losses if Sealion goes ahead
- Thread starter Emperor Palpatine
- Start date
I think yes
The Luftwaffe will try attack Home fleet do Hitler order
but they must past RAF Spitfire and Hurricanes
and also will number on losses for German first wave much higher, because they will not use special build landing craft like allies used on D-Day
but in barges and seize inlandgoing vessels
also landing of Para troopers will have some problem
because in 1940 there method was drop troops and equipment seperated
means they land without arms and had search there container with Weapons, if the locals find that first, the germans are death, like it happen in Crete...
The Luftwaffe will try attack Home fleet do Hitler order
but they must past RAF Spitfire and Hurricanes
and also will number on losses for German first wave much higher, because they will not use special build landing craft like allies used on D-Day
but in barges and seize inlandgoing vessels
also landing of Para troopers will have some problem
because in 1940 there method was drop troops and equipment seperated
means they land without arms and had search there container with Weapons, if the locals find that first, the germans are death, like it happen in Crete...
The idea that the Home Fleet would not try and attack the barges for fear of air attack is silly. Even if without the hindsight that the Germans simply won't be able to stop the metaphorical avalanche of vessels, there is still absolutely no reason for the Home Fleet to not attack because the results for if they don't attack and the Germans succeed are no different then if they do attack and the Germans succeed (ie: the Home Fleet is lost). So for the Home Fleet it's very much a "use 'em or lose 'em, do or die" situation.
Thus, in summary: yes, Britain would still smash the Germans. You can expect total loss of whatever ground elements of the invasion force have managed to land and are in the channel at the time.
Thus, in summary: yes, Britain would still smash the Germans. You can expect total loss of whatever ground elements of the invasion force have managed to land and are in the channel at the time.
There is exactly one good reason not to commit the Home Fleet. That being the forces in closer to the Channel have likely badly disrupted the first wave and also made a fair effort at cutting the supply lines before anything can steam down from Scapa.
There is exactly one good reason not to commit the Home Fleet. That being the forces in closer to the Channel have likely badly disrupted the first wave and also made a fair effort at cutting the supply lines before anything can steam down from Scapa.
Okay, yeah. I'll concede that "don't attack 'cause we've already won" is a pretty good reason.
That was done in order to give the Germans a fighting chance basically.
And LW attacks with? What do they have left by this time that can successfully and reliably attack and mission kill major Home Fleet units?
Why would second wave mean more tanks and especially heavy artillery, unless the Germans managed to capture a port? Even if they do manage to bring a few panzers ashore, those will quickly bog down on the beaches. They will have few replacements and face tanks they are unable to hurt. Plus determined infantry defense on prepared lines.
Any German attempt will likely result in either total loss of assault force should those, not sunk in transit somehow, manage to drift ashore or if they get smart, half or so force lost, the rest sail back.
Any German landed in Britain equals MIA for the Germans.
fred1451
Banned
On the LW vs Home Fleet, the Japanese had some success with welding fins onto some 16 inch AP shells, what if the Germans did the same? While level bombing against a moving ship would not accomplish much, their medium bombers where capable of dive bombing, what would have happened if they welded fins on 15, or 11 inchers and used them? Again I realize that it is not just a matter of welding the fins, hanging the bombs and sending off the planes, but assume they practiced up with the weapons before launching the invasion.
At Pearl, the AP-turned-bombs that hit suffered a 60% dud rate.
Anyway, the problem for Sealion was *not* the Home Fleet, but the destroyer flotillas.
basically, the German Invasion force is *smashed*.
And Lend-Lease , if even proposed, will totally fail on the 'England beat em already..they don't need *our* help' attitude
And Lend-Lease , if even proposed, will totally fail on the 'England beat em already..they don't need *our* help' attitude
First things First, the 1974 war game was intended to examine what would be the probable outcome it the Germans had actualy managed to land an invasion force on the English Coast in the summer of 1940. To make this wargame possible all meaningful intervention by the Royal Navy was hand waved away until after the first wave of landings had succeeded. Even with this scewing of the playingfield in favour of the German invasion the outcome was an unmitigated desaster for the Germans. In OTL this desaster would have been a magnitude greater because the optomistic figure of 25% of the initial landing force being interdicted would in reality been nearer to or possibly even higher than the 65% estimate given for the second wave.
shiftygiant
Gone Fishin'
The Luftwaffe isn't going to stop the Home Fleet; the Home Fleet will do everything in it's power to stop any invasion, up to including ramming their burning hulls into the cross-channel barges, Luftwaffe be damned.
nastle
Banned
good idea but Germans also needed
1-more training in attacking battleships
2-more aircraft at their disposal
3-More naval vessels to exploit their success against enemy capital ships
Summer of 1940 KM is half its original strength ( which was tiny to begin with )
Luftwaffe still recovering from losses in the western campaign
With all due respect to the OP I just don't know WHY people debate this sealion scenario to death, this is even less likely than a Mongolian reconquest of Eurasia in the 20th century.
If germans were foolish enough to put a flotilla ( as that's all they could manage) to sea in summer 1940 even with full support of Luftwaffe it would have been SLAUGHTERED within hours by RN superior forces.
Britain would have pulled all its resources from the empire to make the channel impregnable to any "invasion" no matter how small.
People don't realize in 1940 it was the WHOLE British EMPIRE against Germany which was pretty exhausted after the western campaign.It was not a david vs goliath fight as the british propaganda would make us believe
Assuming the operation is launched September 10, 1940 - Germany has two days with enough cloud cover to make their operations miserable but also keeping the RAF from being fully effective. The Germans probably land paratroops on the Isle of Wight and as far east at Ramsgate, maybe Ipswich. If they land enough English-speaking troops behind the lines to cause confusion then that could amplify the situation but I will not consider that a variable in this post.
The Isle of Wight should fall fairly fast, but it is isolated and will serve only to be a decent airstrip and organizational area for larger aircraft. Most of these will be shot down after the first few days once the skies clear. The actual landings along the beaches aforementioned will probably go somewhat more optimistically than the 1974 Sandhurst exercise would like to think, but a Rochester - Southampton line will remain a paper achievement only. Germany will still lost over 100,000 men if it tries to land much more than that, and it will still feel the pinch later once plans for Barbarossa are being made. One side effect of note is that if the British feel the need to use poison gas at some point should German troops do unexpectedly well then it could have repercussions later in the war.
The Isle of Wight should fall fairly fast, but it is isolated and will serve only to be a decent airstrip and organizational area for larger aircraft. Most of these will be shot down after the first few days once the skies clear. The actual landings along the beaches aforementioned will probably go somewhat more optimistically than the 1974 Sandhurst exercise would like to think, but a Rochester - Southampton line will remain a paper achievement only. Germany will still lost over 100,000 men if it tries to land much more than that, and it will still feel the pinch later once plans for Barbarossa are being made. One side effect of note is that if the British feel the need to use poison gas at some point should German troops do unexpectedly well then it could have repercussions later in the war.
Saphroneth
Banned
Doesn't that mean something north of 20 DDs within 4 hours sailing time? (On the 16th there were at least two CL and well over two dozen DD within 4 hours sailing time of the Straits of Dover.)
IIRC while the Germans did land on British soil, they weren't able to support them afterwards logistically.
Hm, this is one of those topics that gets some folk say "impossibru!!!" no matter what. Of course, real history happened the way we know (so should be grateful for that). However, it doesn't take much for things to have been different, and no, it doesn't need any volcanoes. Have the german leadership be a little more farsighted in 1939-early 1940 and actually seriously plan for the possiblity that the UK won't accept an armistice. Have them fit drop tanks to the Bf-109E and 110 earlier, and give a bit more attention to actually combating Royal Navy in such a case (an earlier Fliegerkorps X if you like.)
To have them proceed with the invasion means they have achieved air superiority over the landing zones, no doubt the losses during the landing would have been heavy, but once on shore the german tanks and infantry would be unstopable imo, i don't think anyone could stop them in 1940 without a large numerical superiority (think USSR). The best outcome would be a sort of France situation for UK, i.e. one part under german control and the rest "independent".
A POD closer to the invasion date would be if Hitler doesn't order the switch to bombing London and LW keeps up the pressume on Fighter Command. As i understand it, they were close to breaking point. The switch to just bombing London was a godsend. The above apply in this case as well, although the chances of success are reduced. But there is still a far from insignificant chance the invasion might still succeed.
As i'm very curious about the real situation in September 1940 in the UK, are there any details about where the RN ship were deployed, how many and how far from the invasion area, how many tanks they had, guns, troops, that kind of details?
Apart from Fighter Command, afaik Bomber Command didn't had more than 500 aircraft operational at that time, no doubt they will all be bombing the beaches, but have a look at the gigantic number of aircraft and sorties needed to reduce the combat ability of the german troops in places like France 1944. The situation is different in 1940, german troops would be exposed, but compared to 1942 let alone 1944, i think Bomber Command's effect would me much less than it is assumed. Of course they would also throw at the beaches every other available older or newer aircraft that can be armed and machine-gun the germans, but they will likely be slaughtered by flak.
Speaking of gas attacks, say the british actually do that during a hypothetical invasion, do the germans have stockpiles of gas of their own to retaliate?
Finally yeah, regarding losses, in a succesful invasion 3 times the losses suffered during the french campaign sounds about right imo, which actually would be just a pinprick compared to the losses suffered in the OTL Barbarossa campaign.
To have them proceed with the invasion means they have achieved air superiority over the landing zones, no doubt the losses during the landing would have been heavy, but once on shore the german tanks and infantry would be unstopable imo, i don't think anyone could stop them in 1940 without a large numerical superiority (think USSR). The best outcome would be a sort of France situation for UK, i.e. one part under german control and the rest "independent".
A POD closer to the invasion date would be if Hitler doesn't order the switch to bombing London and LW keeps up the pressume on Fighter Command. As i understand it, they were close to breaking point. The switch to just bombing London was a godsend. The above apply in this case as well, although the chances of success are reduced. But there is still a far from insignificant chance the invasion might still succeed.
As i'm very curious about the real situation in September 1940 in the UK, are there any details about where the RN ship were deployed, how many and how far from the invasion area, how many tanks they had, guns, troops, that kind of details?
Apart from Fighter Command, afaik Bomber Command didn't had more than 500 aircraft operational at that time, no doubt they will all be bombing the beaches, but have a look at the gigantic number of aircraft and sorties needed to reduce the combat ability of the german troops in places like France 1944. The situation is different in 1940, german troops would be exposed, but compared to 1942 let alone 1944, i think Bomber Command's effect would me much less than it is assumed. Of course they would also throw at the beaches every other available older or newer aircraft that can be armed and machine-gun the germans, but they will likely be slaughtered by flak.
Speaking of gas attacks, say the british actually do that during a hypothetical invasion, do the germans have stockpiles of gas of their own to retaliate?
Finally yeah, regarding losses, in a succesful invasion 3 times the losses suffered during the french campaign sounds about right imo, which actually would be just a pinprick compared to the losses suffered in the OTL Barbarossa campaign.
RodentRevolution
Banned
Indeed the Kriegsmarine, whose job it was, reckoned there would be ten days between landing the first echelon of the first wave..nine division elements consisting of the divisions infantry supported by some additional rocket launchers and 49 tanks per division slice...and the second echelon consisting of each first wave division's artillery and service support assets.
Basically if the Royal Navy did not get them with its mines, destroyers, MGBs, MTBs and submarines the British Army would have ten days to beat up on just the infantry and some tanks before collecting the rest of the force as trophies. Most likely the plan would have been called off much sooner than that.
Likely upper limit then would be the first echelon assault force plus the Luftwaffe paratroopers plus some unfortunate Kriegsmarine sailors. Maybe about 90,000 men unless the KM really decides it is tired of existence. If the second echelon is somehow, against all sanity, committed then the potential losses for the Germans rise by about 100,000 men. The idea at this point that there is enough of a transport fleet to even consider loading the first echelon of the second wave beggars belief.
Reality being what it is some German tug, destroyer and s-boot commanders are likely to brave inshore waters to try and rescue some landsers and some of those will make it home again but the near total loss of any landing force committed is pretty much a given.