Effects of a failed Sealion

Gurroruo · Jul 27, 2015

I know there is a thread involving the Sandhurst Excercises and the operation itself failing. But I'm not worried about that I'm more wondering about the effect of a failed Sealion. And for the failed Sealion lets say its a brutal massacre, with only a few German units even making it across and then promptly being massacred with gas and machine gunfire.

So I'm wondering how such a botched operation might effect the war. No doubt the Heer's morale would be crushed, so how might Barbarossa be affected. And how might the Japanese be affected with the Heer being dealt a significant defeat like that. Just in general, how would the war be affected by a failed Sealion?

nastle · Jul 27, 2015

Gurroruo said:
I know there is a thread involving the Sandhurst Excercises and the operation itself failing. But I'm not worried about that I'm more wondering about the effect of a failed Sealion. And for the failed Sealion lets say its a brutal massacre, with only a few German units even making it across and then promptly being massacred with gas and machine gunfire.

So I'm wondering how such a botched operation might effect the war. No doubt the Heer's morale would be crushed, so how might Barbarossa be affected. And how might the Japanese be affected with the Heer being dealt a significant defeat like that. Just in general, how would the war be affected by a failed Sealion?

I doubt there will be a Barbarossa anytime soon.

Perhaps a coup against Hitler

Michele · Jul 27, 2015

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=103866&page=9

Glenn239 · Jul 27, 2015

Gurroruo said:
I know there is a thread involving the Sandhurst Excercises and the operation itself failing. But I'm not worried about that I'm more wondering about the effect of a failed Sealion. And for the failed Sealion lets say its a brutal massacre, with only a few German units even making it across and then promptly being massacred with gas and machine gunfire.

So I'm wondering how such a botched operation might effect the war. No doubt the Heer's morale would be crushed, so how might Barbarossa be affected. And how might the Japanese be affected with the Heer being dealt a significant defeat like that. Just in general, how would the war be affected by a failed Sealion?

You've introduced two different AH's. The first would be the defeat of Sealion. The second is the BoB with the combatants now using gas warfare.

Gurroruo · Jul 27, 2015

Glenn239 said:
You've introduced two different AH's. The first would be the defeat of Sealion. The second is the BoB with the combatants now using gas warfare.

The Gas used would be the mustard gas that the British intended to use in case of an invasion

Alien and Sedition Bat · Jul 27, 2015

Main effect would be on the French. Either a much larger Free French movement with more colonial territories declaring allegiance, or an overthrow of Petain and France then fighting on from North Africa.

HJ Tulp · Jul 27, 2015

There is also the fact that the Germans were planning to use a very large amount of river-barges. These were ill-suited for invasions across a sea but very important to transport on rivers. The German transport system will get a pretty big shock.

NamelesStatistic · Jul 27, 2015

the world stands back and laughs as river barges full of Nazis are sunk by the wake of British destroyers which find out they don't even have to fire their guns to sink the German transports. As the Sandhurst Wargame concluded that the Royal Navy would initially spend a while scrabling its destroyers and wouldn't intervene before a substantial German force lands in the UK, you will likely have tens of thousands of German soldiers isolated in England and forced to surrender. Losing a couple divisions wont significantly affect Barbarossa. The German losses in equipment probably aren't too bad as the captured German forces wont have much more than whatever they could carry themselves ans the German river barges simply couldn't carry heavy equipment like artillary or tanks. All in all, it is a humiliating loss but materially wont affect Barbarossa that much (which was initially dictated by armored spearheads).

Of course Sea Loin would have enormous political and morale consequences. The myth of German invincibility would have been shattered and what was in OTL a demoralized Britain at that time, where even Churchill secretly feared defeat and conquest would certainly emerge with much more confidence in their ability to beat the Nazis. Maybe this affects how much they are willing to sacrifice to get American support (Destroyers for Bases probably still happens, but the British may be more reluctant to sign onto the decolonization phrases in the Atlantic Charter and might refuse the American's demand to dismember the Imperial Preference system).

The most interesting question is how this bucket of cold water affects German plans for Barbarossa. Will they perhaps be more cautious in their goals?

NamelesStatistic · Jul 27, 2015

HJ Tulp said:
There is also the fact that the Germans were planning to use a very large amount of river-barges. These were ill-suited for invasions across a sea but very important to transport on rivers. The German transport system will get a pretty big shock.

The Barges were specifically pulled from the river Rhine and the Lowland countries as far as I can remember. I doubt those same barges saw much service on the eastern front, as the Germans would have to drag them across most off Europe.

HJ Tulp · Jul 27, 2015

NamelesStatistic said:
The Barges were specifically pulled from the river Rhine and the Lowland countries as far as I can remember. I doubt those same barges saw much service on the eastern front, as the Germans would have to drag them across most off Europe.

I'm not talking of the logistics in Russia. I'm talking about the transport system in Western Europe. These river barges were not used for pleasure cruises, they hauled cargo. Riverine transport is still essential to the transport system of Europe today, let alone 70 years ago.

NamelesStatistic · Jul 27, 2015

HJ Tulp said:
I'm not talking of the logistics in Russia. I'm talking about the transport system in Western Europe. These river barges were not used for pleasure cruises, they hauled cargo. Riverine transport is still essential to the transport system of Europe today, let alone 70 years ago.

Fair enough, but would that really affect the German's ability to make war? Western Europe is already conquered, and if anyone is going to suffer from the loss of the freight that is transported by these barges, it will be the civilians of the occupied countries, particularly those in the Low Countries.

So i guess one knockoff effect we could see from this is an earlier and more severe famine in the Netherlands.

Saphroneth · Jul 27, 2015

NamelesStatistic said:
Fair enough, but would that really affect the German's ability to make war? Western Europe is already conquered, and if anyone is going to suffer from the loss of the freight that is transported by these barges, it will be the civilians of the occupied countries, particularly those in the Low Countries.

So i guess one knockoff effect we could see from this is an earlier and more severe famine in the Netherlands.

The Ruhr kind of relies on riverine transport to operate. A total interdiction of Rhine river traffic would result in the collapse of the German war economy in a scant few months.
Of course this isn't a total interdiction, but it is a reduction.

Drunkrobot · Jul 27, 2015

Taken directly from the Wikipedia entry of the Sandhurst Wargame:

Invasion

The German attack was launched at dawn on 22 September 1940 and consisted of 8,000 airborne troops and 80,000 infantry landed in amphibious operations. The attack and landings went reasonably well for the first 24 hours, although the Germans lost about 25% of their unseaworthy barges which were being used to ferry the forces across the channel. During this 24 hour period the Royal Air Force lost 237 aircraft (about 23% of its fighting strength), the Luftwaffe losses amounted to 333, also about 23% of its aircraft. Naval engagements were indecisive at this stage as the Royal Navy was still assembling its main destroyer fleet to attack. The larger ships of the Home Fleet (including battleships, heavy cruisers and aircraft carriers) were not to be committed due to the risk of air attack.

Over the next two days the Germans managed to advance a dozen or so miles inland and even captured the port of Folkestone but the docks had been thoroughly demolished by the British rendering the port more or less unusable. However, the German advance halted once the British and Commonwealth forces were moved to fully engage in the battle. At this stage the Germans had few tanks and only light artillery. An increasing shortage of ammunition was slowly forcing them back towards the sea. The Germans asked "Hitler" if the bombing of London could stop and the aircraft used to attack British ships instead. The request was denied. At dawn on 24 September the second German landing, which was to include tanks and heavy artillery as well as supplies and men, was intercepted by the Royal Navy's destroyers and 65% of the barges were sunk. After this the German surrender was inevitable.

Conclusion

The German navy's relative weakness, combined with the Luftwaffe's lack of air supremacy, meant it was not able to prevent the Royal Navy from interfering with the planned Channel crossings. The Navy's destruction of the second invasion wave prevented resupply and reinforcement of the landed troops, as well the arrival of more artillery and tanks. This made the position of the initially successful invasion force untenable; it suffered further casualties during the attempted evacuation. Of the 90,000 German troops who landed only 15,400 returned to France. 33,000 were taken prisoner, 26,000 were killed in the fighting and 15,000 drowned in the English Channel. All six umpires deemed the invasion a resounding failure.

So, pretty much every facet of the German war machine, from machines to men to morale, takes a heavy beating. Much of the vital armoured spearheads that forms the key to their military doctrine is sunk to the bottom of the Channel. According to the wargame, both air forces take equal losses of planes in relation to their starting total, though Britain comes off ahead as their pilots have the luxury of being over friendly soil, however the RAF may still be forced to retreat to 'North of the Thames', at least for a while. The German economy, robbed of valuable barges, also suffers. What remains of the German surface fleet is either sunk or scrapped, with maybe something kept as a Fleet-in-Being. The concept of airborne troops is certain to be discredited among the Germans (they stopped using them after Crete, and that was a success). The upper echelons of the German power structure will likely be decimated in an almighty 'blame game'. The panic and defeatism in both the British public and military gets swept away in a quick cycle of invasion, initial struggle, and absolute crushing victory. Hopefully that would result in a more measured, logical war effort and foreign policy. Joseph Goebbels' 'Total War' speech, and the ensuing German mobilisation, happens over two years early. The resistance movements in occupied countries get a lot of traction, seeing the Nazis running with their tails between their legs. Stalin becomes even more convinced that Germany declaring war on the Soviet Union is a total nonissue in the short term. American response is polarised (On one hand, Germany is less terrifying, on the other hand, Britain seems to have the war under control).

And this isn't even considering the possibility of Chemical Weapons. Between a more cautious Hitler possibly not declaring war on America, and the prospect of sending boys to fight on a poisoned continent, America might end up being more reluctant to enter the European war.

Does anybody know of good timelines that explore a post-Sealion war?

Gurroruo · Jul 27, 2015

So the Ruhr and Germany as a whole have worse economy, earlier.
More confident Britain in negotiations with U.S., probably no Lend/Lease.
And German invincibility idea broken.

How would the fact that German invincibility being broken affect the planning for Barbarossa? How would it affect Hitler's grip on Germany?

Drunkrobot said:
Taken directly from the Wikipedia entry of the Sandhurst Wargame:

So, pretty much every facet of the German war machine, from machines to men to morale, takes a heavy beating. Much of the vital armoured spearheads that forms the key to their military doctrine is sunk to the bottom of the Channel. According to the wargame, both air forces take equal losses of planes in relation to their starting total, though Britain comes off ahead as their pilots have the luxury of being over friendly soil, however the RAF may still be forced to retreat to 'North of the Thames', at least for a while. The German economy, robbed of valuable barges, also suffers. What remains of the German surface fleet is either sunk or scrapped, with maybe something kept as a Fleet-in-Being. The concept of airborne troops is certain to be discredited among the Germans (they stopped using them after Crete, and that was a success). The upper echelons of the German power structure will likely be decimated in an almighty 'blame game'. The panic and defeatism in both the British public and military gets swept away in a quick cycle of invasion, initial struggle, and absolute crushing victory. Hopefully that would result in a more measured, logical war effort and foreign policy. Joseph Goebbels' 'Total War' speech, and the ensuing German mobilisation, happens over two years early. The resistance movements in occupied countries get a lot of traction, seeing the Nazis running with their tails between their legs. Stalin becomes even more convinced that Germany declaring war on the Soviet Union is a total nonissue in the short term. American response is polarised (On one hand, Germany is less terrifying, on the other hand, Britain seems to have the war under control).

And this isn't even considering the possibility of Chemical Weapons. Between a more cautious Hitler possibly not declaring war on America, and the prospect of sending boys to fight on a poisoned continent, America might end up being more reluctant to enter the European war.

Does anybody know of good timelines that explore a post-Sealion war?

I find that the Sandhurst Wargames gave the Germans too much leeway, so I think the German losses would be heavier.

The RAF losses will probbaly be heavy enough to force them north for a bit, but I doubt the Germans will be able to completely capitalize on that.

But many of the points who have are actually very good.

What do you think will happen to the Airborne troops, will they simply become infantry or will they still used as some sort of special trooper, just not airborne.

How do you think the blame game might play out?

How will Stalin's confidence affect Operation Barbarossa?

With the Briish having used mustard gas on the beaches, the Nazis would be more open to using it, but would they be able to use it on British military targets or is the RAF too much of a problem?

Is it possible that we could see an America focused solely on a Pacific War?

NamelesStatistic · Jul 27, 2015

Drunkrobot said:
Taken directly from the Wikipedia entry of the Sandhurst Wargame:

So, pretty much every facet of the German war machine, from machines to men to morale, takes a heavy beating. Much of the vital armoured spearheads that forms the key to their military doctrine is sunk to the bottom of the Channel. According to the wargame, both air forces take equal losses of planes in relation to their starting total, though Britain comes off ahead as their pilots have the luxury of being over friendly soil, however the RAF may still be forced to retreat to 'North of the Thames', at least for a while. The German economy, robbed of valuable barges, also suffers. What remains of the German surface fleet is either sunk or scrapped, with maybe something kept as a Fleet-in-Being. The concept of airborne troops is certain to be discredited among the Germans (they stopped using them after Crete, and that was a success). The upper echelons of the German power structure will likely be decimated in an almighty 'blame game'. The panic and defeatism in both the British public and military gets swept away in a quick cycle of invasion, initial struggle, and absolute crushing victory. Hopefully that would result in a more measured, logical war effort and foreign policy. Joseph Goebbels' 'Total War' speech, and the ensuing German mobilisation, happens over two years early. The resistance movements in occupied countries get a lot of traction, seeing the Nazis running with their tails between their legs. Stalin becomes even more convinced that Germany declaring war on the Soviet Union is a total nonissue in the short term. American response is polarised (On one hand, Germany is less terrifying, on the other hand, Britain seems to have the war under control).

And this isn't even considering the possibility of Chemical Weapons. Between a more cautious Hitler possibly not declaring war on America, and the prospect of sending boys to fight on a poisoned continent, America might end up being more reluctant to enter the European war.

Does anybody know of good timelines that explore a post-Sealion war?

Would the armored spear-heads for barbarossa be affected? I assume the initial landing forces would likely be light infantry, as the river barges could barely cross the channel with men inside them forget about tanks and artillery. I honestly don't think the actually military losses would have been debilitation, the German Army lost over 200 000 men as well as over a thousand aircraft and a large number of tanks when the Africa corps was captured by the British and Americans in 1943, and the German army was still quite a capable force. I cant see losing a few surface ships, 30000 men, a few German surface ships and some river barges as being crippling to the German war machines. There would likely be some heavy air losses for the Germans, but the RAF would also suffer, and the Germans armored losses would likely be minimal. The real losses to the Germans here would be morale and political, not material.

An interesting question here as you state is the Chemical weapons. Would the German retaliate with full scale Nerve gas deployment in the UK? My gut says no because Hitler would reason that the UK had only deployed chemical weapons in defense, not as part as an attack on the Reich, so he wouldn't escalate. Still their is always that possibility, and if the Germans do act, what happens when the British realize the Germans are gassing their cities, how far will they escalate the use of WMD? In the face of a German invasion (even though it fails) and subsequent gas attacks will they be willing out to break out their supplies of weaponized Anthrax?

Drunkrobot · Jul 27, 2015

Gurroruo said:
How would the fact that German invincibility being broken affect the planning for Barbarossa? How would it affect Hitler's grip on Germany?

Honestly, I think Germany would try to go for an invasion. You have to understand just how stupid the Nazis were. An invasion of Britain failing could be excused, "We were fighting fellow Aryans, men who understand the nature of war, and it was those incompetents in the Navy and Air Force that failed to cover our invasion." The Soviets, by comparison, looked to be an easy conquest. Nothing but steppe, almost perfect tank country, separated the border and Moscow. The Red Army had demonstrated ineptitude in Finland, which they couldn't excuse as being an amphibious invasion against the world preeminent naval power. What's more, the country is populated by Slavs, people the Nazis viewed as literally being less than people, closer to cattle than any lifeform that can put up resistance or any sort of military aptitude.

The Nazis were infamously good at propaganda and consolidating power, they suffered far worse losses in OTL battles than this Sealion, and still they kept power until the very end. They'd butter up the defeat as much as they need to avoid insurrection.

NamelesStatistic said:
Would the armored spear-heads for barbarossa be affected? I assume the initial landing forces would likely be light infantry, as the river barges could barely cross the channel with men inside them forget about tanks and artillery. I honestly don't think the actually military losses would have been debilitation, the German Army lost over 200 000 men as well as over a thousand aircraft and a large number of tanks when the Africa corps was captured by the British and Americans in 1943, and the German army was still quite a capable force. I cant see losing a few surface ships, 30000 men, a few German surface ships and some river barges as being crippling to the German war machines. There would likely be some heavy air losses for the Germans, but the RAF would also suffer, and the Germans armored losses would likely be minimal. The real losses to the Germans here would be morale and political, not material.

The key difference is that the losses here are happening in 1940, while the losses in Tunisia happened in 1943. The Germany military is not quite the size it was in the midpoint of the war. You have less troops to send back to train more troops, and so forth. Assuming the units sent are particularly experienced, their loss in regards to total actual German fighting strength would be disproportionately high. Armoured losses happen as the wargame specify that armoured units are sent across the Channel in the second wave, and are promptly sank by the RAF and the Royal Navy

An interesting question here as you state is the Chemical weapons. Would the German retaliate with full scale Nerve gas deployment in the UK? My gut says no because Hitler would reason that the UK had only deployed chemical weapons in defense, not as part as an attack on the Reich, so he wouldn't escalate. Still their is always that possibility, and if the Germans do act, what happens when the British realize the Germans are gassing their cities, how far will they escalate the use of WMD? In the face of a German invasion (even though it fails) and subsequent gas attacks will they be willing out to break out their supplies of weaponized Anthrax?

There is also two additional factors. The Nazis knew of the extensive preparations the British made for chemical warfare (a gasmask for every single British civilian, for example), such that they concluded that actually using chemical weapons may prove fruitless and incite a reaction they are not-so prepared for. Also, Hitler utterly detested the idea of chemical warfare, having experienced it himself in World War I, so he'd be reluctant to open that can of worms again (I guess we all have standards). However, he was of course a very volcanic human being, I can't predict what he'd do.

NamelesStatistic · Jul 27, 2015

Gurroruo said:
So the Ruhr and Germany as a whole have worse economy, earlier.
More confident Britain in negotiations with U.S., probably no Lend/Lease.
And German invincibility idea broken.

How would the fact that German invincibility being broken affect the planning for Barbarossa? How would it affect Hitler's grip on Germany?

I find that the Sandhurst Wargames gave the Germans too much leeway, so I think the German losses would be heavier.

The RAF losses will probbaly be heavy enough to force them north for a bit, but I doubt the Germans will be able to completely capitalize on that.

But many of the points who have are actually very good.

What do you think will happen to the Airborne troops, will they simply become infantry or will they still used as some sort of special trooper, just not airborne.

How do you think the blame game might play out?

How will Stalin's confidence affect Operation Barbarossa?

With the Briish having used mustard gas on the beaches, the Nazis would be more open to using it, but would they be able to use it on British military targets or is the RAF too much of a problem?

Is it possible that we could see an America focused solely on a Pacific War?

I cant see the British willing to turn down Lend-Lease. They still need US supplies to win this war, and even more pressingly, the Soviets need Lend-Lease and I dont see the Americans offering supplies to Stalin but not Churchill.

The British will just be less willing to set up the post-war dismemberment of their empire and end the primacy of the Pond Sterling once it becomes clear that even without US support Germany doesn't stand a prayer of actually conquering Britain. Remember that even if the Germans cant conquer Britain, the British cant drive the Germans out of Western Europe without the aid of the Americans or the Soviets, they simply lack the manpower and their are only so many troops you can get out of the Commonwealth with an India with a rising independence movement and overall deep ambivalence about aiding the British in another European war, Australia fearing invasion from Japan, a South Africa which has only limited man-power based on a white minority with the majority of the population composed of disenfranchised black Africans. Canada can send a larger army then it did in OTL if it needs to, but with a population of 11million, it can only mobilize so many troops to help in an invasion of Europe.

Drunkrobot · Jul 27, 2015

NamelesStatistic said:
Remember that even if the Germans cant conquer Britain, the British cant drive the Germans out of Western Europe without the aid of the Americans or the Soviets, they simply lack the manpower and their are only so many troops you can get out of the Commonwealth with an India with a rising independence movement and overall deep ambivalence about aiding the British in another European war, Australia fearing invasion from Japan, a South Africa which has only limited man-power based on a white minority with the majority of the population composed of disenfranchised black Africans. Canada can send a larger army then it did in OTL if it needs to, but with a population of 11million, it can only mobilize so many troops to help in an invasion of Europe.

If I'm right, then the British likely don't need to do anything to get the Soviets into the fight. At best, they'll have to hang on until summer 1941, at worst summer 1942, and then the Germans will give the Soviets all the motivation in the world to join the Allies.

NamelesStatistic · Jul 27, 2015

Drunkrobot said:
If I'm right, then the British likely don't need to do anything to get the Soviets into the fight. At best, they'll have to hang on until summer 1941, at worst summer 1942, and then the Germans will give the Soviets all the motivation in the world to join the Allies.

Yes, but having the Soviets occupy Western Europe isn't seen by the British as much better than leaving it to the Nazis! Yo have to understand how the British viewed the war AT THIS TIME, rather than how we view it 60 years later. Remember, no one knew at the time that the Soviets would beat the Germans (in the first year of Barbarossa it appeared certain that the Soviet Union was going to fall, and very fast at that) or that Pearl Harbor would occur and drag the Americans in anyway. From where the British sit in 1940-1941, getting the Americans onside is seen as essential to winning the war, even if it becomes clear that the Home Islands themselves are safe from Germany.

The British will still have to court the Americans, they cant just hold on and earn a "victory" that involves a Soviet occupied Europe rather than a Nazi one

Drunkrobot · Jul 27, 2015

NamelesStatistic said:
Yes, but having the Soviets occupy Western Europe isn't seen by the British as much better than leaving it to the Nazis! Yo have to understand how the British viewed the war AT THIS TIME, rather than how we view it 60 years later. Remember, no one knew at the time that the Soviets would beat the Germans (in the first year of Barbarossa it appeared certain that the Soviet Union was going to fall, and very fast at that) or that Pearl Harbor would occur and drag the Americans in anyway. From where the British sit in 1940-1941, getting the Americans onside is seen as essential to winning the war, even if it becomes clear that the Home Islands themselves are safe from Germany.

The British will still have to court the Americans, they cant just hold on and earn a "victory" that involves a Soviet occupied Europe rather than a Nazi one

While this is certainly viewed with hindsight, there was no way the Soviets were going to occupy all of Europe. The Germans weren't going to abandon their country to 'defend' France, and realistically speaking, the Red Army was at the absolute end of the logistical tether by the Battle of Berlin.

I'd imagine fears of a rapid German victory in the East would be tempered by the humiliating defeat they'd been served in Sealion. ITTL, the Invincible German Soldier dies not in Stalingrad, but in Folkestone. Add that to the many, many material losses the Germans suffer, and you see both a lesser Barbarossa and a more optimistic prediction of the final outcome.

Failing at attempts to get the Americans in, the British could always go for Biological and Chemical warfare. Even restricting the attacks to Germany, any sort of garrison of France is going to be a shell of an army after a total societal collapse that such a campaign would entail. Apocalyptic, sure, but within the realm of possibility.

Of course, American entry in the war makes it an awful lot easier and shorter, with less damage done.