Beating a Dead Sea Mammal: How can a non-ASB Operation Sea Lion thread be created?

If the Germans could last to the 1950 mark (and the US doesn't get involved), the Germans will have aircraft with specs like the MiG-15, meaning that the UK is no longer safe harbor for the RN, or even RAF

We're talking about a Sealion in 1940/1941. Extending the timetables to 1950 would change things significantly. And it's not like Britain would be twiddling its thumbs and not doing anything to defend itself for 10 years.
 
So will the UK, and by that point it is far more likely that Tube Alloys has yielded results than its German equivalent, and the embarkation ports for SeaLion go up in artificial suns

Of course by 1942 the USSR will be asking pointed questions about when all that stuff Germany promised them in exchange for raw materials will be delivered

I am doubtful the UK gets nuclear weapons before 1950, considering that it took them years past that point to figure it out OTL. And why not let Germany defeat the USSR while we are at this (making the bold assumption that was possible)? If they didn't defeat the USSR, then by 1950, all of western Europe would be subject to Stalin, assuming no American intervention.

We're talking about a Sealion in 1940/1941. Extending the timetables to 1950 would change things significantly. And it's not like Britain would be twiddling its thumbs and not doing anything to defend itself for 10 years.

They'd be watching on their island, while Germany grows stronger and stronger on the continent (assuming they defeated the USSR and the US remains neutral). What could they do?
 
I am doubtful the UK gets nuclear weapons before 1950, considering that it took them years past that point to figure it out OTL. And why not let Germany defeat the USSR while we are at this (making the bold assumption that was possible)? If they didn't defeat the USSR, then by 1950, all of western Europe would be subject to Stalin, assuming no American intervention.

They'd be watching on their island, while Germany grows stronger and stronger on the continent (assuming they defeated the USSR and the US remains neutral).
UK basically had to start from scratch RE nuclear weapons in 1946 OTL due to a miscommunication (There was an agreement to share research with US, it was just so secret that it was only written down in a few places and misplaced on FDRs death), and did it at peacetime priority. Assuming they don't give all their research to the US and get locked out, they won't have to start from scratch, and will have wartime funding. There are estimates Tube Alloys could have succeeded as early as 1946, but take those with a grain of salt, so guessing 1949 same time as USSR, without USSR will be no paranoia about atomic spies slowing things down as well

If Barbarossa happens, SeaLion is off the table, UK has years mostly uninterrupted to build up while USSR is dealt with
 
UK basically had to start from scratch RE nuclear weapons in 1946 OTL due to a miscommunication (There was an agreement to share research with US, it was just so secret that it was only written down in a few places and misplaced on FDRs death), and did it at peacetime priority. Assuming they don't give all their research to the US and get locked out, they won't have to start from scratch, and will have wartime funding. There are estimates Tube Alloys could have succeeded as early as 1946, but take those with a grain of salt, so guessing 1949 same time as USSR, without USSR will be no paranoia about atomic spies slowing things down as well

If Barbarossa happens, SeaLion is off the table, UK has years mostly uninterrupted to build up while USSR is dealt with

Without the RN, there is very little the British can do to stop Sealion from at least being attempted, whether or not it succeeds is a different matter.

The Soviets as we know did not start from scratch, and it took them until late 1949. The British did not start from scratch as you have stated, there was technical cooperation between the US and British. It was only when this cooperation ended in 1946, did the British go out on their own. If the British didn't have US help in making the bomb, it would have taken them as long as the French (1960), Chinese, Israelis (who also may have had some help from the Manhattan project etc.).

What, Rolls-Royce jet engines?

True, but it is still open for interpretation what the capabilities of German aircraft would be circa 1950.
 
I am doubtful the UK gets nuclear weapons before 1950, considering that it took them years past that point to figure it out OTL. And why not let Germany defeat the USSR while we are at this (making the bold assumption that was possible)? If they didn't defeat the USSR, then by 1950, all of western Europe would be subject to Stalin, assuming no American intervention.

They'd be watching on their island, while Germany grows stronger and stronger on the continent (assuming they defeated the USSR and the US remains neutral). What could they do?

There's a very bad joke coming, so I apologize in advance.

What, Rolls-Royce jet engines?

I.R.O.N.Y... or should that be Inconel? (Aviation joke.)^1

^1 Sorry about that again. Punchline is almost as bad as "Manhattan" is about "Tube Alloys".
 
Without the RN, there is very little the British can do to stop Sealion from at least being attempted, whether or not it succeeds is a different matter.

The Soviets as we know did not start from scratch, and it took them until late 1949. The British did not start from scratch as you have stated, there was technical cooperation between the US and British. It was only when this cooperation ended in 1946, did the British go out on their own. If the British didn't have US help in making the bomb, it would have taken them as long as the French (1960), Chinese, Israelis (who also may have had some help from the Manhattan project etc.).
And how exactly is the RN being removed from the table?

No the British basically did start from scratch, they effectively handed over all their research to the US and stopped their program, then the war ended and when the British asked for research in accordance with the Hyde Park Agreement, the US said "what agreement?", having lost their copy and nobody knowing about it in a position of power after FDR died. The British then had to restart their program, with only some of their pre cooperation research. Besides they got the bomb in '52 OTL, assume they don't effectively halt their program for 3-4 years, that puts them up to '48-'49, plus whole Peacetime v. Wartime priorities, budgets a lot less constraining in latter. They certainly won't take as long as the French, Chinese or Israelis, all of whom would be starting from a far worse position than the British with less resources and lower priority
 
Tube Alloys would have been handicapped by the fact that the Germans had a much more heavyweight nuclear physics establishment than the British. Heisenberg, once he learned of the American bombings, and decided to interest himself in the mechanics of how it could be done, worked out the basic principles of how to build a fission device in a matter of weeks. Otto Hahn was the pioneer of nuclear fission, and his exiled assistant, Lisa Meitner, testified that he was a chemist of incredible ability. The British had no scientists of comparable stature.
 
And how exactly is the RN being removed from the table?

No the British basically did start from scratch, they effectively handed over all their research to the US and stopped their program, then the war ended and when the British asked for research in accordance with the Hyde Park Agreement, the US said "what agreement?", having lost their copy and nobody knowing about it in a position of power after FDR died. The British then had to restart their program, with only some of their pre cooperation research. Besides they got the bomb in '52 OTL, assume they don't effectively halt their program for 3-4 years, that puts them up to '48-'49, plus whole Peacetime v. Wartime priorities, budgets a lot less constraining in latter. They certainly won't take as long as the French, Chinese or Israelis, all of whom would be starting from a far worse position than the British with less resources and lower priority

Yes, there was the McMahon Atomic Energy Act of 1946, and the British lost access to design data from Los Alamos. Sure, but that did not stop British scientists from bringing back their notes (and themselves) from the Manhattan project. Do you think it is just a coincidence that the first British nuclear weapon bore a close similarity to Fat Man? You cannot tell me seriously that the British were wasting their time by being in the Manhattan project, instead of their own project. Or that they "started from scratch", that is a blatantly untrue.

And where are you getting that the French or Israelis for example were putting less resources into it than the British? In peacetime there is room for more resources being put into it in reality, if anything
 
In peacetime there is room for more resources being put into it in reality, if anything

In peacetime people want things like health care, investment in sustainable jobs or unemployment benefits, unrationed food, investment in the transport network, etc, etc.

In wartime people are willing to accept that sacrifices have to be made for spending on the military to be prioritised.

I doubt any democracy could get away with spending more resources on the military in peacetime than they do in the middle of a war of national survival...
 
Yes, there was the McMahon Atomic Energy Act of 1946, and the British lost access to design data from Los Alamos. Sure, but that did not stop British scientists from bringing back their notes (and themselves) from the Manhattan project. Do you think it is just a coincidence that the first British nuclear weapon bore a close similarity to Fat Man? You cannot tell me seriously that the British were wasting their time by being in the Manhattan project, instead of their own project. Or that they "started from scratch", that is a blatantly untrue.

And where are you getting that the French or Israelis for example were putting less resources into it than the British? In peacetime there is room for more resources being put into it in reality, if anything
Well yeah it's a coincidence, that's how an early plutonium implosion device looks. Not wasting their time, but not being used as much for the benefit of Britain as if they had been in their own program. Perhaps from scratch was not the best wording, but the UK certainly lost time from being part of Manhattan compared to their own/Commonwealth program

In peacetime people ask questions if you pay three times as much to shave 6 months off a multi year project, in wartime they don't.

Israel was a poor desert country with a tiny population little industry with tech embargo's, in 1956 7/8ths their income was from reparations, they are in no position to spare near as much as the UK. France had been occupied and stripped by Germany, bombed to hell by the allies, had to claw its way back to great power status and in 1950 it had a GDP 2/3rds that of the UK (not counting the Commonwealth), and of course it was starting completely from scratch, so them being behind the UK and not spending as much is certain
 
Israel was a poor desert country with a tiny population little industry with tech embargo's, in 1956 7/8ths their income was from reparations, they are in no position to spare near as much as the UK. France had been occupied and stripped by Germany, bombed to hell by the allies, had to claw its way back to great power status and in 1950 it had a GDP 2/3rds that of the UK (not counting the Commonwealth), and of course it was starting completely from scratch, so them being behind the UK and not spending as much is certain

French nuclear program.

Brief explanation: the French have a long torturous mixed relationship with the United States in this area that starts with the ill-will and personal animosities generated among the WW II leaderships of the two countries. It has been a roller coaster ride of cooperation and antipathy that has depended on which administrations could get along with each other. The 1950s and 1960s were a "bad" time. The 1970s started out well, went south with a change in American leadership, then improved and has see-sawed ever since Reagan.

During the "bad" time, there was an appendix to this Franco-American teeter totter history of "cooperation and espionage".

Israel, France and the United States.

Remember that these nations were embroiled in the Suez Crisis and that all three were infuriated with each other to various degrees by that fiasco. This had to lap over into other ongoing shenanigans that each nation undertook. Upshot was that Israel and France both had a reason of the moment to share their nuclear knowhow, their espionage talents and their ambitions for a national nuclear deterrent independent of the Americans. In France's case it was especially motivated by personalities. (de Gaulle and Eisenhower hated each other.)
 

nbcman

Donor
French nuclear program.

Brief explanation: the French have a long torturous mixed relationship with the United States in this area that starts with the ill-will and personal animosities generated among the WW II leaderships of the two countries. It has been a roller coaster ride of cooperation and antipathy that has depended on which administrations could get along with each other. The 1950s and 1960s were a "bad" time. The 1970s started out well, went south with a change in American leadership, then improved and has see-sawed ever since Reagan.

During the "bad" time, there was an appendix to this Franco-American teeter totter history of "cooperation and espionage".

Israel, France and the United States.

Remember that these nations were embroiled in the Suez Crisis and that all three were infuriated with each other to various degrees by that fiasco. This had to lap over into other ongoing shenanigans that each nation undertook. Upshot was that Israel and France both had a reason of the moment to share their nuclear knowhow, their espionage talents and their ambitions for a national nuclear deterrent independent of the Americans. In France's case it was especially motivated by personalities. (de Gaulle and Eisenhower hated each other.)

No they didn't. Roosevelt wasn't fond of de Gaulle and conspired to raise other people to lead the French but Eisenhower was on reasonably good terms with the prickly Frenchman in WW2 and for decades thereafter.
 
I would look for the following to make a German victory plausible but by no means guaranteed.

(a) Churchill either dies (car accident in NYC abt 1931?) or is relegated to minor office after failure in the 1920s.

(b) Germans must have some sort of friendly aid on the ground, much more than the limited intelligence network of OTL.

(c) Take out Chain Home. Period.

(d) Remove the British soldiers at Dunkirk from the equation but save their equipment for use in the invasion. Also, minimize British casualties as Dunkirk falls: POWs make better negotiating chips than six figures of war dead.

(e) Consider either modular landing craft that can be built en masse, massive paratrooper drops, or both.

(f) Hammer the infrastructure repeatedly and often to within 5 miles of ones own troops.

(g) At least two feints/distraction landings, something to tie down troops and bugger morale. Land's End, Hull or Grimsby, Newcastle upon Tyne, or Clacton-on-sea would be best. These are for distraction, confusion, and if possible infrastructure destruction wherever possible. Maybe have the Army assign these to SS troops as a 'test' and let them earn their place (while taking disproportionate casualties).

(h) English-speaking troops in British uniforms for further confusion, especially behind the lines. After Dunkirk falls the uniforms and intel will be abundant.

(i) Have a distant but loyal royal in the wings, ideally with a prime minister or chancellor or even restore the office of Protector. Radio and propaganda posters should also be ready to go.
 
(e) Consider either modular landing craft that can be built en masse, massive paratrooper drops, or both.

How much steel will go from building Panzers to building landing craft? Also, have fun getting all your multi-engine pilot instructors killed when their JU52s are bounced by the RAF
 
How much steel will go from building Panzers to building landing craft? Also, have fun getting all your multi-engine pilot instructors killed when their JU52s are bounced by the RAF

Considering how much equipment they would take from the British at Dunkirk they can afford a bit of steel for landing craft...
 
We're talking about a Sealion in 1940/1941. Extending the timetables to 1950 would change things significantly. And it's not like Britain would be twiddling its thumbs and not doing anything to defend itself for 10 years.

True. By 1946 Germany has A4b rockets with range enough to hit Britain from Germany and jet aircraft perhaps 3-5 years ahead of the Allies. Type XXI u-boats appear as do Stg-45s and maybe even early G3s. Modular tanks are under development and factories are moving deep enough underground to resist most bombardment. Life would be very interesting for the Morlocks Germans.
 
True. By 1946 Germany has A4b rockets with range enough to hit Britain from Germany and jet aircraft perhaps 3-5 years ahead of the Allies. Type XXI u-boats appear as do Stg-45s and maybe even early G3s. Modular tanks are under development and factories are moving deep enough underground to resist most bombardment. Life would be very interesting for the Morlocks Germans.

P-80 quality? No. Definitely not. The Germans are not that good. Their engines are junk compared to British tech, which the Americans are sharing. The Germans will also be behind the 8-ball. Atom bombs are a certainty.

Item 1.
Item 2.

Late start, but ballistic and cruise missiles going the other way are also a certainty.
 
Top