The British stand a good chance of gutting the Kriegsmarine of its surface ships and experienced personnel. It is also likely that Germany will lose even more experienced aircrew and aircraft than in the historical Battle of Britain. I don't know what effects those will have on the rest of the war.
I've had ideas of doing a post-Seelowe story. I even have a title, The Sea Lion after Seelowe. (The Sea Lion being Churchill or Great Britain itself) My thoughts include a Great Britain that gets overconfident after defeating the invasion and attempt a landing somewhere on the continent.
On an irrelevant tangent, discussions on this site are the only reason I even know that Austria HAD a navy. Go alternatehistory.com?
Actually the consequences would be big. The Luftwaffe would be badly damaged by an unsuccessful Sealion, as would the Kriegsmarine, both of which would hamper Germany's efforts in later years, particularly the the loss of Luftwaffe. That could easily make Operation Barbarossa less successful.
Then there is the fact that the loss of so much canal shipping tonnage (as someone has already pointed out) would affect the economic strength of western Europe.
Then there is the obvious fact that people would figure out a year early that German Army = victory is not necessarily true. (That could have good or bad consequences, depending on how Stalin and the British process the information)
'Small' and 'useless' aren't identical, the Kriegsmarine may not have been a huge threat (though if it had been a little more lucky and not got hit right where it did the Bismarck could have caused some serious angst), but it did tie up a lot of allied resources that could otherwise have gone east.The Kriegsmarine was pretty useless anyways.
It did, but it would take a certain amount of time to rebuild the units they had gutted, plus the new crews would be less experienced, and things might be delayed, which gives the Soviets that much more time to rearm, and the Germans that much less time to advance before winter sets in. Kalinin (now Tver) might not have been taken for example.So a failed Sealion makes a failed Barbarossa even more of a failure? Isn't that like saying the Titanic sinks in 500 feet of water instead of 12,000? I'm pretty sure Barbarossa failed anyways.
That is of course assuming that there are not more barges destroyed that 'luxury' shipments can account for. Late garden gnomes is fine, late coal or iron, maybe not so much.Sounds like a reasonable risk. When we're down to the shipment of garden elves being late to dock in Hamburg, I think we're at an acceptable risk level.
Well so far the Heer had smashed up everyone they came across. The Kriegsmarine was another matter, as was demonstrated at Norway, though it still remained a potential threat, as demonstrated when the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen almost broke out into the Atlantic.So the British were fighting on with the assumption they couldn't win? I'm pretty sure Churchill thought he could win.
It did, but it would take a certain amount of time to rebuild the units they had gutted, plus the new crews would be less experienced, and things might be delayed, which gives the Soviets that much more time to rearm, and the Germans that much less time to advance before winter sets in. Kalinin (now Tver) might not have been taken for example.
Interesting question really, because the knock on might be a stronger presence in North Africa potentially knocking out the allied forces there and opening up an additional front for the southern invasion of the Soviet Union, which I feel would be delayed until the following spring/summer. So yes the Soviets would have better equipment but not better organisation ... but that could well be ballanced out by the fact that they have a small force led by Rommel tearing up the Caucasus.If the Germans were delayed by the forced rebuild, would they continue with the invasion of Russia as planned? If they have too little time before winter (or if the rebuild is particularly slow winter begins before they're ready) would they continue anyway or would they cancel they invasion until the spring? If they can't prepare quick enough the entire operation could end up being completely untenable (ignoring the general untenability of invading Russia in winter) and a delay of a whole winter will see the Soviets well and truly prepared for anything moving east.
Interesting question really, because the knock on might be a stronger presence in North Africa potentially knocking out the allied forces there and opening up an additional front for the southern invasion of the Soviet Union, which I feel would be delayed until the following spring/summer. So yes the Soviets would have better equipment but not better organisation ... but that could well be ballanced out by the fact that they have a small force led by Rommel tearing up the Caucasus.
It did, but it would take a certain amount of time to rebuild the units they had gutted, plus the new crews would be less experienced, and things might be delayed, which gives the Soviets that much more time to rearm, and the Germans that much less time to advance before winter sets in. Kalinin (now Tver) might not have been taken for example.
That is of course assuming that there are not more barges destroyed that 'luxury' shipments can account for. Late garden gnomes is fine, late coal or iron, maybe not so much.
Well so far the Heer had smashed up everyone they came across. The Kriegsmarine was another matter, as was demonstrated at Norway, though it still remained a potential threat, as demonstrated when the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen almost broke out into the Atlantic
If the Germans were delayed by the forced rebuild, would they continue with the invasion of Russia as planned?
Depends, I think anything up until the end of July and they'll still go in, but from the end of August onwards I don't know. Remember, they don't actually expect a lot of resistance, they expect a quality similar to the Soviets' rather poor performance in the Winter War.If the Germans were delayed by the forced rebuild, would they continue with the invasion of Russia as planned? If they have too little time before winter (or if the rebuild is particularly slow winter begins before they're ready) would they continue anyway or would they cancel they invasion until the spring? If they can't prepare quick enough the entire operation could end up being completely untenable (ignoring the general untenability of invading Russia in winter) and a delay of a whole winter will see the Soviets well and truly prepared for anything moving east.
A matter of time, if the Germans are delayed they'll face a better-prepared SU and won't have as much time to advance, thus some cities that got taken OTL won't.I checked Wiki - this 'Barbarossa' thing failed. Russia won. So I'm not understanding your distinction between Germany losing the war on the Eastern Front historically, and losing it ahistorically.
Those barges were out for what, a few months? if they'd been lost permanently, along with quite number of tanks that would need replacement...The risk was acceptable, hence the reason why the army collected the barges along the Channel in the first place.
A matter of time, if the Germans are delayed they'll face a better-prepared SU and won't have as much time to advance, thus some cities that got taken OTL won't.
Those barges were out for what, a few months? if they'd been lost permanently, along with quite number of tanks that would need replacement...
If Germany goes ahead with Sealion, there won’t be a Barbarossa.
In terms of the fantasy of Stalin pulling Churchill’s chestnuts out of the fire – no. If anything, Stalin would have declared war on Great Britain after it was certain there was no threat from Germany, because that is where the ‘easy pickings’ were in 1941.
Some barges are more important than a shot at winning WW2 outright? That makes no sense.
And if Britain wrecks the first wave?If Germany goes ahead with Sealion, there won’t be a Barbarossa.
No, but when they lose them (and they will rest assured the RN will do everything in its power, and it has a lot of power to spare), it will hurt the continental economy.Some barges are more important than a shot at winning WW2 outright? That makes no sense.