British after DEFEATED Sealion

J.D.Ward

Donor
We have seen that the English Channel is am impregnable barrier

Assuming for the moment that a failed Sealion doesn't butterfly away D-Day completely, what effects does it have on the logistics (strictly speaking, the perceived logistics) of an invasion going the other way?

Can a view develop that an opposed landing across the Channel is not feasible for reasons which ITTL were demonstrated in 1940?
 
The failed Sealion has major implications for reverse ops (ie Overlord). Although to be honest the Allied Staffs learnt their lessons without having the Sealion episode reinforce them. Therefore you can still see plans for PLUTO, Mulberry, a variety of specialist landing craft instead of impressed, unsuitable barges; a range of Funnies to support landing operations, covert ops such as use of mini subs and swimmers to survey beaches, assuring complete maritime and air superiority and finally LOTS and LOTS of planning and training. In fact I think a 43 invasion is now perhaps more likely-after all German industry is having dificulties just down to logistics.
 
I don't think it affects Overlord operationally. In other words, there are no lessons to be learned. In TTL, Sealion was a set-up that took advantage of German victory disease and abysmal ignorance of amphibious operation. It's not going to teach Allied planners much of anything.
 
I don't think it affects Overlord operationally. In other words, there are no lessons to be learned. In TTL, Sealion was a set-up that took advantage of German victory disease and abysmal ignorance of amphibious operation. It's not going to teach Allied planners much of anything.

Does that mean we'll still see a Dieppe-type raid?

Marc A
 
I don't think you'd see a Dieppe in this case-lots of St Nazairre style ops blowing up and down occupied coastlines and perhaps a British pincer to work with the Soviet anvil? The pincers coming through Persia and Norway... (The Italians being shrugged off in short order as OTL but perhaps even further as the LW and KM cannot sustain sending the WM into N Africa)
 
It seems that if all goes well for the British in a failed Sealion, the Nazis actually might end up winning the war.

Let me explain a possible scenario:

Like it has been theorized here, British forces fall back in a fake retreat and German high command buys it completely. Germans attack and end up losing their best men and equipment. The German military is weakened and loses it's belief of it's own invincibility. Hitler then starts to think, "Maybe I bit off more than I can chew."

Then something horrible happens; the Germans stop their advance.

An armistice is proposed by Germany and a British public eager to accept a victory before it could turn back into a defeat demands that it be accepted. Germany therefore concentrates on consolidating her prizes rather than losing the war with a failed invasion of Russia.

So in the end, Germany doesn't win everything she wanted but ends up holding on to Poland, Norway, France, and the Low Countries. A limited victory is much better than an absolute defeat.
 
That could be a distinct possibility, an armisitice although I think the occupied nations freee Governments would be bending Churchills ear very strongly and as a result perhaps the Nazi's withdraw from certain countries on certain understandings such as demilitarisation/preferential trading rights that the allies would probably have to just agree to-if only 'for now'. Remember that the French had hidden thousands of weapons in 1940 ready for use and that the French army continued to pass intelligence on to the British.
 
Kerblo, KillerT, in fact none of that works.

If the Germans land in England and hold an adequate base area then the war is over and Great Britain is finished. Nor can the British fake a retreat with London so close to the front line, not to mention handing the Germans port facilities and several air fields while the ability of the Home Guard to carry out an organized retreat is very much in question.

Also the first phase of the operation involved barely 110,000 men so that even in the event of a total wipeout German army losses will be less than already taken in Poland and France so this pyschological re-evaluation of the abilities of the Wehrmacht by either Hitler or the top army officers doesn't even make sense.

The plausibility of Hitler suddenly deciding to live in peace with the USSR based on such modest losses should also be obvious.
 
The Nazis at minimum would have to be willing to free France, and probably nominally free Poland.

It seems that if all goes well for the British in a failed Sealion, the Nazis actually might end up winning the war.

Let me explain a possible scenario:

Like it has been theorized here, British forces fall back in a fake retreat and German high command buys it completely. Germans attack and end up losing their best men and equipment. The German military is weakened and loses it's belief of it's own invincibility. Hitler then starts to think, "Maybe I bit off more than I can chew."

Then something horrible happens; the Germans stop their advance.

An armistice is proposed by Germany and a British public eager to accept a victory before it could turn back into a defeat demands that it be accepted. Germany therefore concentrates on consolidating her prizes rather than losing the war with a failed invasion of Russia.

So in the end, Germany doesn't win everything she wanted but ends up holding on to Poland, Norway, France, and the Low Countries. A limited victory is much better than an absolute defeat.
 
Does anyone have a link to the Sandhurst study by the way? I've been trying to find it via google, but teh intertubes are malfunctioning for me today.
 
Does anyone have a link to the Sandhurst study by the way? I've been trying to find it via google, but teh intertubes are malfunctioning for me today.

I read on this forum that the Sandhurst study was flawed by the fact that the Germans were able to cross the Channel in large and organized forces.

In reality, I think that most of the RIVER barges could be sunk only by bad weather or by the light british flottila patrolling the Channel night and day. So when the first attempt will be failure, the Germans will cut their losses quickly...

The weather on the Channel can be really bad and it can change very quickly...
 
I read on this forum that the Sandhurst study was flawed by the fact that the Germans were able to cross the Channel in large and organized forces.

In reality, I think that most of the RIVER barges could be sunk only by bad weather or by the light british flottila patrolling the Channel night and day. So when the first attempt will be failure, the Germans will cut their losses quickly...

The weather on the Channel can be really bad and it can change very quickly...

It was necessary to handwave this, as well as a few other things, in order to have any sort of meaningful wargame at all :)
After all, getting everyone together and then having the Germans stopped in the first few hours in the Channel isnt much fun for all the Pongoes...:) :)
 
Wouldn't the UK want a second crack at Norway if the Germans suffer such a defeat after Sealion in order to deny them their Swedish raw materials?

A second crack at Norway could go bad for the UK. The RN and RAF seem happy with the available carrier aircraft, including the Sea Hurricane. Any return to Norway won't happen till 1941. The LW and KM meanwhile, are building up coast defense forces. Do the British have the carrier aircraft and doctrine to support amphibious forces?
 
Top