Hitler loses it and starts Sea Lion

To quote Bungay:

Yet there was a silver lining to the cloud. Since the 7th, the weather had prevented much fighting, giving the pilots a little time to rest. It made interception difficult, and that, combined with the confusion on the 7th, led the Luftwaffe to believe opposition was weakening. What there found was scrappy. Perhaps the RAF really was down to its last 200 plane (in reality in was more like 750).

So maybe with a combination of faulty intelligence - on the RAF's production and losses, an urgent need to get on with it before bad weather made it impossible, and Hitler hurt by British rejection of his 'peace offers' - maybe, just maybe he orders Sealion into action.

When all hell breaks loose!
 
Operation Sealion

There were several plans drawn up for the invasion of Britain and it is almost certain that the Germans would've changed the plans as they became aware of what they were actually capable of, which would've been much less than the rather ambitious plans laid out by the army. I suspect that the final plan would've been closer to what they did in Crete. That is, they would've launched an airborne invasion of the southeast coast of England and tried to capture one or two major airfields and a port.

It was only the decision on the part of Goering and Hitler to attack London after the British attack on Berlin in August 1940 that saved the RAF from being wiped out. Had the Germans continued attacking the RAF for another month or so the Germans would've had the necessary air superiority to carry out an airborne invasion. Once they had captured a few airfields the Germans would've been able to fly in most of the equipment and troops they needed to establish a bridgehead and hold it.

The Germans were planning to use barges and other sundry vessels to carry troops and equipment over to Britain which they would've been able to do had they been able to secure air supramacy over southeast England. The German navy was confident they could protect a narrow front attack across the Channel but not a broad front attack.

Securing and holding a bridgehead long enough for the German army, including tanks, to get across the Channel would not have been exceedingly difficult for the simple reason that the British did not have any heavy equipment such as tanks or artillery in sufficient numbers to mount any sort of counter-offensive as most of that equipment had been lost in France. As for the Home Guard? Boy's Own books are a poor substitute for reality.

The Germans didn't need to march into London to knock the British out of the war. All they needed to do was to occupy and hold on enough territory to defeat any British counter-attacks from driving them out. That would've demoralised the British enough that they would've given Winston Churchill his marching orders and appointed a government willing to negotiate something with the Germans.
 
Malice, the RAF had already determined to withdraw to the north if losses became excessive, which would have meant the RAF returning to the decisive battle rested and reinforced as pilots were trained and new fighters produced.

The Luftwaffe could not fly in sufficient men and material for an invasion. The ONE airborne 'division' assigned to Sea Lion was barely 8000 men, less than a third the size of a German infantry division and it was recognized that Luftwaffe transports couldn't possibly deploy and supply a second. The British would have eaten an 'invasion' of 8000 men alive.

Had the Germans waited another month deteriorating weather would have meant a seaborne invasion couldn't even be attempted, particularly with the vital but not very seaworthy barges so vital to any plan.

The Kriegsmarine was absolutely NOT confident of holding a narrow front, they simply rejected any hope of successfully defending a broad front.

By September the British Army was recovering rapidly, producing another 120 tanks plus purchases/loans from the US. Since Germany was limited in what they could send over time was very much on the side of the British in the sense that the British tanks and artillery, if fewer in overall number, were already in England.
 
Okay, everyone, be kind to the newb! He knoweth not what can of worms he hath opened. :eek:

Edit: OMG, did I just waste post 1000 on this? D'oh!
 
Last edited:
Ok...

Yes, I'm a new-b but I can take the criticism. :)

It is true that the Americans had supplied tanks to the British army by September 1940 but the quality of what the Americans were sending were very poor and if the Germans had secured air superiority over southern England they would've been able to use the Stuka dive bombers as very effective tank busters as they did in the USSR and in France. They would've also inflicted heavy losses on the Royal Navy through bombing.

Allocating 8000 airborne troops to taking a few strategic airfields and a port would have been enough to secure them long enough to enable the Germans to bring in additional soldiers and equipment - which is what the Germans did in Crete in 1941.

Forget the 1974 Sandhurst exercise: the German military had got into the habit of downplaying their own cautiousness and over-estimating their abilities when things went well but blaming Hitler every time things went down the gurgler, such as during the Battle of Britain. That exercise failed to take into account that Hitler often liked to take gambles and if the Germans had secured air superiority where he needed it he would've ordered a daring operation of some sort. An airborne operation would've been the sort of daring gamble that Hitler would've loved.
 
Yes, I'm a new-b but I can take the criticism. :)
Well, you said it :D:

Welcome to the forums by the way. You couldn't have picked much more of a contentious topic to get started with really!

Simply landing a division of paratroopers isn't enough to force the British to surrender. Three problems with that:
  1. You can't land enough paratrooper in the first place.
  2. You can't re-supply those that can land faster than they expend their supplies.
  3. The undermanned, under-supplied force, unable even to hold the ground it has captured, isn't going to scare anyone into surrendering.

The Luftwaffe barely had enough Ju-52 to lift the paratroopers in the first place, and this would likely have been in two waves. Their bulk of their supplies would be coming in that second wave. Don't forget that in WW2 German paratroopers didn't jump with their weapons-they were in separate canisters that they had to locate once on the ground.
Resupplying the troops is going to be nigh on impossible. First of all, like it or not, Fighter Command will have a reserve strength husbanded specifically for any invasion attempt-this will be unleashed against the transport stream. Sure there may be fighters defending it, but the lumbering JU52s are still going to take losses. Also remember that it is extremely unlikely that the paratroopers will capture an intact airfield-they barely managed it in Crete, I don't see it happening here. Therefore any resupplies are going to be air dropped. Air drops in the early war years weren't exactly accurate, with the majority of the supplies likely ending up with the opposing force. They also can't get supplies and reinforcements at the same time, as there simply isn't the logistical capability to do both at once.
The paratroopers are therefore in a quandary-there aren't many of them, which makes it difficult to establish a defensible perimeter. To try and ensure they receive their supplies, and achieve their mission, they need to extend this perimeter, but they don't have the supplies to do this. If they try, they make themselves easier to defeat in detail.
If they instead try to fly in more forces to improve their ability to hold their ground, they are simply going to run out of supplies quicker.
One final thing to remember-paratrooper are strategically mobile, but tactically, they are not. Sure, you can put them in a location pretty distant at relatively short notice, but once they get there, they aren't moving faster than their own marching pace. The British will have far superior tactical mobility, greatly enhancing their ability to surround the German troops. Once surrounded, they aren't going anywhere apart from a POW camp in the highlands.

Bad idea for the Germans I think.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I'm a new-b but I can take the criticism. :)

It is true that the Americans had supplied tanks to the British army by September 1940 but the quality of what the Americans were sending were very poor and if the Germans had secured air superiority over southern England they would've been able to use the Stuka dive bombers as very effective tank busters as they did in the USSR and in France. They would've also inflicted heavy losses on the Royal Navy through bombing.

Allocating 8000 airborne troops to taking a few strategic airfields and a port would have been enough to secure them long enough to enable the Germans to bring in additional soldiers and equipment - which is what the Germans did in Crete in 1941.

Forget the 1974 Sandhurst exercise: the German military had got into the habit of downplaying their own cautiousness and over-estimating their abilities when things went well but blaming Hitler every time things went down the gurgler, such as during the Battle of Britain. That exercise failed to take into account that Hitler often liked to take gambles and if the Germans had secured air superiority where he needed it he would've ordered a daring operation of some sort. An airborne operation would've been the sort of daring gamble that Hitler would've loved.

Welcome! :)

Oh, and be advised, you just stepped into the official Cow Patty of AH.com. It's called the "dreaded Seamammal" here and is considered to be the poster child for impossibility (requires the magical help of "alien space bats" or ASBs to make possible).

Don't take it personally if you get dogpiled by irate veterans sick of giving the same arguments against it over again.

BTW, a very good and well-researched Sealion scenario that shows the very likely results of a victorious BoB for Germany and an attempted Seelowe can be seen in Michele's "A Better Show in 1940"; VERY highly recommended for newbs and vets alike:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...highlight=show



[shamelessselfplug]

Or, for a humorous and satirical literally ASB option, see Operation Teufelseelowe in my sig. :D

[/shamelessselfplug]
 
At Crete, with no British air power and most of the British were questionably equipped, disorganized and demoralized from the Greek campaign the German airborne were outnumbered less than 4 to 1 yet without the poor showing of a single British sector commander the Germans would have been destroyed. As it was the German airborne never recovered.

Comparing that to England, with hundreds of thousands of properly armed British troops and more with some degree of armament, hundreds of tanks and artillery, the Home Guard as well, an RAF with well over 1000 modern fighters and bombers...


By dropping onto an airfield or a port these lightly armed infantry, who are extremely vulnerable and practically unarmed during the air drop, immediately face much better armed opposition, as you will certainly find the British Army guarding key airfields and ports.

This effort requires using all of Germany's air transports, certain to take heavy losses and immediately attriting Germany's air capacity to bring in more troops and/or supplies. Before the losses start piling up, that capacity is barely enough to deploy the 8000 airborne and supply them on the ground so it becomes obvious that air transport can not bring in sufficient German forces to win.

As an added bonus, the pilots of these transports are the Luftwaffe's pilot instructors so heavy losses will do nothing good for Luftwaffe training of more pilots.

In the ports the airborne are liable to be outnumbered by the British and massively outgunned, ignoring that tiny issue of the British not having to invade to introduce reinforcements and the need of the Germans to take the port facilities intact for this to have any meaning. Between British on the spot, British reinforcements, the RAF, the RN and so forth the odds of this happening are pretty much nil.

If you decide to split the airborne between multiple airfields and multiple ports it only gets worse...


Now, have the Germans concentrated their invasion fleet to rush over in support? If so then the RAF has had a few days to target German shipping unbelievably crowded in a tiny number of ports, not to mention the British can redeploy manpower or equipment from beaches far from any German potential invasion. If not then most of the German invasion fleet is useless where they are and must run an additional gauntlet the length of the English Channel just to reach the ports where they can be of use and again the British can redeploy men already in England more rapidly.

Of course this concentration reduces the German ability to move men and equipment over dramatically while freeing up British forces. The Wehrmacht considered that a narrow front would be the equivalent of sending the men into a sausage grinder with good reason.
 
The Germans didn't need to march into London to knock the British out of the war. All they needed to do was to occupy and hold on enough territory to defeat any British counter-attacks from driving them out. That would've demoralised the British enough that they would've given Winston Churchill his marching orders and appointed a government willing to negotiate something with the Germans.

Erm no is the response to that one, nice idea but its not going to happen any politician who negotiated with the Germans would most likely have found themselves up against a wall smoking their last cigarette.

If you want a good idea of the state of British morale in that period look no further than Dunkirk, almost certainly the worst defeat that the British army has ever suffered. A defeat that should have shattered morale and led to defeatism but talking to my parents who lived through it all they say everyone was nervous and expected an invasion at any time but the one thing that really worried them was that cigarettes were rationed.:)
 

Markus

Banned
Allocating 8000 airborne troops to taking a few strategic airfields and a port would have been enough to secure them long enough to enable the Germans to bring in additional soldiers and equipment.
I was told "the maximum frontage for a light infantry regiment is four kilometers in defense". With that in mind I have been playing with google maps and created this "beachhead" around one RAF base.



The perimeter is 33 km long. That would require at least eight paratrooper regiments with 24 battalions. The Germans had five in 1940, battalions, not regiments.

And even 24 would not have sufficed. The first circle shows the range of the obsolete 18 pounder field gun from WW1, the second the one of the modern 25 pounder. As you can see there is plenty of land outside the perimeter from which medium artillery could have targeted the airfield.

Taking a port would be even more impossible as english ports had been fortified for centuries and for a force with next to no artillery even 19th century fortifications are formidable.


Edit: I overlooked a little transportation problem. You need 54 Ju-52 per infantry battalion. In early may 1940 the LW had 570 Ju-52, before the month was over the number was down to 370 and that includes all Ju-52 the LW had anywhere. That leaves probably less than 250 Ju-52 for the partas, so transporting 5 battalions would have been difficult. But by late May 1940 the LW did not have five full strength para battalions any more.
 
Last edited:
Top