Luftwaffe wins Battle of Britain, No Sealion

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

amphibulous

Banned
The question has to be asked did the German population, who were in receipt of a much heavier bombardment in the later war years agitate for a change of government? they did not and I think the UK would act in the same way, localised grumbling with loss of morale but the majority still in good spirits.

People are missing two things here.

Without the RAF, the Blitz is much worse. Bomber numbers build and they can bomb in daylight without much interference, so they're more effective.

And the Germans arguably go on against the Allied air campaign because anyone who says otherwise will go to a concentration camp! Plus they know that they have performed enormous war crimes and that the retribution will be terrible, and the only deal on the table for them is unconditional surrender. None of these apply to the UK.

These factors don't mean that the British do make a deal. But, no, you can't take the German case as binding.
 

amphibulous

Banned
I've never understood where the withdrawal to the North has come from. I haven't come across this plan anywhere other than on this site. I'd be interested to know the source of this information so I can add it to my research.

Why wasn't this plan implemented on 7th Sept when "Invasion Alert No. 1" was issued - basically the military was told that the invasion was only hours away?

Why would the withdrawal plan have been implemented on the 7th? In fact, you have this backwards: the point of the withdrawal would have been to put the fighters out of air combat range to preserve them to counter an invasion. If they had been moved, they'd have RETURNED on the 7th!
 
Why again are we expecting that Luftwaffe gaining TEMPORARY air superiority over discrete areas of SE England would allow them to execute Operation UMSM? As far as I remember, the barges would take two days (full 48 hours) to arrive at their destinations.

50% sink just so. Without any interference, or hostile action at all. A large number is sunk when the RN destroyer in high speed run during a night passes by. Note 'the' as in a single destroyer would probably suffice to send much of the abysmally slow and unseaworthy armada to the bottom of the Channel. Without ever firing a single round. The remaining (if any) that arrive to unload their troops encounter a hot welcome committee, and half of them lands sideways, complicating both unloading and returning, although already by this moment it is clear there will not be a second wave.

Finally, battered, seasick and exhausted soldiers that miraculously manage to emerge on the shore of Britain are unceremoniously killed or captured by British regulars and the Home Guard.

Germans lack the capability to capitalize on their potential air victory, even if it was at all possible. BoB was fought on a parity in numbers (of fighters, to be exact) and the British even if they were in danger of being defeated had even or better than even chances to emerge on top. By that time they already started to outproduce Germany in airplanes. They had the force multiplier in the form of well developed and applied integrated air defense system. They had overseas and US to supply with anything their industry lacked or couldn't produce.

For that matter, if the Allied experience over Germany is taken into account, industrial capability of a country is remarkably resilient. The Germans would need at least a year of total or near total air supremacy over the UK (the entire UK) to start making a dent in British production. Germany lacked airplanes and the method to achieve this. Quite aside of their intended next step in the project "Let's ruin Germany and Europe for years to come". Eventually, United States industrial potential comes to play and after that the writing on the wall is clear. Even without the Bomb.
 
I just don't see it would/could have happened i.e. a cocious decision to withdraw north. However, it's possible the Lw could think there had been a withdrawal. If the normal rotation of Squadrons, had happened at the same time and that the replacement ones got delayed - that in itself seems organisationally unlikely - but not impossible. But then the Germans get 'screwed'!
I'm in agreement with you there, it would be madness to withdraw unless they were forced to ... that's the only way I could see it happening. And the rotation system was scrapped after 7th September as far as I am aware because Dowding felt it wasn't working, inexperienced pilots showed themselves to be less effective than the exhausted ones they were replacing.
 
Why would the withdrawal plan have been implemented on the 7th? In fact, you have this backwards: the point of the withdrawal would have been to put the fighters out of air combat range to preserve them to counter an invasion. If they had been moved, they'd have RETURNED on the 7th!
Do you have any evidence of this "plan" I can't find any anywhere?
 
Why again are we expecting that Luftwaffe gaining TEMPORARY air superiority over discrete areas of SE England would allow them to execute Operation UMSM? As far as I remember, the barges would take two days (full 48 hours) to arrive at their destinations.

50% sink just so. Without any interference, or hostile action at all. A large number is sunk when the RN destroyer in high speed run during a night passes by. Note 'the' as in a single destroyer would probably suffice to send much of the abysmally slow and unseaworthy armada to the bottom of the Channel. Without ever firing a single round. The remaining (if any) that arrive to unload their troops encounter a hot welcome committee, and half of them lands sideways, complicating both unloading and returning, although already by this moment it is clear there will not be a second wave.

Finally, battered, seasick and exhausted soldiers that miraculously manage to emerge on the shore of Britain are unceremoniously killed or captured by British regulars and the Home Guard.

Germans lack the capability to capitalize on their potential air victory, even if it was at all possible. BoB was fought on a parity in numbers (of fighters, to be exact) and the British even if they were in danger of being defeated had even or better than even chances to emerge on top. By that time they already started to outproduce Germany in airplanes. They had the force multiplier in the form of well developed and applied integrated air defense system. They had overseas and US to supply with anything their industry lacked or couldn't produce.

For that matter, if the Allied experience over Germany is taken into account, industrial capability of a country is remarkably resilient. The Germans would need at least a year of total or near total air supremacy over the UK (the entire UK) to start making a dent in British production. Germany lacked airplanes and the method to achieve this. Quite aside of their intended next step in the project "Let's ruin Germany and Europe for years to come". Eventually, United States industrial potential comes to play and after that the writing on the wall is clear. Even without the Bomb.
It doesn't matter what we think of the invasion plans ... that is not the discussion. But from all the documents etc. I have read the plan was to launch ten days after air superiority was achieved to give the LW the opportunity to soften up the Royal Navy. I have to assume that it was to be implemented regardless of how we, 70 years after the event, view it's probable success or not.
 

amphibulous

Banned
Why again are we expecting that Luftwaffe gaining TEMPORARY air superiority over discrete areas of SE England would allow them to execute Operation UMSM? As far as I remember, the barges would take two days (full 48 hours) to arrive at their destinations.

??? Isn't this the "No Sealion" thread ??? The bloody thing gets everywhere!
 
??? Isn't this the "No Sealion" thread ??? The bloody thing gets everywhere!
A victory for the LW in the Battle of Britain leads inevitably to Sea Lion as that was Germany's aim. You could say that their ultimate aim was the defeat of Britain ... so victory condition one leads to Sea Lion, condition two the defeat of Britain. Germany tried both and both failed. Maybe the question should have been slightly different.

Would local air superiority over Southern England have led to the defeat of Britian if Germany had decided not to launch Sea Lion?
 
Would local air superiority over Southern England have led to the defeat of Britian if Germany had decided not to launch Sea Lion?

No, since they cannot capitalize on it. It is a victory barren of a strategic result, as they cannot retain the supremacy sufficiently long to make British war effort unsustainable.
 
??? Isn't this the "No Sealion" thread ??? The bloody thing gets everywhere!

Just somehow, I've got the notion someone was pushing the idea along if Germans gain air superiority. From a general tone of a few posts. Sorry if I was mistaken.
 

amphibulous

Banned
A victory for the LW in the Battle of Britain leads inevitably to Sea Lion as that was Germany's aim.

Inevitably? No. There's a difference between a piece of paper and inevitability. Even for Germans. Sea Lion was arguably always a political sop - and then there were those barge trials, and there would have been more of them if Sea Lion had looked imminent.
 

amphibulous

Banned
Just somehow, I've got the notion someone was pushing the idea along if Germans gain air superiority. From a general tone of a few posts. Sorry if I was mistaken.

I don't blame ***you!*** It's just - THE BLOODY THING GETS EVERYWHERE!!!
 
No, since they cannot capitalize on it. It is a victory barren of a strategic result, as they cannot retain the supremacy sufficiently long to make British war effort unsustainable.

Inevitably? No. There's a difference between a piece of paper and inevitability. Even for Germans. Sea Lion was arguably always a political sop - and then there were those barge trials, and there would have been more of them if Sea Lion had looked imminent.

Looks like we will have to agree to disagree ... I have a very black and white view of things. If someone claims they have a plan and they make vast preparations to implement that plan, then they say that a specific event will trigger the implementation of that plan such as gaining air superiority then I'm of the firm oppinion that they will go through with it. Unless someone can provide me with evidence that the invasion plans would not have gone ahead then my mind will not be changed. I'm not saying it would have worked just that the next stage of the plan, the softening up of the Royal Navy would have been triggered by the clearing of the skies over Southern England. Who is to say that this next stage would have been a success, no one can know as it never occurred and if this part of the plan was not fulfilled then the final part, the actual sea crossing, would not have been started anyway.

What I was trying to say was that the term "a victory for the LW" is a bad way to put it. As the victory condition is Air Superiority which then leads to the next stage of the plan wouldn't it be better to say what if the Germans gain air superiority (not victory) but then decide to change their plan.
 
Last edited:

amphibulous

Banned
Looks like we will have to agree to disagree ... I have a very black and white view of things. If someone claims they have a plan and they make vast preparations to implement that plan, then they say that a specific event will trigger the implementation of that plan such as gaining air superiority then I'm of the firm oppinion that they will go through with it.

You must be a terrible poker player. Sea Lion is widely considered a bluff/political sop with no strong intention to commit. Eg

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/ww2/sea-lion.htm

Hitler foresaw Germany conducting independent air operations that would concurrently isolate Britain economically and break the morale of the British people and government by total air warfare.

The first argument that recommended this option was that by avoiding a full-scale invasion, Germany could save its Army troops for Continental operations, especially the contemplated invasion of Russia. Second, an independent Luftwaffe operation was much simpler to plan than an amphibious landing and invasion. Also, Germany had an advantage (almost 1.5:1) in the air in terms of numbers of fighter aircraft. Another positive aspect of this option was that if the independent air campaign alone failed to intimidate Britain, it might at least create the preconditions necessary to conduct an invasion.

Unlike Continental operations in Poland, Norway, Belgium, and France, the execution of an amphibious invasion would require complicated operations and logistics coordination between Army, Navy, and Air Force. The Army and Navy were as yet unprepared to invade Britain. Detailed plans had not yet been drawn up; moreover, Army and Navy forces had to be reconstituted after the Battle of France. According to Navy Grand Admiral Erich Raeder, the Navy would not be prepared to bring Army troops to England until at least 15 September 1940, just a few weeks before fall and winter weather closed in making anamphibious landing impossible.

Although Hitler postponed Operation Sea Lion, he consoled himself with the belief that the invasion might be possible in the spring of 1941. With that thought, he did not want to end the air campaign and preparations for �Sealion� were continued solely for the purpose of maintaining political and military pressure on England.
 
You must be a terrible poker player. Sea Lion is widely considered a bluff/political sop with no strong intention to commit. Eg

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/ww2/sea-lion.htm

Hitler foresaw Germany conducting independent air operations that would concurrently isolate Britain economically and break the morale of the British people and government by total air warfare.

The first argument that recommended this option was that by avoiding a full-scale invasion, Germany could save its Army troops for Continental operations, especially the contemplated invasion of Russia. Second, an independent Luftwaffe operation was much simpler to plan than an amphibious landing and invasion. Also, Germany had an advantage (almost 1.5:1) in the air in terms of numbers of fighter aircraft. Another positive aspect of this option was that if the independent air campaign alone failed to intimidate Britain, it might at least create the preconditions necessary to conduct an invasion.

Unlike Continental operations in Poland, Norway, Belgium, and France, the execution of an amphibious invasion would require complicated operations and logistics coordination between Army, Navy, and Air Force. The Army and Navy were as yet unprepared to invade Britain. Detailed plans had not yet been drawn up; moreover, Army and Navy forces had to be reconstituted after the Battle of France. According to Navy Grand Admiral Erich Raeder, the Navy would not be prepared to bring Army troops to England until at least 15 September 1940, just a few weeks before fall and winter weather closed in making anamphibious landing impossible.

Although Hitler postponed Operation Sea Lion, he consoled himself with the belief that the invasion might be possible in the spring of 1941. With that thought, he did not want to end the air campaign and preparations for �Sealion� were continued solely for the purpose of maintaining political and military pressure on England.
And what does any of this prove about whether or not the plan would have been implemented or not? I've read this kind of stuff over and over again but it never says anywhere that Hitler wrote down "don't worry chaps it's all just a bluff" it never happened. So in the absence of such proof it surely has to considered a REAL plan that COULD have been executed if the right circumstances had prevailed. If you can provide me with that proof or a clear source of reliable information then please do I'd love to read it.
 
The arguments are based on the definition of the terms. Winning" the BoB in OTL terms wasn't even clearly defined, except that the Germans stopped daylight bombing and there was no invasion. Winning over 11 Group isn't winning. Air superiority is different from air supremacy, although neither are absolute without the absolute termination of RAF activities. The Luftwaffe tool to achieve victory, the Me-109, didn't have the legs for the job, so all arguments are moot. Bye.
 

Dirk_Pitt

Banned
I've never understood where the withdrawal to the North has come from. I haven't come across this plan anywhere other than on this site. I'd be interested to know the source of this information so I can add it to my research.

Why wasn't this plan implemented on 7th Sept when "Invasion Alert No. 1" was issued - basically the military was told that the invasion was only hours away?
Lulz on that one...

"Oh bloody hell, Bob! The bloody Jerries are coming!"

3580152174_930a7613f7_z.jpg


They kinda missed on that...
 
So hypothetically say the Luftwaffe wins the Battle of Britain and the RAF withdraws to the north of Britain to rebuild and still contest Luftwaffe raids over Southern Britain.
Found it ... taken from the RAF's own records:

"Suggestions were made that the fighters should be pulled back north of the Thames, but Dowding and Park knew that this was exactly what the Germans wanted, effectively giving them air superiority over the intended invasion area. So the 11 Group squadrons stayed and fought for their lives."
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I've never understood where the withdrawal to the North has come from. I haven't come across this plan anywhere other than on this site. I'd be interested to know the source of this information so I can add it to my research.

Why wasn't this plan implemented on 7th Sept when "Invasion Alert No. 1" was issued - basically the military was told that the invasion was only hours away?

They are withdrawing to reconstitute the squadrons and to move the airfields out of easy bombing range. The still fight, but having to come from farther north, it is harder to protect London and the coast. It would be a defensive pause that would see heavy bombing of targets in Southern England with marginally effective air defense. The UK had minimum levels of fighter that had to remain ready to cover the fleet during Sea Lion.
 
Top