Possible effects of a failed Sea Lion on Allied operations latter in the War

[What if]

I was recently thinking about a sea lion discussion thread (which's name I can't remember) and how people said some effects of a failed Sea lion could be not Africa Corps and Crete potentially remaining in allied hands. I thought of how could this effect allied operation by say 1942 with the British not on the defensive in Africa making the Mediterranean an allied pond and could there be possible earlier offensives operations, and I came up with a list of potential operations and I'm curious which one people think is the most plausible

Edit BTW I am inclined to think there wouldn't be German troops in Africa meaning that would be in allied by 1941

Liberation of Norway
Given its not connected to Europe in the same way Italy is I think it would be a better place for US soldiers to get their first taste of combat against the Germans. Its closer proximity to the USSR means its effects could potentially be more obviously felt on the Eastern front and it could make it easier for convoys to reach the USSR, the potential to halt German's Iron Ore means it would be a major strategic lose for the Germans if the operation was successful. O finally benefit would be the potnial of gaining more (and closer) air bases to bomb Germany from. Downside is U-boats would be a problem (effecting supply and potentially invasion craft).

Italy
Given that TTL the Mediterranean is an allied Pond it would make shipping supplies and that less of an issue and the Italians weren't as well equipped or as well trained as the Germans. However given Italy is a part of mainland Europe so it wouldn't be too hard for some German troops to be redeployed to fight the Allies and the lack of experience with the Americans could create come difficulties when fighting the German's.

Do Nothing
US can send more soldiers into the Pacific but Stalin and the USSR wouldn't be too happy and it gives Hitler room to fight the USSR without delaying with the Allies directly at the same time.

Also feel free to comment

Edit I'm going with Norway mainly because I think the US would want to test its soldiers in a place not directly connected to mainland Europe

Another edit for clarification Nothing changed in the BOF or anything just the Germans were doing better OTL in the air war but the RN wiped out the first wave before it made it ashore and the Paratroopers were forced to surrender as a result. Edit And the Paratroopers were forced to surrender due to there being no reinforcements arriving to help them.

Another EDIT Plus one For further clarification when I say wiped out I mean it doesn't even make it to sure due to the RN's interception so I guess some could have survived but turned around.

 

[MattII]

Go after Italy. It happened OTL, and after the losses of Sealion the Germans might be a little more nervous about any commitments requiring the use of water transit.

 

[What if]

Go after Italy. It happened OTL, and after the losses of Sealion the Germans might be a little more nervous about any commitments requiring the use of water transit.

True but its not like Hitler would allow withdrawing from places that require water transit to supply plus apart from Sicily I don't think this would effect German deployments in Italy.

 

[Drunkrobot]

I would prefer Norway if it was possible, but I think a successful liberation may be harder than it may look. You're looking at up to 400,000 German soldiers defending Norway, along with submarine bases and land-based aircraft. It would really depending on just how much Germany and Britain actually loses attempting and defending from Sealion. A bad enough lose for Germany might encourage a partial withdrawal from Norway to make up for losses. A negative drawback from Sealion might be to knock some sense into Hitler and start listening to his generals more he makes a fool of himself again, and for the American public to worry less about the Germans that obviously are going to burn themselves out. Without Hitler declaring war on America, then Norway pretty much becomes the one thing the Allies can do immediately in Europe after securing North Africa and the Mediterranean. Italy would be too big a bite for a Britain on its own in the West.

That is, if Sealion delays or stops the American entry into the European war. If not, then the Americans would prefer either Italy or France (Operation Sledgehammer), but in 1942 their part in the war is too small to override the British.

 

[What if]

I would prefer Norway if it was possible, but I think a successful liberation may be harder than it may look. You're looking at up to 400,000 German soldiers defending Norway, along with submarine bases and land-based aircraft. It would really depending on just how much Germany and Britain actually loses attempting and defending from Sealion. A bad enough lose for Germany might encourage a partial withdrawal from Norway to make up for losses. A negative drawback from Sealion might be to knock some sense into Hitler and start listening to his generals more he makes a fool of himself again, and for the American public to worry less about the Germans that obviously are going to burn themselves out. Without Hitler declaring war on America, then Norway pretty much becomes the one thing the Allies can do immediately in Europe after securing North Africa and the Mediterranean. Italy would be too big a bite for a Britain on its own in the West.

That is, if Sealion delays or stops the American entry into the European war. If not, then the Americans would prefer either Italy or France (Operation Sledgehammer), but in 1942 their part in the war is too small to override the British.

Thing is I wonder if it might have the opposite effect on Hitler and instead he starts putting ideologues into the general staff earlier meaning Barbarossa is less successful and Hitler also declare was on the US.

 

[nbcman]

Go after Italy. It happened OTL, and after the losses of Sealion the Germans might be a little more nervous about any commitments requiring the use of water transit.

This. The Allies would be able to chip away at Italy's locations in the Med (Sicily, Sardinia, Crete, etc.) as opposed to going into the strategic dead end that was Norway. A more successful Allies in the Med may prompt an earlier defection of Vichy French North Africa. However, this may not be a great advantage since there would not be the opportunity to capture a large army in Tunisia so the Axis would have 250,000+ more men IOTL.

 

[Drunkrobot]

This. The Allies would be able to chip away at Italy's locations in the Med (Sicily, Sardinia, Crete, etc.) as opposed to going into the strategic dead end that was Norway. A more successful Allies in the Med may prompt an earlier defection of Vichy French North Africa. However, this may not be a great advantage since there would not be the opportunity to capture a large army in Tunisia so the Axis would have 250,000+ more men IOTL.

I wouldn't be too harsh on the advantages of an Allied-held Norway. Lines of supply to the Soviet Union would be secure, and the Royal Navy, RAF and USAAF would be parked right at the mouth of the Baltic. That cripples the German war in the Atlantic and frees up a lot of the British navy for war in the Far East. Hitler would also have to heavily defend the north German coast, taking up men and industry.

 

[Glenn239]

I was recently thinking about a sea lion discussion thread (which's name I can't remember) and how people said some effects of a failed Sea lion could be not Africa Corps and Crete potentially remaining in allied hands.

Failed Sealion means no Barbarossa. On a scale of 1 to 10, no Barbarossa in 1941 is a '10' and Crete is a '1'.

 

[Ian_W]

Failed Sealion means no Barbarossa. On a scale of 1 to 10, no Barbarossa in 1941 is a '10' and Crete is a '1'.

Nahh. A failed Sealion gets 6-8 German infantry divisions mauled by losing everything they committed in the first wave (there is no second wave), loses the paratroops and destroys the remnants of the Kriegsmarine and maybe 10% of Germany's riverine shipping. All of which hurts - probably nothing so much as the loss of the barges.

But it doesnt stop Barbarossa - indeed, it might even make it more essential to fight a "preventitive war" against the USSR.

 

[MattII]

True but its not like Hitler would allow withdrawing from places that require water transit to supply plus apart from Sicily I don't think this would effect German deployments in Italy.

In 1940 (when Sealion would likely take place< there are no German troops in Africa, so nothing to evacuate.

I would prefer Norway if it was possible, but I think a successful liberation may be harder than it may look. You're looking at up to 400,000 German soldiers defending Norway, along with submarine bases and land-based aircraft.

With limited landing craft miniscule, air support, and masses of enemy troops, it'll be Dieppe writ large.

Failed Sealion means no Barbarossa. On a scale of 1 to 10, no Barbarossa in 1941 is a '10' and Crete is a '1'.

Nahh. A failed Sealion gets 6-8 German infantry divisions mauled by losing everything they committed in the first wave (there is no second wave), loses the paratroops and destroys the remnants of the Kriegsmarine and maybe 10% of Germany's riverine shipping. All of which hurts - probably nothing so much as the loss of the barges.

But it doesnt stop Barbarossa - indeed, it might even make it more essential to fight a "preventitive war" against the USSR.

IMO the answer is somewhere in between, i.e. it doesn't stop Barbarossa, provided Britain doesn't attempt to exploit the victory, if they do attempt to exploit it, things are more up-in-the-air.

 

[Glenn239]

Nahh. A failed Sealion gets 6-8 German infantry divisions mauled by losing everything they committed in the first wave (there is no second wave), loses the paratroops and destroys the remnants of the Kriegsmarine and maybe 10% of Germany's riverine shipping. All of which hurts - probably nothing so much as the loss of the barges.

Infantry - 6-8 divisions lost
Kriegsmarine - "destroyed"
Barge fleet- crippled

Your list about covers it. Not like Germany invaded Russia with airplanes or tanks, right?

But it doesnt stop Barbarossa - indeed, it might even make it more essential to fight a "preventitive war" against the USSR.

Seemed odd to me the original post listed minor events like Crete but forgot the big one - that the harder Sealion fails the more likely Barbarossa is off the table.

 

[Drunkrobot]

With limited landing craft miniscule, air support, and masses of enemy troops, it'll be Dieppe writ large.

Exactly the same could be said of landing in Italy. The difference is that Norway is across the sea, so all those troops and tanks in Fortress Europe isn't going to do Hitler much good if his navy and airforce are mauled.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

The loss of barges will actually have an impact on Barbarossa, as they were an important part of German industrial transport and hence the build-up for Barbarossa in terms of ammunition manufacturing. The difference will be rather minor, although given how close the battles along the D'niepr were that could be enough.

Seemed odd to me the original post listed minor events like Crete but forgot the big one - that the harder Sealion fails the more likely Barbarossa is off the table.

Nonsense. If anything, it may reinforce Hitler's decision to invade Russia since that (in the German's minds) offer a way to knock out Britain that plays to German strengths in land war after their weakness in the naval war has been so clearly demonstrated.

You seem to have a pathological inability to understand the strategic reasoning the German High Command went into Barbarossa with. The route they took to arrive at the logic of invading Russia was a different one from Hitler (who just hated the Soviets and wanted land) but no less insane. It runs like so:

1) Germany was only prepared to wage a short war.

2) Germany was in no position to invade and defeat Britain, and preparing such an invasion would take years to build the necessary naval capability.

3) Britain could not hope to win on her own and had to be holding out for continental allies. The only possible one remaining was Russia.

4) Germany could knock Britain out of the war by defeating Russia.

5) Because there was no need to build a navy, Russia would be much quicker to defeat.

Conclusion: The war could be ended soonest by invading Russia.

A defeat in an attempted invasion of Britain is likely to reinforce the above attitudes rather then deflect them, given the Germans near-criminal deficiency in means-ends analysis and planning...

 

[nbcman]

Exactly the same could be said of landing in Italy. The difference is that Norway is across the sea, so all those troops and tanks in Fortress Europe isn't going to do Hitler much good if his navy and airforce are mauled.

The airbases from the airfields in the UK to Norway are much farther than from Malta (164 km) or Tripoli (521 km) to Sicily. Tunis is 400 km. What large airfields could they use in Scotland to support landings in even a corner of Norway?

There is the not inconsiderable advantage of raising the chance for one of the three major Axis countries from surrendering if Italy was invaded. There is no corresponding advantage for invading Norway.

 

[galveston bay]

I wouldn't be too harsh on the advantages of an Allied-held Norway. Lines of supply to the Soviet Union would be secure, and the Royal Navy, RAF and USAAF would be parked right at the mouth of the Baltic. That cripples the German war in the Atlantic and frees up a lot of the British navy for war in the Far East. Hitler would also have to heavily defend the north German coast, taking up men and industry.

taking Norway also cripples the German steel industry, as iron ore shipments from Sweden would almost certainly stop due to Allied diplomatic pressure on Sweden (being right there really helps).

Presuming the German invasion of the Soviet Union (which seems certain to me for reasons explained elsewhere in the thread), taking Norway also secures firmly the northern Lend Lease Route to Murmansk and Archangel.

Finally it means British Coastal Command has basing to reach deep into the Baltic Sea, which will hurt the Kriegsmarine and German coastal trade and fishing.

So an interesting trade off compared to Sicily really. You could argue it either way I think

 

[Drunkrobot]

The airbases from the airfields in the UK to Norway are much farther than from Malta (164 km) or Tripoli (521 km) to Sicily. Tunis is 400 km. What large airfields could they use in Scotland to support landings in even a corner of Norway?

There is the not inconsiderable advantage of raising the chance for one of the three major Axis countries from surrendering if Italy was invaded. There is no corresponding advantage for invading Norway.

But invading Italy means that the British - who are effectively alone at this point, the USSR stuck in the east and the US either not in the war or still mobilising - will be fighting a land war on the continent, almost certainly against the same German army that kicked them out of Greece not too long ago. The OTL invasion of Italy was a slog, even though much of the German army was on the wrong end of a thousand miles of Soviet land and the British had the backing of the Americans. It's the same reason Sledgehammer was out of the question when America entered the war, they just weren't ready for an invasion of the continent.

You have a point that air cover for the British would be better when invading Italy than Norway, outside of sending a good bit of the RAF all the way to Soviet airbases to the east of Finland (which they did do as part of an attempt to sink the Tirptiz, but a campaign to liberate Norway would be on a larger scale).

 

[nbcman]

But invading Italy means that the British - who are effectively alone at this point, the USSR stuck in the east and the US either not in the war or still mobilising - will be fighting a land war on the continent, almost certainly against the same German army that kicked them out of Greece not too long ago. The OTL invasion of Italy was a slog, even though much of the German army was on the wrong end of a thousand miles of Soviet land and the British had the backing of the Americans. It's the same reason Sledgehammer was out of the question when America entered the war, they just weren't ready for an invasion of the continent.

You have a point that air cover for the British would be better when invading Italy than Norway, outside of sending a good bit of the RAF all the way to Soviet airbases to the east of Finland (which they did do as part of an attempt to sink the Tirptiz, but a campaign to liberate Norway would be on a larger scale).

I don't think that the Commonwealth forces could or should land on the Italian mainland without a significant US force in 1942. But they could nibble around the edges (Sardinia, Sicily, Crete) to make it easier to invade in 1943 while giving the US (and CW) forces an opportunity to train in locations where they can use their greatest assets (air and naval) to the fullest extent.

 

[jsb]

I agree with nbcman, wining Sealion will simply make GB think that it should stay fighting its type of war (ie Navel/Air) and try for a Nepolionic style grand strategy of supporting others to do the land fighting. (and dying)(subject to Churchill and stupid Dieppe thoughts getting in the way)

I see the Med going better with more forces available for GB and less for Axis, winning in Create and N Africa first, then Tunisia, Sardinia/Corsica and Sicily to open the Mediterranean.

By that point Barbarossa is running nearly as OTL and the USA/Japan probably join WWII as OTL, but GB is in a significantly better position and Italy in a much worse one.

 

[Glenn239]

Nonsense. If anything, it may reinforce Hitler's decision to invade Russia.

Heavy losses in Sealion would take Barbarossa off the table for 1941.

 

[merlin]

The Allies build mechanised armies, mainly for north-western Europe. Therefore Norway, is out, Churchill was the only one who liked it! The climate is not suitable, the topography is not suitable, and the potential (assuming you are successful) - where to go next - is not suitable.