Is it possible?

I had always thought it was all down to the feirce and world reknowned Brighton Rock and Candyfloss so common on the south coast. Enough to turn any potential enemy away, German soldiers were terrified of rotting their teeth.

 

I also heard that the Germans saw the invasion of Britain as little more than a river crossing (really not sure where I heard it). Weren't the Germans also inteding to use bardges to get across France to Britain ???

 

I dont know Je, it's probablly a possibility since the Germans underestimated practically all of Britain's war-making capabilities. And to charlie, thansk for that correction it totally slipped my mind.

 

In summing up the directives for Operation Sealion, historian Stephen Bungay states that ' One could be forgiven for thinking that the Luftwaffe was to defeat Britain by itself, leaving the navy to run a ferry service and the army to walk ashore and mop up whatever was left'.

In fact, Admiral Raeder was appalled at the prospect and on July 28th reported that ferrying the first wave of troops ashore would take ten days and that conversion of sufficient Rhine barges would take until mid-September.

The fact is that, by mid-July 1940, the Kriegsmarine had lost one pocket battleship, three cruisers and ten destroyers. Its' two battleships were still being fitted out, its' two battlecruisers were damaged and under repair. This left one heavy cruiser, three light cruisers and nine destroyers available for immediate action. By contrast, at this time the Royal Navy had five battleships, one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and fifty-seven destroyers available in home waters alone....

( The above is paraphrased from Bungay, 'The Most Dangerous Enemy' 2000 ).

 

But Martin, hasn't it been established that the British would surrender en masse upon seeing the first German soldier on their coast??

(Sorry... that's one of my favorite "theories" about Sealion!!)

Well dammit darn dang damn dag nabbit, I may just do that!!

 

Crazy, in a word, nope. Well, I have never heared it established, frankly I can not see the army walking to the beach and handing their weapons in, the general public was so anti German they would have joined in (my great grandmother kept a saucepan and a box of some very corrosive cleaning stuff by the door to defend herself with, weird) and I know neither of these last points mean much but dont underestimate the home guard. I know they would have lasted about five minutes, but having met a few ex-members and looked into the whole thing quite a bit I have reached the opinion that many of them would have fought to the last and then some. Then again most of them would just have got in the way of the regs'

 

Stefan, I was being ENTIRELY sarcastic!!

In previous discussions of Sealion, that was something that always drove me nuts. Sealiion discussions tend to ENTIRELY focus on the problems on the German side of the operation. There seemed to be this idea that IF the germans actually could have made it across the channel, that everything after that would be easy.
I remember one person arguing that as soon as ONE British city was occupied, that THE ENTIRE REST OF BRITIAN would have surrendered!

I would agree whole-heartedly with your point-

I'm of the same theory. IF the germans could have surmounted the logistical problems they faced (which they could not have, but anyway...)- they STILL would have been in for one hell of a fight after they landed.

"Sealion", in my opinion, is one of the more ridiculous "What If?" items. I mean, even Hitler could see how foolish the idea was!

 

Oops, sorry Crazy, I have seen that argued before and it really made me rather angry. Hell, every nation in Europe put up resistance, the British forces were easily stronger than anyone who had stood against the Germans previously (in terms of their advantages such as the channel, navy, coastal defense and so on) and so had a far better chance of standing up against against the limited number of Germans who would be able to get across the channel and I believe turned them into the sea.

 

Same sentiments here... I never understood the whole "Britain would have surrendered" line...

How about this, though... thinking a bit more on Sealion...
What would the effects have been if the Germans actually HAD attempted Sealion?
I think the obvious starting point would be the failure of the operation- that aspect has been gone over many times.
But what after that? Would Germany have been weakened to the point where Barbarossa would have to be postponed? Would Britian have any resources to launch any sort of counter-attack?

A shorter war in Europe?

Food for thought, I guess.

 

Britain : no resources for a counterattack, certainly. I think that both sides would have been left glaring at each other across the Channel.

Barbarossa, I think, would have gone ahead. It's so difficult to imagine how strengths would have been different. For example, in my recent reading about Crete, the very large losses in Ju52 transport aircraft is discussed. These losses were never 'made good' and although this did not affect the open phases of Barbarossa, there were many subsequent occasions when the lost transport 'planes would have been very useful....

But it's all a 'what if?'. Sealion was never, ever 'on'.....

 

No, I cannot see the Germans getting past sending the first wave of 9 divisions. That alone would have taken them 10 days, enough time for the RN to sink everything in sight. The German Surface fleet would most likely be wiped out, but that wouldn't matter as far as Barbarossa is concerned, and the Luftwaffe would suffer heavy casualties though probably not enough to prevent them building up for Barbarossa.
So losses wouldn't have stopped Barbarossa, but the greatest damage would have been to German morale. One reason there was so little opposition to the Barbarossa plan was that the German army had not failed in any battle under Hitler before the invasion of Russia. The Germans were so full of self-belief they didn't question the logic. However if they lost Sea-Lion, maybe when Hitler told the General staff of his "new " great plan, a number might have thought " time for him to go"

Not in Europe, though with the threat of invasion lifted, more could be sent to the Middle East, so maybe total defeat for Italy in N. Africa in early 41 ?

if Barbarrossa is delayed or abandoned, maybe a longer one ?

Yes

 

Most incredible thread, gentlemen! I took my time to analise every one of your posts and as always, I bring a bunch of harsh but well-analised thoughts!

The ideal thing would have been not to invade Russia and let Admiral Dönitz to starve Great Britain to death. But as all ideal things, they were not probable to happen. First, because Hitler needed to knock out the Soviet menace and to obtain the resources and vital space in Russia to be able to fight a long war against the British Empire or the USA.

Nobody has ever denied this.

I don't think so. I find 1943 or 1944 rather better years to start an offensive war.

Indeed, there is no way that the Germans (nor ANYONE else) would have carried 150 divisions by sea to no where... But the Germans and Italians DID have the posibility to deploy up until 12 divisions in North Africa if there wouldn't have been an Eastern Front. With all the Luftwaffe power used in 'Barbarossa' being used in the Mediterranean the Royal Navy would have bleed to death as well the Commonwealth forces in the desert.

True.

Indeed building shipyards and large ships requires an enormous ammount of time, resources and efforts which the Germans simply could not gather. But as I mentioned before, without an Eastern Front then the main strenght of the Luftwaffe along with the considerable forces of the Italian Navy and Air Force would have been enough to overwhelm the RN and the RAF in the Mediterranean. No need of German big ships built in Marseille nor passing through Gibraltar (eben if we know that this was impossible).

They failed because of Malta, but with many more resorces that little island would have been taken out of the map.

This is where we can find "what would have happen if 'Sealion' would have been launched". Even with a dominant Luftwaffe, the Royal Navy caused very severe losses to the German Navy, even if it wasn't free for the RN.

Does this include the Soviet Union which actually defeated Germany?

Entirely agree.

This is absolutely not truth. You have stated how formidable were the defences of Great Britain (the weather, the Channel, the RAF, the Army, the people and of course, the Royal Navy) and how unable were the Germans to invade. True. But in the far east the Japanese DID have the capacity of invading India and how can the situation of the far east be better than that of Great Britain itself? Remember that in the far east you have lost all the Malayan penninsula, your 'incredible' fortress, 150.000 men, the whole RAF, the whole RN and half of Burma!

More than agree.

You're forgetting about a much stronger U-boat force...

Agree on 'Torch'. But Malta wouldn't have resisted an airborne invasion. And what you say about Gibraltar. It has many of the 'formidable' characteristics as Singapore... However, the RN was very weak in Singapore compared to the JIN...

False. You are forgetting about Cape Matapan battle which happened months after Taranto.

'Sealion' was not possible. But I still don't buy that of the RAF winning...

The RN could have been to some point held by the Luftwaffe, but I consider the Channel's weather rather dangerous for the German invasion. Ill-prepared and unexperienced invasion forces would not have been able to land even one division and keep it supplied in the opposite side of the Channel.

The Germans did have heavy equippment available for the crossing and some Rhine-barges to take them to the other side of the Channel. I doubt that the crossing of the Channel and the supply matter would have been possible. But if done, the British might give a hard fight and had numerical supperiority but they didn't understand a damn about modern warfare. Look at France, Greec, Africa and Crete. I believe that once the Germans would have had a strong and supplied beachhead there was not much the British could do to prevent defeat (and I am not stating that they wouldn't have fought incredibly fiercely). But I also believe that the crossing and even more the supply of those forces were IMPOSSIBLE. This is confirmed by this:

Well, 'Sealion' was scheduled for September 21st, so they had a few days left. But alright, the Royal Navy would have mobilised its enormous force in numbers and quality to prevent the invasion, and the cost didn't matter (which would have been high thanks to the Luftwaffe).

Of course not! They were not Italians! They were British barbarians, celts, red coats and tommies!

400% agree.

I also think this would have happened after an ill-performed 'Sealion'. Fateful blow to German morale. Hitler would have considered many more things before invading Russia since he already saw that his Army is defeatable. Maybe better planning and better equipment. I don't see him cancelling it though. But I do see a furious Hitler wanting admiral Dönitz starving the British and Hitler realising that the ONLY 'final solution to the British question' was under the sea... And we know what it means.

 

Thank God for the RAF, eh , Friedrich ?

 

This is probably one of the most intresting threads I have ever seen. Brilliant list Friedrich. Anything else ?

 

Damn straight. Nice post, Friedrich!

Definetely an interesting one... A couple ideas/points...

I wonder about this one. Once Hitler had actually committed to the invasion, I wonder if he would not have become determined to WIN the battle. As it was, the BoB was fought entirely in the air- given these circumstances, when the BoB failed, Hitler could just look at it as a "Luftwaffe failure". I wonder though- if he had commmitted major troops and resources to an invasion, would he "give up" on beating Britian so easily?
Or would we see Barbarossa postponed indefinetely as Germany continued to throw forces at Britian?

This is an interesting idea as well. Friedrich has a great point- as it was, the Germans had not suffered any major defeats. Again, the BoB could be viewed as a Luftwaffe failure... easy for Hitler to dismiss.
But had Operation Sealion been attempted, and turned into a major and costly failure, Hitler may well not have had so much "pull" over his generals.
And who knows what kind of impact that would have had over the war?
Again, nice points, Fried- definetely food for thought!

 

Crazy, nice signature......no of course U have to tell what the D is with the circle around it and the background being a Tiger 1 where placed ?

~E

 

Indeed, Martin. I have always had the utmost respect and admiration for the guys of the RAF, who certainly, saved the whole British Empire in the autumn of 1940. They faced in an extremely brave way a force far superior in quantity and maybe quality in some points and they were able to handle the situation and made the enemy pay for every inch of 'sky'. No one has ever questioned that the British courage and valour during that fateful days have no paralell in History. But I think that it is overrating and exagerating saying that the RAF was indeed winning. This exact case applies to Malta as well. And of course the RAF fought fiercely against the Japanese in the far East.

And there's of course, the Royal Navy, that saved the British Empire over an over again from gigantic and hostile empires through History. Not only its size, but the professionality and valour of its men and officers made it undefeatable. They might have lost some battles like that of the Bismarck and the one at Malaya or when defeated by the French Fleet in 1781... but they always won in the end...

The Royal Army was always professional, well trained and leaded. But it always played minor parts in the British wars. However, I have always admired the British Lion. They are indeed a war people, as the Germans...

I think I said pretty much everything.

Of course he would have. But he was not an imbecile, he would have change his methods and most likely would have gave Admiral Dönitz a total free hand and many resources to put 'a final solution to the British question'...

(I bloody liked that term!!!)

 

A little more...

But then this could have led to Barbarossa being postponed- no? If Hitler- and consequently German industry and military- "fixated" on defeating England... I don't think Barbarossa could have been attempted in addition.
If you go on the theory that Donitz could have beaten Britian with subs/navy alone- which we could go with if Germany dedicated nearly all it's industry towards it- then how long would this have taken? Into 1941, at least... into 1942?

I've read in many sources- Erickson among others- that Stalin figured that eventually Germany and Russia would eventually come into conflict. Stalin just (as it was) deluded himself into thinking he could determine when that conflict would occur.
My point being- if Hitler had launched Sealion- and "fixated" on it- would Stalin have potentially seen his window and attacked Germany?
At the least, Russia would have likely been in much better position to resist if/when Barbarossa was eventually launched.

I dunno... maybe more food for thought?

(I've got to go get some food for ME!)

 

Crazy! Stop saying that Stalin might have attacked Germany in 1942 or 1943 or Andy will come and bother us! You know... Andy and his 'facts'... (Just kidding, Andy)

No, Germany didn't need to turn all its war industry in building submarines to defeat Great Britain in let's say, 1942. With adequate economic and industrial measures in summer 1940, admiral Dönitz would have been able to bring Great Britain to its knees in summer 1942. He just needed more submarines quicker. And some FW-200 under the Navy's command would have also helped. Instead of finishing the Tirpitz all the German and French shipyards could have been used to manufacture submarines. Let's remember that by early 1942 some 30 new U-boats and 30 crews a month were ready for action thanks to the rapid training methods and that the U-boat parts were built all over Germany and assembled altogether at the shipyards... and that actually happened, without the special measures we're talking about. Maybe with some 40-50 Condors and 500-600 U-boats it would have been enough to starve Great Britain by summer 1942. The question would be: what would have happened to 'Barbarossa'? I don't think the submarine war affected the land war in the East in great shape.