Were the germans wrong?operation sealion

Yeah yeah,i know sealion has been discussed loads of times already but this is different,a bit.

Did the germans over estimate the importance of winning air superiority.
Surely they could have maintained superiority over just the channel and a few miles inland,

All they wanted to do was be able to form 3 bridgeheads and move on from there.
They were worried about the navy but what good is the navy when you are 30 miles inland?

 

"but what good is the navy when you are 30 miles inland?"


The tricky bit is GETTING 30 miles inland, in fact getting within 30 miles of the BEACH!



John.

 

The problem is that you can't get troops 30 miles inland without sea power. How do you get troops across a channel dominated by British ships? Also, how do you keep them supplied? not to mention the German's inexperience in cross-ocean invasions, shown in their poor planning. And yes this has been discussed a ton of times, even this particular question.

 

Okay let's forget the navies then.
Considering the BEF was a 100,000 man force for a nation which could doubtlessly mobilise ten or twenty times that number, was noted for the expertise of its riflemen and competence of its armaments industry and invented the tank and the aircraft carrier...

I'd say the importance of winning air superiority prior to any invasion could never be overestimated.

Then let's remember something else, morale and decisive commitment amongst leaders. Nazism was absolutely totalitarian and an absolute dictatorship, even over the military. But Nazis weren't career soldiers and strategists first, only second if at all. Nazism was firmly rooted in Eugenic presumptions of genetic psychology (volk or cultures and subcultures of devotion tied to ancestry), and whilst Hitler despised Parliamentarianism he respected the history of Great Britain, and much of its ancestry. Others such as Himmler venerated the Arthurian court right alongside Teutonics and Norse mythology.
I'd say if the Nazis felt a little nervous about anybody it would be the British from the moment they displayed such determination at Dunkirk (this was also when the Luftwaffe was given notice German Intelligence had totally underestimated the RAF and its new Spitfire, which was supposed to be inferior to the 109).

Then you have the Wehrmacht General Staff, whose role it is to look after the men at the front lines. The Kriegsmarine cannot stave off the Royal Navy even with air support during 1940, half its surface fleet could be taken out by motor torpedo boats and submarines let alone the two dozen or so full size battleships and half a dozen aircraft carriers moored at Scapa Flow.

So you're talking about landings with no fire support...
Next is armaments. Don't be fooled by all the propaganda footage and period media claims, Germany was running around with wooden wheeled old guns from the first world war drawn by horses. In relatively small numbers it had the same gun with a modernised carriage and that was about the best field gun it had in 1940. For antitank work you're looking at the PaK 35/36 and the Sköda PaK 36(t), which will never in a million years penetrate a Mark I Matilda.
As for armour you could concentrate the small number of PzIII, IV and StuGs but the best gun you're looking at is the short barelled 7.5cm sturmkanone in the PzIV and StuG, not exactly something you want to go facing down British 25-pdrs with and it gets worse from there.
The British will have fire support from 8-inch howitzers (ten ton guns), their fabulous 25-pdr (powerful enough for antitank work using HE shells), plenty of 2-pdrs (alongside the Sköda the hardest hitting antitank gun at the time, ca.58mm penetration), Oerlikons up the kazoo and a Lewis in every farmhouse and a Bren in every company. Not to mention such stupid ideas as the Northover Projector (a sort of molotov cocktail launcher that used black powder, yep the molly tended to break in the barrel and kill the users, blow up their jeep, set fire to the farmhouse, etc., but the point is the Brits were going to throw the kitchen sink into this battle). Let's not forget the Boys which will even kill crewmen in a PzIV with sideshots at good range.

If Hitler ordered the invasion without air superiority, for which even he wasn't that stupid, half of the Oberkommando and the General Staff wouldn't have waited until December 1941 to start resigning.

 

You are talking no landings at all - air superiority is all very well but as soon as the MTB's and destroyers get amongst the invasion force (and some undoubtedly would) the Luftwaffe would of had problems trying to bomb them for fear of hitting their own invasion barges/ships, and the RN ships, once amongst the invasion fleet, would of caused havoc and would of destroyed a large amount of the troop carriers. Just look at what happened to the German troops trying to get to Crete via shipping as soon as their boats were located by the RN.

 

Not really. Consider that they would have had to do it during all daylight hours at the least. That means only about 1/3 of their fighters can be in the air at any one time. They also will have to escort bombing raids and such. This is going to eat up lanes inoperational failures and losses even without combat losses. If they have to attack the RN they are also likely to take a fair amount of combat damage as well or be somewhat less than effective. So they have to maintain well over a 3:1 ratio in fighters compared to the RAF. Since their slight edge at the beginning of the BOB deteriated to less than parity I don't see them doing it when the RAF has the initiative.

 

If World War II proved anything, it's that there are two absolute prerequisites for a successful assault against a defended beach; those two things are air supremacy over the beach and adjacent sea, and absolute control of the sea surrounding the objective. When these prerequisites were satisfied, no invasion failed, when one or the other was in question, no invasion prevailed.

Wishing and pretending that you have air supremacy and sea control won't get you "30 miles inland", it will get you annihilated before you even reach dry land.

Germany could achieve neither air supremacy over, nor control of the sea around, Britain. Of the two, they came closest to air supremacy and, with the right tactics, may have achieved it. But control of the sea, even with air supremacy, was impossible for them. In the period that Operation Sea Lion was actively being considered, the German Navy was almost moribund. Britain stationed 36 destroyers in the Channel with no other duty than anti-invasion activities; Germany disposed of, at most, eight or nine destroyers. In December, 1940, there was a period when the Kriegsmarine could not deploy a single operational destroyer! The German plan for Operation Sea Lion did not employ a single warship larger than a destroyer for the simple reason that in the latter half of 1940, the KM did not have any operational warships larger than a destroyer.

I am just finishing Peter Fleming's book "Operation Sea Lion", in which he makes it clear that Britain's Royal Navy would have stopped any German invasion cold in it's tracks, whether or not the Germans had achieved air supremacy. There were many other problems that would have doomed any such attempt; for example, the Germans never managed to muster enough sea-lift capability to get even nine divisions across the Channel in any reasonable amount of time. The KM realistically argued for a small assault force on a narrow front with very limited objectives, because they knew they had no hope of safely conveying anything like the force the German Army planned to employ, in the face of the Royal Navy.

Field Marshal von Brauchitsch, in September, 1940, commenting on the German Navy's Operation Sea Lion plan said, "A frontal attack against a defense line, on too narrow a front, with no good prospects of surprise, and with insuffucient forces reinforced only in driblets." Halder, The German Army Chief of Staff, added to that, "I utterly reject the Navy's proposals [for landings on a narrow front], I might just as well put the troops through a sausage machine." (Peter Fleming, "Operationa Sea Lion", Page 252)

But the KM appreciated the practical problems of forcing the Channel in a way of which the German Army had no clue. The grandiose scheme involving 40 divisions across a 200 mile front (Normandy involved 9 divisions over a 40 mile front) that Hitler and his generals had originally proposed was physically impossible for Germany. Even the Navy's proposal for nine divisions over a ten-day period, was highly likely to fail, but at least it was within the realm of possibility.

 

Well said DA, I think Churchill said at the time something to the effect; "They may well come, but they will not come by SeaLion".

 

Absolutely true, not only did air and naval superiority have to be achieved, it had to be maintained, for any amphibious invasion to succeed. Without air superiority the germans in their landing craft would of course have been sitting ducks for the Royal Navy and RAF. The Germans could have mustered every last sub and ship in the Kriegsmarine and the entire luftwaffe too, but the Germans would never have been able to gain and hold a beachead for long and would have had great difficulty supplying them.

The Luftwaffe was a bit stronger than the RAF in 1940-1941 but the Kriegsmarine was no match for the Royal Navy: the German navy lacked the same number of capital ships, and had no aircraft carriers. Most importantly the Germans lacked any real landing craft of the type perfected by the USA such as LSTs and amtracs and were planning to use barges instead (but the RAF bombed the Hell out of everything in the French channel ports that looked like it might even be a landing craft).

Even if Goerring's luftwaffe had been able to live up to all his boasting to Hitler and smash the RAF, there is still considerable doubt whether Sea Lion could ever have succeeded. I think the US might have entered the war on Britain's side, perhaps by basing troops, ships and aircraft in Ireland at first or even Iceland.

 

Ok,a few things need to be addressed,

1.the RAF,yeah they had some spitfires and some hurricanes but everything else was rubbish,the germans only lost the battle of britain when they switched from trying to destroy the RAF.

2.everybody seems to pre-suppose that the british navy would be able to enter the channel and get among the german invasion force unmolested,there are two ways into the channel,from the east through a channel thats is only 20miles wide or from the west through a seventy mile gap,
This isnt the channel dash,had they tried it the germans would have wiped the british navy out.

Also the british beaches were no way near being protected enough,expect early german succeses.
I wouldnt be wild about 6th army or 16th armies chances but 9th armies chances seem viable enough.
Also the british were short of heavy equipment,100 tanks isnt much,and as for stop lines every inch of every line cant be defended,a WW1 defence against tanks is disaster waiting to happen.

Personally if i was invading england i wouldnt bother entering the cities,much easier to turn each city into an island and force the defender to come out.

 

Not entirely true. The Germans lost because of a number of things, including but not limited to, faulty intellegence, British radar, the amount of planes Britain was producing, and what you mentioned. however, it is not correct to just cite the latter as the only source.

[/QUOTE] 2.everybody seems to pre-suppose that the british navy would be able to enter the channel and get among the german invasion force unmolested,there are two ways into the channel,from the east through a channel thats is only 20miles wide or from the west through a seventy mile gap,
This isnt the channel dash,had they tried it the germans would have wiped the british navy out.[/QUOTE]

huh? why would the Germans wipe the British out?...because of the 20 mile, and 7 mile gaps?

[/QUOTE] Also the british beaches were no way near being protected enough,expect early german succeses.
I wouldnt be wild about 6th army or 16th armies chances but 9th armies chances seem viable enough.
Also the british were short of heavy equipment,100 tanks isnt much,and as for stop lines every inch of every line cant be defended,a WW1 defence against tanks is disaster waiting to happen.[/QUOTE]

what part of "it doesn'tt matter they don't have contorl of the SEA" don't you understand? I strongly suggest you read Devilsadvocate's post up above:

"If World War II proved anything, it's that there are two absolute prerequisites for a successful assault against a defended beach; those two things are air supremacy over the beach and adjacent sea, and absolute control of the sea surrounding the objective."

 

OK,first off,theres seems to be an attitude around the place of "because they didnt,they couldnt have"and i dont subscribe to that.

Also on the subject of quoting sources any proper researcher will tell you you need two seperate and independant sources,
youll have to excuse me if i fail to be overwhelmed by the "evidence" of single source references because i can equally find sources that say the exact opposite.

If the germans didnt have control of the sea then neither had the british,else they would have been bombarding the germans everyday.
Had the british navy entered the channel they would have gone the same way as the prince of wales.

 

Really, would you be kind enough to share some of these "sources" with us.

I also don't see where any of us were citing one source.

 

If you had read devilsadvocates post you would see that he quotes Peter Fleming.

michael burleigh,andrew mollo and kenneth macksey all say sealion would have succeeded,Of course now you'll try to convince me that one fleming is worth two burleighs.

Is it me or my arguement you are trying to beat because you havent addressed the stop lines or the fact that britain had so few tanks.

 

I have no problem with you, I have a problem with your argument (I understand you, you have been making arguments very typical of new members to the forum...I have been there dont worry). But there is no reason for me to address the issue of tanks.

Imagine if on D-Day they just made a dash across the channel and abandoned a few waves of troops there to be surrounded and eliminated, because that is what would have happened. Have you ever seen picture of D-Day? If you ever do, please take notice of the vast number of ships on the horizon. That is what is needed in a succesful invasion. D-Day was planned for 2 years, Sealion for 90 days, also not in the German's favor.

Even if somehow the Germans were able to decimate the British fleet (which, again, is not possible as clearly explained...I mean do you understand what is being said? The British had 36 destroyers and their were points where the Germans didn't even have any), they did not have the attacking force to create a beach head and push forward into a country with hundreds of thousands of forces stationed there.

As for your sources...those names pretty much mean nothing to me and when one of use cites a single source that is not all of us and you had never previously provided sources.

 

Not only not entirely true completely false. The Germans were loosing the battle from the very start. I'll see if I can find a copy of the graph that demonstrates this. Furthermore the RAF and a plan that they were ready to implement that would have prevented the LW from winning the battle they needed to win.

How? The British were strong enough that they weren't even planning on deploying anything bigger than CLs at first if the Germans tried Sea Lion. The LW wasn't capable of it either.

The British didn't plan on defeating the invasion on the beaches.

And you think the Germans would be any better off? At best they'd have a few amphib tanks and some artillery with limited ammo supply.

How would they get this many troops over and keep them supplied?

 

How does this work? If one doesn't control the sea, then neither does? I'm not quite sure where your going with this.

Peter Fleming is well respected. Whats wrong with with reading his work?

I'm not to sure I would trust Mollo's opinion on Amphibious invasions considering all he has written is about uniforms. Unless you think the sharp, attractive looking SS uniforms would have quelled the British without a shot fired.

When I first found Macksey's book Invasion at Borders, it was listed in the Fiction section. Besides, quoting Alternate History books is definitely not a credible source

 

Tanks produced in Britain as at 1940.
125 Cruiser tank MkI
175 Cruiser tank MkII
65 Cruiser tank MkIII
~665 Cruiser tank MkIV (production continued into 1940, 665 total produced from 1938)
140 Matilda MkI Infantry tanks
ca.300 Matilda MkII Infantry tanks (1330 produced between 1937-1942, but only two in service by Sep39 though even so my estimate is a very conservative one)
1000 Vickers Light tank Mk VI

 

According to:
http://www.kretsen.nu/bytebattler/documents/SEALION OOB.pdf
and
Axis History Factbook: Order of Battle for Unternehmen Seelöwe (Sep 1940)
They had 5 and did incorporate them in the plans. The 3 light cruisers were to be used in decoy operations. The two heavy cruisers (Sheer and Hipper) were also to be used for diversions. Although I've read that Hipper had a propulsion failure soon after she got out of the yards for a refit (while on a shakedown cruise) and was not available.

The German CLs might well have run a fowl of the Hood and possibly another British BC and their escorts. If so they wouldn't have been available for long.

Your point is still valid. The KM was in no shape to support SeaLion.

 

Found the chart I was looking for. From: Axis History Forum • View topic - The Luftwaffe in the Battle for Britain
Here is a graph from Logistics in the Battle of Britain by Air Commodore Peter Dye:


Lots of other infor at that link as well.

As for British defences see:
Axis History Forum • View topic - Fire Power for Sea Lion
viewtopic.php?f=61&t=112282
viewtopic.php?f=76&t=27145&hilit=+sea+lion
viewtopic.php?f=54&t=119718&hilit=+sea+lion
viewtopic.php?f=54&t=69066&hilit=+sea+lion
viewtopic.php?f=54&t=119663&hilit=+sea+lion
viewtopic.php?f=54&t=121850&hilit=+sea+lion
viewtopic.php?f=54&t=121586&hilit=+sea+lion
viewtopic.php?f=54&t=117294&hilit=+sea+lion
viewtopic.php?f=54&t=91960&hilit=+sea+lion
Axis History Forum • View topic - Operation Sea Lion - thoughts

and the huge thread at:
Axis History Forum • View topic - Battle of Britain