# The Invasion of Britain



## Njaco (Sep 9, 2010)

While researching some things for the "Battle of Britain" thread, I found a few things of interest about Operation Sea Lion including an OOB for the German forces. Also a map for Heeresgruppe A's objectves for the invasion.

I posted just one part of the .pdf file and a few pics that I found.......

Operation “Seelöwe” (Sea Lion) Order of Battle, mid-September 1940
*Army Group A*
Commander-in-Chief: Generalfeldmarschall Gerd von Rundstedt
Chief of the General Staff: General der Infanterie Georg von Sodenstern
Operations Officer (Ia): Oberst Günther Blumentritt
16th Army
Commander-in-Chief: Generaloberst Ernst Busch
Chief of the General Staff: Generalleutnant Walter Model
Operations Officer (Ia): Oberst Hans Boeckh-Behrens
Luftwaffe Commander (Koluft) 16th Army: Oberst Dr. med. dent. Walter Gnamm
Division Command z.b.V. 454: Charakter als Generalleutnant Rudolf Krantz (This staff
served as the 16th Army’s Heimatstab or Home Staff Unit, which managed the assembly
and loading of all troops, equipment and supplies; provided command and logistical
support for all forces still on the Continent; and the reception and further transport of
wounded and prisoners of war as well as damaged equipment. General der Infanterie
Albrecht Schubert’s XXIII Army Corps served as the 16th Army’s Befehlsstelle Festland or
Mainland Command, which reported to the staff of Generalleutnant Krantz. The corps
maintained traffic control units and loading staffs at Calais, Dunkirk, Ostend, Antwerp
and Rotterdam.)
FIRST WAVE
XIII Army Corps: General der Panzertruppe Heinric h-Gottfried von Vietinghoff genannt
Scheel (First-wave landings on English coast between Folkestone and New Romney) –
Luftwaffe II./Flak-Regiment 14 attached to corps
• 17th Infantry Division: Generalleutnant Herbert Loch
• 35th Infantry Division: Generalleutnant Hans Wolfgang Reinhard
VII Army Corps: Generaloberst Eugen Ritter von Schobert (First-wave landings on
English coast between Rye and Hastings) – Luftwaffe I./Flak-Regiment 26 attached to
corps
• 1st Mountain Division: Generalleutnant Ludwig Kübler
• 7th Infantry Division: Generalleutnant Eccard Freiherr von Gablenz
SECOND WAVE
V Army Corps: General der Infanterie Richard Ruoff (Transferred from the first to the
second wave in early September 1940 so that the second echelons of the two first-wave
corps could cross simultaneously with their first echelons)
• 12th Infantry Division: Generalmajor Walter von Seydlitz-Kurzbach
• 30th Infantry Division: General der Infanterie Kurt von Briesen
XXXXI Army Corps: General der Panzertruppe Georg-Hans Reinhardt
• 8th Panzer Division: Generalleutnant Adolf Kuntzen – Luftwaffe Light Flak-Abteilung 94
attached to division
• 10th Panzer Division: Generalleutnant Ferdinand Schaal – Luftwaffe Light Flak-
Abteilung 71 attached to division
• 29th Infantry Division (Motorized): Generalmajor Walter von Boltenstern – Luftwaffe
Light Flak-Abteilung 76 attached to division
• Infantry Regiment “Großdeutschland”: Oberst Wilhelm- Hunold von Stockhausen
• Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler Regiment: SS-Obergruppenführer Josef “Sepp” Dietrich
THIRD WAVE
IV Army Corps: General der Infanterie Viktor von Schwedler
• 24th Infantry Division: Generalmajor Hans von Tettau
• 58th Infantry Division: Generalmajor Iwan Heunert
XXXXII Army Corps: General der Pionere Walter Kuntze
• 45th Infantry Division: Generalleutnant Friedrich Materna
• 164th Infantry Division: Generalmajor Josef Folttmann


----------



## Njaco (Sep 9, 2010)

and pics of the proposed landings along with the buildup of barges in Bolougne harbor.


----------



## N4521U (Sep 9, 2010)

Question.............



How would they have gotten the tanks up the cliffs of Dover?????


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 10, 2010)

N4521U said:


> Question.............
> 
> 
> 
> How would they have gotten the tanks up the cliffs of Dover?????



Dover does not extend the whole southern coast of England. They only extend about 10 miles, so you can get around on either side.


----------



## Maximowitz (Sep 10, 2010)

The problem would have been getting through the wall of anti-tank gift shops in Eastbourne.


----------



## BombTaxi (Sep 10, 2010)

N4521U said:


> Question.............
> 
> 
> 
> How would they have gotten the tanks up the cliffs of Dover?????



Adler is perfectly correct, but in fact the Germans would have struggled to get anyone or anything ashore, as the did not have proper landing craft. And they had not planned to neutralise the Royal Navy. Nor did they have adequate forces for shore bombardment...


----------



## Maximowitz (Sep 10, 2010)

...and they certainly didn't have command of the air!


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 10, 2010)

N4521U said:


> Question.............
> 
> 
> 
> How would they have gotten the tanks up the cliffs of Dover?????


Dover is a port so you can get in and out but you are a sitting target on the route. Seelion depended on Germany having complete air superiority, without it it was a none started. I think the barges they used would sink in rough seas or with a near miss from a bomb or shell.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 10, 2010)

BombTaxi said:


> Adler is perfectly correct, but in fact the Germans would have struggled to get anyone or anything ashore, as the did not have proper landing craft. And they had not planned to neutralise the Royal Navy. Nor did they have adequate forces for shore bombardment...



And that sums it up...


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 10, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And that sums it up...



If someone like Hitler tells you to come up with a plan then you come up with a plan, I dont think anyone actually thought it would work.


----------



## BombTaxi (Sep 10, 2010)

I think the OKW thought it would work, but they had no idea what an amphibious invasion entailed. I think they saw it as a glorified river crossing, and had not really thought about the equipment and preparation necessary.


----------



## timshatz (Sep 10, 2010)

Couple of thoughts that popped into my head by looking at the map.

1. There are no time lines. One phase line, no reinforce or resupply graphics. Looks like something a couple of Generals cooked up over drinks after a heavy dinner. 

2. The First Map, the more recent of the two with proffesional graphics, looks completely out to lunch. I don't think the Allies could've pulled of a landing covering that kind of frontage in 1944 (with Naval forces on the order of 20x the size of the Kriegsmarine and specialized landing craft and equipment AND air superiority). That looks like it is something on the order of 50 miles wide! Might as well put the whole German army on sailboats and tell them to head West. Get the same results. 

3. The second map is more professional, and hence more believable but still lacks a lot of information. Looks like two or three, at minimum, and as many as 5, Panzer divisions going across. How do they do that? How do they get supplied?

I realize I'm nitpicking but invasions are all about the details. The first map looks like the result of a war game by some guys having heard the "Germans would do this". The second is more interesting but it is impossible to say who did it, could even be the Brits playing out a scenario.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 10, 2010)

A couple of years ago, we had an extensive discussion about the German invasion of England.

No one ever came up with a credible way for the Germans to successfully invade after the summer of 1940.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 10, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> If someone like Hitler tells you to come up with a plan then you come up with a plan, I dont think anyone actually thought it would work.



That is very true as well.


----------



## Colin1 (Sep 10, 2010)

Maximowitz said:


> The problem would have been getting through the wall of anti-tank gift shops in Eastbourne


The Germans would have been swiftly (and bloodlessly) defeated
set up a perimeter around Eastbourne seaside resort's sun loungers and wait for them to put their towels on them


----------



## parsifal (Sep 10, 2010)

I tend to agree that the whole thing smacked of unrealistic expectations and poor planning. But could it have been different? Possibly.....

A number of pre-requisites would have been needed...

1) Begin prepreations for cross channel attacks from the beginning of the war.
2) Construction of proper landing craft agin from pre-war.
3) Conserving the KM strength, and building up its strength warlier (eg the Bismarck and the Tirpitz, plus the two uncompleted Heavy Cruisers, rushed through and completed in the summer of 1940. A huge ask, but possible.
4) Not deploying the limited stocks of magnetic mines so early. Build them up to a credible reserve asnd then use them enmasse to try and keep the RN out of the channel for as long as possible. 
5) Making the landings whilst the BOF was still under way, trying to swamp the defences and hitting the British whilst their army is in France. Alternaively holding back until air superiority has been gained . 
6) Not squandering the airborne asssets in Holland. instead, making a night time airborn assault en masse, say as a two div strength over southeast england, and then rapidly rushing say a further 3 or 4 divs by sea


----------



## The Basket (Sep 10, 2010)

The reason the Germans didnt plan for a UK invasion is becasue they never thought the situation in 1940 was possible.

No point wasting time on daydreams.


----------



## Glider (Sep 10, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> The Germans would have been swiftly (and bloodlessly) defeated
> set up a perimeter around Eastbourne seaside resort's sun loungers and wait for them to put their towels on them



This I like


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 10, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> The Germans would have been swiftly (and bloodlessly) defeated
> set up a perimeter around Eastbourne seaside resort's sun loungers and wait for them to put their towels on them



Any determined resistance would be ended by setting up shop windows dressed with expensive clothes and decorations then nabbing them on Sunday afternoon as they mutter "das is schoen"


----------



## BombTaxi (Sep 10, 2010)

It is certainly true that Hitler didn't see a need to invade Britain before 1939 - in fact, he didn't even think we would fight, and that wasn't a bad call post-Munich. Chamerblain's sudden acquisition of a spine must have caused a great deal of head-scratching in Berlin, as it it did elsewhere. 

Had the Germans got ashore, they would have won, no questions asked. The British had virtually no tanks, virtually no artillery and the stay-behind resistance planned would have almost certainly been ineffective.

But winning the BoB wouldn't have put the Germans in a position to invade anyway. The RN still had to be dealt with, and that would have been a job for the LW because the KM wouldn't have stood a chance, even using their subs to the fullest extent. Plus the RN could pull forces in from the South Atllantic and Med without the Germans being able to do much about it. Then the extensive coastal defences in the south-east have to be destroyed - again, a job for the LW. And of course, they still have to keep the RAF/FAA beaten, or they will nip over the Channel and sink the barges at anchor.

By this time, the winter is setting in. The collection of river barges cannot sail, as the winter weather in the Channel will sink them almost as soon as they leave port. It will be at least six months before they can get across, and by then Hitler wants to be in Russia. He will need those five panzer divisions to beat Uncle Joe, and suddenly See Lion is off...

Really, the threat of invasion was barely even a threat. That's not to take anything away from the acheivement of the British forces in the BoB - heck, I'm a Brit myself and believe it was vertainly one of our finest hours - but the German invasion threat was never credible - it was fear of what could happen _if_ they made it across the Channel that made the situation so urgent.


----------



## Glider (Sep 10, 2010)

BombTaxi said:


> Had the Germans got ashore, they would have won, no questions asked. The British had virtually no tanks, virtually no artillery and the stay-behind resistance planned would have almost certainly been ineffective.



Had the Germans got ashore the battle was by no means lost. For the period April 1940 to april 1941 a bunker was completed every 20 minutes. I am not pretending that it was on the scale of the German defences in 1944 but then again, the attack wasn't anything like 1944 either.
We didn't have many tanks but had sufficient to send a an Armoured Brigade to the Middle East at the height of the BOB, not a decision that was taken lightly.
As for Artillery, this is one area where we were not that badly off. The Army wasn't fully equipped but there were a good number of 25 pounders in the UK and a lot of ex WW1 18 pounders were readied.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 10, 2010)

Glider said:


> Had the Germans got ashore the battle was by no means lost. For the period April 1940 to april 1941 a bunker was completed every 20 minutes. I am not pretending that it was on the scale of the German defences in 1944 but then again, the attack wasn't anything like 1944 either.
> We didn't have many tanks but had sufficient to send a an Armoured Brigade to the Middle East at the height of the BOB, not a decision that was taken lightly.
> As for Artillery, this is one area where we were not that badly off. The Army wasn't fully equipped but there were a good number of 25 pounders in the UK and a lot of ex WW1 18 pounders were readied.



It is now September and the weather is becoming foul. With no opposition it would be difficult to supply an army in September October with flat bottomed boats, one storm could wipe the whole lot out. It is the easiest thing in the world to deprive someone of a harbour, just sink a big ship in the mouth of it. If the german army had landed they would soon be left with no air cover and no supplies.

After D Day one of the mulberry harbours was swept away in a storm, and that was in the summer. I think, as someone has already said, some in the high command saw it as a glorified river crossing but others who knew the channel whispered in their ears.


----------



## Colin1 (Sep 10, 2010)

BombTaxi said:


> Had the Germans got ashore, they would have won, no questions asked. The British had virtually no tanks, virtually no artillery and the stay-behind resistance planned would have almost certainly been ineffective


To echo the points you yourself made
what difference would our lack of tanks have made? The Wehrmacht had no way of getting their own across, let alone ashore, getting up the cliffs at Dover was the smallest of their problems.

If the Germans had invaded, they WOULD have got ashore, the coastal defences would have been breached eventually at any point along which they were attacked but the delay incurred on the Geman beach head would have bought the Brits time to get something more weighty behind the defences.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 10, 2010)

I have to disagree with a number of people, I think the Germans could have successfully invaded Britain at the time as they had already had a successfull large scale invasion in April of 1940 done without 100% control of the sea and managed to transport and land the heaviest tanks they had until the Panther came along (Neubaufahrzeuge V). The key would have been to invade Britain as soon as France fell as IMO that's when Britain was at her weakest and most uncertain. The Battle of France had cost her over 1,000 aircraft and almost 2,000 airmen and most of the Army's heavy equipment was left in France. While the RN was 2nd to none, having them try to stop an invasion in a narrow area without 100% control of the air would have been suicidal. The one wild card would have been the RAF - while greatly weakened it was still a fighting force.


----------



## BombTaxi (Sep 11, 2010)

The RN could still deploy a sizeable battleship force, while the Germans had nothing bigger than Scharnhorst/Gniesenau. Those two could not have stood up to a British BB squadron, and given the state of German naval leadership throughout the war, they probably wouldn't have put up a determined flight - the standard KM response to RN BBs throughout the war was to turn tail and run, two BCs against even the elderly QE and R class BBs would have been a suicidal fight. Had the Germans run, this would leave the invasion force at the mercy of the 15 and 16in guns of the RN, which would have no means of defending itself other than CLs and DDs. Think of the chaos caused by a few E-boats during Operation Tiger, then imagine the effect of a night raid by RB DDs against the fleet, followed by the BBs attacking in the morning. It would be a massacre. Even if the LW intervened, the loss of a few old BBs would have been an acceptable price for smashing the German invasion fleet. Sea control is 100% vital - again think of Samar and what would have happened to the American invasion force if Taffy 3 hadn't turned the Japanese back.

As TEC has pointed out, supplying the Wehrmacht by sea, in winter, with a bunch of river barges is also a non-starter, the weather alone being enough to entirely cut off that supply line. And more to the point, getting the troops there in the firsts place with such unsuitable craft would have been a nightmare task. It would be well into winter before coastal defences were neutralised and the RN driven far north enough to keep them out of the crossing. By then the weather will be an insurmountable obstacle to getting the troops across


----------



## The Basket (Sep 11, 2010)

The Germans could have put man and material on British soil...of course they could....

But putting a tank on a beach...ok so what about its spares and fuel and ammunition and logistic support...and bang goes the invasion. 

The Germans would have been fighting the British, weather, the channel and thier own inexperience.

Plus the kriegsmarine took heavy losses during the Norway campaign.

The invasion needed plenty of planning and the right weapons...making it up as you go along is bad medicine.


----------



## Juha (Sep 11, 2010)

Hello
IIRC at least Gneisenau was docked during the BoB because it was torpedoed by RN sub Clyde on 20 June 40, and Scharnhorst most probably also, it was badly hit by a torpedo from RN DD Acasta on 8 June 40.

On the other hand, IIRC correctly, weather around Channel was fairly good during most of the Oct 40.

British army had at the beginning of Sept 40 500 A/T guns and 350 tanks armed with 2pdr, which at that time had adequate armour piercing capabilities and over 500 light tanks which were rather useless against panzers but not against infantry. During the summer army had got 425 more 25pdr field guns etc.

Operating in Channel would have been costly but not suicidal for RN and it would surely done that and it had capacity to cut the German sea links to the continent.

Juha


----------



## Glider (Sep 11, 2010)

The probable invasion was discussed on a series of TV programmes a few months ago. The following is from Wiki but was the findings of the programmes mirrored the wargames that were held at Sandhurst in the 1970's and the Wiki summary is accurate.

I should add that German wasn't given total air superiority but the RAF was deemd to have withdrawn out of effective range of the Me109's based in France. So both sides could take control of the skies for limited periods.

_In wargames conducted at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in 1974, which assumed the Luftwaffe had not yet won air supremacy, the Germans were able to establish a beachhead in England by using a minefield screen in the English Channel to protect the initial assault. However, the German ground forces were delayed at the "Stop Lines" (e.g. the GHQ Line), a layered series of defensive positions that had been built, each a combination of Home Guard troops and physical barriers. At the same time, the regular troops of the British Army were forming up. After only a few days, the Royal Navy was able to reach the Channel from Scapa Flow, cutting off supplies and blocking further reinforcement. Isolated and facing regular troops with armour and artillery, the invasion force was forced to surrender.[_

Persoanlly I would expect an invasion to have a similar ending.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 11, 2010)

And there's always the question of what happens if the Brits wreck their port facilities, and hold them for "x" number of days and deny their use to the Germans.

Not a good thing for the Germans who lack the logistics capability and experience.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 11, 2010)

I don't think the RN ships would have had such a free range as they would have had to also deal with the U-Boats which were to be strung as protecting both flanks of the invasion and unless the RAF was able to provide 24 hour protection over them, the Stukas would have had a field day esp since the RN would have been operating in a confined area. Again IMO the key would have been to invade as soon as France fell before the British could regain their strength, reorganize and prepare defensive positions. 

The biggest concern I would have on the German side is were the troops exhausted by this point.


----------



## Glider (Sep 11, 2010)

vikingBerserker said:


> I don't think the RN ships would have had such a free range as they would have had to also deal with the U-Boats which were to be strung as protecting both flanks of the invasion and unless the RAF was able to provide 24 hour protection over them, the Stukas would have had a field day esp since the RN would have been operating in a confined area. Again IMO the key would have been to invade as soon as France fell before the British could regain their strength, reorganize and prepare defensive positions.
> 
> The biggest concern I would have on the German side is were the troops exhausted by this point.



U Boats ave never had much success in the English Channel. The water is very tidal, currents strong and if the RN played their cards right large parts of it are too shallow for Uboats.

As for the Stukas they were not at this stage of the war that effective against shipping. Later they received special training and in the Med they were lethal. There would have been losses and no doubt serious ones but not enough to stop the RN who would know that it was make or break time. Losses would have been secondary. 
Its worth looking at the BOB thread and look at the attack on the Pewitt convoy. The convoy had heavy losses but the key thing is that this was over a number of days, against slow (approx 5 kts) almost defenceless colliers escorted by about four destroyers and still some got through. A RN attack would be a far more difficult target. 

In addition they could have come by night. No one knows the waters around the UK shore better than the RN, the Stukas would have been usless and any U Boats almost useless due to the lack of visibility. RN Coastal forces would also have been free to play and they had about 70 MTB's in the area.


----------



## Njaco (Sep 11, 2010)

I don't know about the Stukas. After the early part of the BoB they were held back just for strikes like that needed for any invasion. If you have the RAF occuppied with the larger bomber forces and the Bf 109 escorts over the mainland, there might be success among the Stukageschwader in attacking the RN.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 11, 2010)

Glider said:


> U Boats ave never had much success in the English Channel. The water is very tidal, currents strong and if the RN played their cards right large parts of it are too shallow for Uboats.
> 
> As for the Stukas they were not at this stage of the war that effective against shipping. Later they received special training and in the Med they were lethal. There would have been losses and no doubt serious ones but not enough to stop the RN who would know that it was make or break time. Losses would have been secondary.



Its easy to speculate about what a stuka or the luftwaffe in general may have done to the RN. However the germans were used to fighting with close air support. The stukas were withdrawn from the BoB due to heavy losses and maybe to preserve them for Sealion. To suggest they could devastate the Navy and support the German landings is stretching things a bit. Germans landing in south england would be in a worse position than the BEF in Dunkerque.


----------



## Njaco (Sep 11, 2010)

The stukas weren't necessarily "removed" but held back for attacking convoys and supporting the invasion by strikes on the RN and other pinpoint missions. Whether they would have been successful in these operations is left up to conjecture.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 11, 2010)

Njaco said:


> The stukas weren't necessarily "removed" but held back for attacking convoys and supporting the invasion by strikes on the RN and other pinpoint missions. Whether they would have been successful in these operations is left up to conjecture.




Njaco

Like I said the stuka was a part of blitzkrieg as used up to the fall of France, If they were attacking the RN they couldnt support the landings, they would have to be supported by Bf109 escorts which leaves the German troops facing every plane in the RAF that can carry a gun or a bomb and almost no air defence.

Similarly for Submarines the U boat was a ship with a capability to go underwater only about 100 miles max. That is OK in the Atlantic but they would be in trouble in the channel


----------



## Njaco (Sep 11, 2010)

I agree with the subs. But my point is this: If at the point of mid September, with He111s, Do17s and Ju88s with heavy Bf 109 escort attacking land targets and the invasion started with support from Ju87s and Bf 110s, how many RAF fighters would be available to protect the RN? I think its a possibility the Ju 87 could have been used effectively. or maybe not.


----------



## Colin1 (Sep 11, 2010)

Glider said:


> The probable invasion was discussed on a series of TV programmes a few months ago. The following is from Wiki but was the findings of the programmes mirrored the wargames that were held at Sandhurst in the 1970s and the Wiki summary is accurate.
> 
> I should add that Germany wasn't given total air superiority but the RAF was deemd to have withdrawn out of effective range of the Me109's based in France. So both sides could take control of the skies for limited periods.
> 
> _In wargames conducted at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in 1974, which assumed the Luftwaffe had not yet won air supremacy, the Germans were able to establish a beachhead in England by using a minefield screen in the English Channel to protect the initial assault. However, the German ground forces were delayed at the "Stop Lines" (e.g. the GHQ Line), a layered series of defensive positions that had been built, each a combination of Home Guard troops and physical barriers. At the same time, the regular troops of the British Army were forming up. After only a few days, the Royal Navy was able to reach the Channel from Scapa Flow, cutting off supplies and blocking further reinforcement. Isolated and facing regular troops with armour and artillery, the invasion force was forced to surrender_


That sounds like the documentary I saw
although I seem to remember it being one programme rather than a series


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 11, 2010)

Njaco said:


> I agree with the subs. But my point is this: If at the point of mid September, with He111s, Do17s and Ju88s with heavy Bf 109 escort attacking land targets and the invasion started with support from Ju87s and Bf 110s, how many RAF fighters would be available to protect the RN? I think its a possibility the Ju 87 could have been used effectively. or maybe not.



I thought that the LW had suffered more than the RAF by the end of September the LW had only about 400 Bf109s (I may be wrong). In the event of a landing all available aircraft from all groups would be available thats about 6to 700 hurricanes and spitfires and all others like whirlwinds gladiators blenheims fairy battles etc. IMO the for LW to attack the RN whilst protecting the landing and supply ships while protecting and supporting the WM advance all from over the channel is an impossible work load. Whatever way it went it would have been a bloodbath.


----------



## Juha (Sep 12, 2010)

Hello
IMHO FC would have given RN all the support it could. The RN attack would have had strategic importance that a couple days bombing of land targets didn’t have. No doubt that at least some Stukas would have got through with help of 109s but when one looks the cost of Dunkerque evacuation to RN one see that it was costly but the cost wasn’t crippling. Ju 87s would have been slightly more effective than during the Dunkerque but not so effective than in Med in 41-42 (at dunkerque Ju 87 pilots found out that they needed more training in attacks against naval targets). And IIRC RN BBs worst enemies in Med were fighter-bombers and Italian torpedo-bombers, not Stukas.

Juha


----------



## stona (Sep 12, 2010)

A large scale invasion without a single landing craft would require the capture of a major port INTACT. Tanks rolling off river barges (lined with concrete) onto beaches followed by waves of troops paddling inflatables? It's all pie in the sky. 
The objective was to convince the many doubters in the British government,and military, that an invasion was imminent and thereby force a political settlement with Britain and her Empire. This would free nazi Germany to concentrate on her true political and idealogical objectives which lay in the East.
They had some success with the first part of the plan,my grandmother lived in Kent at the time and was convinced,like everybody else,that the Germans would arrive at any moment. They utterly failed to force a"negotiated" settlement. 
This is the true significance of the Battle of Britain. Like many great battles its outcome had profound political rather than purely military repercussions.
Incidentally there was a psychological impact on the British people which should not be underestimated. Many civilians say that after the BoB they KNEW that the Germans could be defeated,something many had doubted up until then. 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## The Basket (Sep 12, 2010)

Good point well made.

Grand Admiral Raeder whose Navy had to do all this had zero enthusiasm for the job.

Zero.

He knew the problems.


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 12, 2010)

The RN would have commited its older World War one vessels to the invasion area. The old girls would have taken high casualties but they were expected to the Royal Navy has never shied away from high casualties. The thought of flotillas of destroyers and light cruisers running amok amongst the unseaworthy river barges night after night would give the German Army and the Navy ulcers and white hair. No matter what the Germans do the Channel belongs to the RN at night. 

With only about 13 hours of daylight the Germans are never going to have a hope of supplying the troops they can land. A Rhine river barge is a slow old beast the barges of the time would probably do at best 6 knots and in the channel 6 knot currents are the norm so sailing times are going to be limited. In an ideal world a barge could make the trip to the invasion beach during the day unload overnight on the beach if the tides are right make the trip back home the next day. Reload overnight and be ready to make the trip back again. This is in an ideal world which never ever happens in logistics even today with computers running things. The ports in France Belgium and Holland are going to be chaos loading even a barge needs cranes quays and lots and lots of men. The Germans have to get the cargoes to the right ports and then in the right barges you cant just throw everything in willy nilly, sailing orders need to be written, escorts need to be available. All this while the RAF and the RN is sticking its nose in. Then there is the problem of a shrinking pool of barges. Casualties especially to the unpowered barges that were to be towed by tugs would be frightening. The thought of trying to tow a string of barges in the channel makes me go a bit queasy just thinking about it. I think 5% casualties per trip for the barges would not be excessive anyone can do the maths. 

A lot of Sealion enthusiasts get hung up on the weapons and tactics but completely forget the logistics. The troops that landed would be eating there boots and drinking out of puddles within days. I dont know how much stores a division needs per day but a fighting man needs at least 3,000 calories and 2 litres of water per day to keep on fighting. I imagine the best and simplest way to defeat the invasion is to concentrate on holding the Germans in the landing area and waiting till they run out of food or ammunition then escorting the survivors to the POW camps. The Allies in June 44 had near Jesus walking on water levels of shipping and even then supplies were sometimes a bit short till they captured a port and got it working. 

The only way I can see a succesful Sealionn is for the Germans to build thousands of proper landing craft, hundreds of heavy lift ships with cranes and derricks to offload at sea and thousands of short field transport aircraft. All of those things take time, design effort, building capacity and money. Then the Germans need at least a year of training, at least one major practice invasion to get all the bugs out of the system and they have to do all this without British intelligence noticing. 

Meanwhile nice old Uncle Joe in the east is rebuilding his army and building lots and lots and lots of T34 tanks. What could possibly go wrong for the Germans.


----------



## stona (Sep 12, 2010)

"The Allies in June 44 had near Jesus walking on water levels of shipping and even then supplies were sometimes a bit short till they captured a port and got it working." 

And the allies took a "port" with them. Don't forget the two Mulberry harbours. Severe damage caused by a storm on June 19th,particularly to the american harbour at Omaha beach,caused a logistical nightmare.
The German's had nothing comparable and for all the reasons noted by various posters were INCAPABLE of mounting an amphibious invasion of the British Isles in 1940.I don't believe it was ever a serious military intention.
Steve


----------



## Njaco (Sep 12, 2010)

Ah but we just conquered all of mainland Europe! Anything is possible Herr Oberst!


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 12, 2010)

The Germans should have trained Sea Lions to be combat troops. 

What do you mean it wont work the USNavy has fighting seals anything the US can do Nazi Germany can do better


----------



## Njaco (Sep 12, 2010)




----------



## Njaco (Oct 26, 2010)

Check out this thread on this forum. Great read about 'what if...'

A Better Show in 1940 - Alternate History Discussion Board


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 26, 2010)

Very interesting!


----------



## BikerBabe (Oct 27, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> If someone like Hitler tells you to come up with a plan then you come up with a plan, I dont think anyone actually thought it would work.



Well...Hitler apparently never played RISK.


----------



## timshatz (Oct 28, 2010)

BikerBabe said:


> Well...Hitler apparently never played RISK.



Did that game even exist in the 40's? When was it created?


----------



## parsifal (Oct 30, 2010)

The planhhad problems, both at the macro planning point of view, and in the details.

The best example of this was the speed of the barges...less than two knots when loaded. They apprently did not have enough power to takle the channel currents and tides. 

Even if that can be discraded, it would still take the invasion flotilla well over a day to make the crossing. More than enough time for the Home Fleet DDs to get in amongst them and wreak havoc


----------

