Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Germans ignorance or neglect of geography was their undoing. The English Channel and Russian Winter, these are known geographic challenges that have defeated previous invasion attempts, challenges that need to be planned for in advance.T
I the end, to say the Germans were ill prepared to conquer the UK is an understatement.
I am not a barge expert, but I don't think a barge can ever be sea worthy, you have to choose sea conditions that the barge can cope with, something hardly understood by those who thought the channel is just a wide river.The barges were hardly seaworthy and had to be towed. .
I just found this in wiki, "One complication was the tidal flow in the English Channel, where high water moves from west to east, with high water at Lyme Regis occurring around six hours before it reaches Dover. If all the landings were to be made at high water across a broad front, they would have to be made at different times along different parts of the coast, with the landings in Dover being made six hours after any landings in Dorset and thus losing the element of surprise. If the landings were to be made at the same time, methods would have to be devised to disembark men, vehicles and supplies at all states of the tide. That was another reason to favour landing craft."There's a tide table somewhere on the internet that shows tides for the period but I can't find it.
Opperation SeaLion required Air Dominance, the term used in German documents. If they had of achieved that, which I contend they could have with Drop tanks on all Me 109/Me 110 and 50% of the Me 110 repplaced by equal numbers of Fw 187 they could have. All these fighters would need to be fitted with the approprate REVI and altimeter alarms to allow slide bombing. That would substantially increase the Lufwaffe's anti shipping capability.
Your example above of the Luftwaffe suffering losses trying to sink a convoy shows them being thwarted by RAF land based fighters. It doesn't really count in the even of Luftwaffe total air superiority.
Once you impose a requirement of achieving air superiority then your other plans can be as fanciful as you like. The RAF were never going to hand a victory on a plate and if they had an attempt would be made to bomb London into a political settlement. Supplies landed to support the allies in Normandy averaged at 1 ton per month for each soldier. I cant see that Sealion could have worked even if the UK had no air force or navy. Once the initial landings have taken place how do you land the ammunition fuel and everything else needed from barges, how do you get the injured back? Once you involve the UK navy it has no chance. If you involve the RAF it has no chance, the front line strength of monoplane fighters was one thing, the number of planes and pilots military and civilian who were capable of taking off and strafing a beach is another.The one question I have, Koopernic, with all your optimism and belief in the superiority of the German machine over the British, tell me, why didn't the Germans win?
If Sealion was going to be successful, why were its most senior commanders, Raeder and his sub commanders - it wasn't a sense of humour, mate, don't kid yourself; you misunderstand that very German characteristic of being blunt and obtuse in the face of authority, when the authority is wrong about something - all claiming it would have been a disaster? It always makes me cringe when I read that back in 1940 even those planning it could see that it was a disaster waiting to happen, yet Nazi fanboys round the world today in front of their computers insist it would have worked!
Once you impose a requirement of achieving air superiority then your other plans can be as fanciful as you like.
If someone like Adolf or uncle Joe tell you to come up with a plan, you come up with a plan, it may change your life chances if you don't. So they came up with a plan that put everything on Herman's ability to do what he boasted he would and could do. It is as much politics as it is military planning, what would have happened if the RAF made a tactical retreat, as William did at Hastings, the carnage could have put paid to Barbarossa because Hitler would have to choose which branch of the military he would sacrifice to save other branches, as he did at Stalingrad later but pretty much lost the lot. The problem is that now we have maps and plans produced and hard copy makes things seem real. Some of the plans with arrows and lines even naming armies divisions and commanders overlook the nonsense of using tugs and barges some of them towed on journeys in open sea of 100 miles or a 200 mile round trip with hours taken to embark and disembark.Yup, I know this, so do you. It appears that so many do not despite the fact that even the German commanders involved thought it ridiculous.
The Germans ignorance or neglect of geography was their undoing. The English Channel and Russian Winter, these are known geographic challenges that have defeated previous invasion attempts, challenges that need to be planned for in advance.
Aware? Perhaps. But they made no plans for either. Sealion's success assumed the Channel and the RN waiting therein would let the barges pass. Barbarossa's success assumed the Russians would roll over before the rasputitsa and winter. But the Germans made no plans to bring these assumptions, as flawed as they were to reality.The Germans were very aware of both. Fully aware at all levels.
Certainly not. Germany suffered distruction of complete army groups, was pushed out of Africa etc and kept fighting. So a lost big battle so early will not make the reich fall apart. Nor will England be capable to do much at this time. Dieppe was not a glorious victory now was it. And that was 1942.The only thing the Germans would have achieved if they went ahead with operation Sealion is cause the war to end in 1941 instead of 1945.
The only thing the Germans would have achieved if they went ahead with operation Sealion is cause the war to end in 1941 instead of 1945.
Aware? Perhaps. But they made no plans for either. Sealion's success assumed the Channel and the RN waiting therein would let the barges pass. Barbarossa's success assumed the Russians would roll over before the rasputitsa and winter. But the Germans made no plans to bring these assumptions, as flawed as they were to reality.
The barges were hardly seaworthy and had to be towed. I read somewhere that it would take the barges 1.5 days at least to cross the Channel. The Royal Navy only had to send a couple of destroyers to sail through the formation at full speed in order to sink a substantial amount of German barges.
I the end, to say the Germans were ill prepared to conquer the UK is an understatement. The BoB while impressive in it's own right was a mere sideshow and a nice propaganda victory for the the British. It was t device for the invasion whatsoever as the Germans had defeated themselves in this regard so to speak, long before they reached Dunkirk.
Whatever your impression is people are individuals. I have worked all over Europe especially northern Europe. I used to cross the Elbe Seiten canal and witnessed loading of cargo in Wittingen which went straight to Wick in North Scotland but on a sea going vessel not a barge, when shipping in winter the cargo went either by road and ferry or to Hamburg. The picture you show is a narrow boat, my brother has one, you can actually cross the channel in one and people have. You can swim across the channel or paddle in a canoe, you can also die if you get the sea state wrong. When I think of barges at the time I think of the pictures already posted here or of Thames sailing barges and Dutch coasters as used in the evacuation of Dunkirk.A Rhine River Ship can have a displacement of as much as 1100 tons. These ships sometimes entered the Baltic or travelled even further, A Rhine Barge could carry several tanks and might be 150 tons. Medieveal Cogs of 180-250 tons travelled up the Rhine 300km to Cologne. I have the impression that people think its like the impressive system of British canals such as the one carrying barges across the Pontcysyllte Aqueduct . These were much bigger vessels with much more freeboard and several types likely built for the sea.
s.View attachment 606872