operation sea lion

All I was suggesting was a question about the type of scenario we are talking about. I was suggesting a question on how close the transports were together and I agree it would be foolish to pack them together that closely. I thought that Britain did have some lend-lease B-17Ds at this time that they weren't using because they didn't like the armament. If it came down to it, if those aircraft were there in Britain and there were enough crews, they would have been used, I think. Okay, it was according to Wikkipedia the Mk III Manchester BT308 which first flew on January 9th 1941 which was the first Lancaster and received the name Lancaster Mk I immediately after its first flight. Manchester production continued until November that year although some Manchesters in production were completed as Lancasters. The BOB is regarded by German Historians as ending in May 1941. So therefore when are we launching Operation Sealion in this time-line? Therefore there would have been at least some completed Lancasters that could have carried out bombings on German assets in this naval invasion. Also what about artillery support? How would the Germans have supported their troops in originally creating the bridge-head and making sure that they didn't get pinned-down as almost happened at D-Day? They didn't really have a navy and a lot of the support at D-Day was naval bombardment to soften up targets for the invasion force. Also the troops were able to call in naval artillery strikes on enemy bunkers and machine-gun posts. What ability would the Germans have had for this? These are all questions that need to be solved to create a plausible Operation Sealion where Germany wins...

Lend lease started in 1941.

Using level bombers is not a very good way to take out invasion barges ... or any tactical targets for that matter.

Kris

Okay, Lend Lease was a bit late. But if there are enough close
together and you do an air blast you could potentially swamp them. Especially if they were German. The Germans would have over-engined them...

Healzdevo i get your point but also consider this:

During the so called "Dieppe Raids", even with what i assume was a British "naval supremacy", and the support of a signficant RAF force, the landed allied forces were annihilated and slaughtered, and also the RAF received a brutal battering at the hands of JG 2 and JG 26.

I think the naval capabilities of Great Britain during 1940 are greatly overstated; do not forget that all that naval might could not prevent the Germans for succesfully landing forces in Norway, even if they managed to inflict signifcat losses to the Germany navy.

The naval supremacy of the allies during Overlord is to a very important extent a U.S. Navy contribution.

If we take a closer look into 1940 the Royal Navy was already taking a hell of a beating, during the first half of the year 1 battleship and 2 important carriers, 3 armed merchant cruiser, 2 cruisers plus a high number of destroyers had been sunk by the Kriegsmarine or Luftwaffe...in less than one year.

Also during 1940 the RAF was by no means capable of conducting any offensive action against any enemy fleet assembled; not to mention the state of the British army in the islands after getting smashed in France.

If the Germans had seriously planned to invade and conquer England, i am sure they could have done it, succesfully that is. The thing is they did not really saw England as the target and there were no serious plans at all.

Okay, but still you understand that for this invasion to be successful you first have to get the troops to the beach destination and have information on Allied Beach Defences. So far as I know the burning oil defences etc. weren't dismantled yet. Britain would have flung everything at this invasion before it reached the beaches. We are assuming that things such as small motorboats guided by wire or just steered on course by set steering would be launched against the German Armada at some stage.

Udet said:

Healzdevo i get your point but also consider this:

During the so called "Dieppe Raids", even with what i assume was a British "naval supremacy", and the support of a signficant RAF force, the landed allied forces were annihilated and slaughtered, and also the RAF received a brutal battering at the hands of JG 2 and JG 26.

I think the naval capabilities of Great Britain during 1940 are greatly overstated; do not forget that all that naval might could not prevent the Germans for succesfully landing forces in Norway, even if they managed to inflict signifcat losses to the Germany navy.

The naval supremacy of the allies during Overlord is to a very important extent a U.S. Navy contribution.

If we take a closer look into 1940 the Royal Navy was already taking a hell of a beating, during the first half of the year 1 battleship and 2 important carriers, 3 armed merchant cruiser, 2 cruisers plus a high number of destroyers had been sunk by the Kriegsmarine or Luftwaffe...in less than one year.

Also during 1940 the RAF was by no means capable of conducting any offensive action against any enemy fleet assembled; not to mention the state of the British army in the islands after getting smashed in France.

If the Germans had seriously planned to invade and conquer England, i am sure they could have done it, succesfully that is. The thing is they did not really saw England as the target and there were no serious plans at all.

Click to expand...

Udet
Your comments although acurate in detail don't give the correct impression.

Dieppe
The largest ship involved in Dieppe was a Hunt class small destroyer and the one thing that was noticable was that no German warship came anywhere near the ships offshore. To imply from this that the RN was incapable of undertaking offensive operations in the North Sea is a million miles from the truth. The raid using the smallest ships in the RN was an offensive operation and the one force that couldn't defend German Territory, was the German Navy.
The army were slaughtered on the beaches but that says more about the efficency of the German Army and bad planning on the part of the British than anything else.
The German airforce did well but then they they should have done with all the advantages they had. Being on the defensive, with better aircraft and under radar control they should have done. Despite this it wasn't as one way as people believe. It should also be noted that the German airforce didn't have any significant effect on the naval forces involved.

Norway
The German bases were a lot closer than the British bases including the vital airbases, plus Norway was Neutral and threatened to defend itself against any foreign forces British or German. So its not suprising the Germany landed first.
Desipite all these advantages, including having total control of the skies Germany lost a huge proportion of its Navy including significant damage to its capital ships, neither did it stop the British from driving the Germans out from some of the invasion sites and landing its own forces. If the British had been within range of aircover there is an excellent chance that the Germans would have been beaten facing huge losses in men and morale. It was airpower and the distance from the airbases that made the difference, not the German Army or Navy.

Naval losses in 1940
The key losses were the aircraft carriers as these were almost irriplacable and were the best conversions that we had. Their impact however was limited by the fact that we didn't have any decent aircraft at the time. The important thing was that the RN could afford these losses. We had a number of other battleships and literally dozens of cruisers and scores of destroyers.
If you look at the British and German losses in 1940 as a proportion of the active fleets there is no doubt who was slaughtered and it wasn't the British.

Might abetter comparison be Crete? Except in that it was a smaller island. Almost a whole year later and although the Germans barely held on and the Commonwealth forces were weak from Greece, etc., the logistics might be more similar than Normandy.

I'm sure Healzdevo's little operation would have been thought up by somebody in those basements and cellars of London. Would it have succeeded? Who knows. Somebody came up with parachute mines at the time. All kinds of crazy things I'm sure were being looked at.

Udet still hasnt come to terms with the complete lack of amphibious capability, inability to supply forces on unimproved beaches, lack of a doctrine to land on defended beaches and an iniability to provide nighttime sea and air superiority.

The Germans weakness throughout the war was logistics. And logistics is what ultimatly wins wars.

I agree. As I have stated before I dont see the Germans having been able to Logistically sustain an invasion force. If all the stars were alligned just right they might have been able to establish a beach head but the logistics were not there to susain an invasion force.

Syscom3.

Let me re-phrase my viewpoint.

What i meant is that if Germany had indeed planned to invade and conquer England, they would have had the time to get prepared and take it. There were not any winds that might blow to refresh the British in the near future through the whole 1940; 1941 would be more terrible to Great Britain, especially in North Africa and the Mediterranean.

Also in the Far East the battering occurred in 1941, when the poor HMS Prince of Wales -who survived thanks to Admiral Lütjenz earlier that same year- was sunk virtually upon her arrival to the area by the Japanese alongside HMS Repulse. Only real black clouds in the horizon, except for the very good news the USA had entered the war.

So the Germans could have had the time to devote resources to attempt a more than feasible landing in England.

I have not said nor suggested Germany had the logistical means to land an invading force in England right after the gutting the French Army and the authoritzation given to the BEF to hysterically flee continental France.

That they did not have a doctrine to land on defended beaches can be true, but that view further enhances my idea: they -Germans- did not develop any doctrine on the matter for the very simple reason no military operations of such nature were included in Germany´s plans. On the other hand, why did Germany develop such a brutally efficient doctrine in the deployment of panzers and tactical "flying-artillery" support on the battlefield?

What about you having issues with the notion Germany did not intend to invade England, and all they wanted to achieve was to keep the west in the most "peaceful" mode possible to continue carrying on with plans aiming east?

I don't see anything wrong with that viewpoint. Germany could definitely develop the capabilities to succesfully invade Britain and support the invading forces.

I am getting the impression that some people believe Germany needed the resources of D-Day to invade Britain. One really cannot compare the two. That's why I was also referring to Norway (or Crete) for that matter. To invade Britain something between Normandy and Norway is needed.

Kris


Kris

That they did not have a doctrine to land on defended beaches can be true, but that view further enhances my idea: they -Germans- did not develop any doctrine on the matter for the very simple reason no military operations of such nature were included in Germany´s plans.

Click to expand...

I don't think any nation had a doctrine for amphibious assault at the time. Military doctrine was changing when the war started and Germany had developed some new tatics such as panzer movement and air support. But beach landings? Gallipoli was the yardstick and that didn't turn out too well.

And it was forced upon the Allies. To get back at the Reich at the places where the Reich was, the only option was from the sea.

The Torch landings were necessary because of where it was. Sicily and Italy you just couldn't come through the Alps. And the Western front the only place was from the Atlantic.

The only way to hit back was by the sea. And nobody at the time had all the answers on how to accomplish that. The Allies needed Dieppe, Torch, etc. just to get to D Day.

Germany had none of that experience. Blitzkrieg was perfected through Poland, Norway, Low Countries, France but not amphibious landings.

Sealion would've been a hellava waste.

Njaco said:

I don't think any nation had a doctrine for amphibious assault at the time. Military doctrine was changing when the war started and Germany had developed some new tatics such as panzer movement and air support. But beach landings? Gallipoli was the yardstick and that didn't turn out too well.

And it was forced upon the Allies. To get back at the Reich at the places where the Reich was, the only option was from the sea.

The Torch landings were necessary because of where it was. Sicily and Italy you just couldn't come through the Alps. And the Western front the only place was from the Atlantic.

The only way to hit back was by the sea. And nobody at the time had all the answers on how to accomplish that. The Allies needed Dieppe, Torch, etc. just to get to D Day.

Germany had none of that experience. Blitzkrieg was perfected through Poland, Norway, Low Countries, France but not amphibious landings.

Sealion would've been a hellava waste.

Click to expand...

The USN/USMC and RN had a realistic amphibious doctine in place for many years. There's more to just "land the troops at the beaches". The doctrine also includes gunnery support and logistics.

The Germans didnt though, namely because they are a contiental power, not a sea power.

USMC pioneered modern US amphibious landings in the 1930s. Of course, actual combat operations, such as Tarawa, provided a real eye opener.

Civettone said:

I don't see anything wrong with that viewpoint. Germany could definitely develop the capabilities to succesfully invade Britain and support the invading forces.

I am getting the impression that some people believe Germany needed the resources of D-Day to invade Britain. One really cannot compare the two. That's why I was also referring to Norway (or Crete) for that matter. To invade Britain something between Normandy and Norway is needed.

Kris


Kris

Click to expand...

If the Germans were to develop the ability to invade the UK they would have had to do it by reducing their capacity in other areas. The country was at war and there is a limit on the amount that you can produce, man and maintain.
Germany couldn't reduce their airforce as it would be needed to take control of the air, it couldn't reduce the Army or they wouldn't have reached the Atlantic coast and it couldn't reduce the Navy (unless you scrap the U Boat programme) as its the Navy that would need building up.

So two questions remain
1 Where would the resources come from to develop these invasion forces
2 Do you really think that the British would have sat back and done nothing remembering that we could outbuild Germany when it comes to naval forces?

Udet said:

Syscom3.

And the authoritzation given to the BEF to hysterically flee continental France.

Click to expand...

Ouch that hurt,

Or was it the Hysterical failure of the German forces to follow up the advantage enableing all those hundreds of thousands of troops to get away?

I was just trying to look at logically where extra production could come from. Its obvious that it can't come from Germany and the other places and therefore Russia is the only real place it can come from. A real problem though is if you conscripted Russians to fight the British, because the Russians and the British were very close in WW1, but not sure how close they really were by WW2 which could swing things a bit...

The logistics of this has been covered in detail.

The issue remaining is what time of the year this hypothetical invasion will take place. If it is going to happen, it has to happen from late spring to early fall. That means from a 1941 collapse of Russia, the earliest the Brits can expect an invasion is 1942. That means they have several months to deal with the landing craft and material buildup of the Germans. It also means that the US war machine is spooling up big time and that material will be available.

After 1942, there is nothing the Germans could do about an invasion as the US/UK military might was too much.

Sea Lion was originally "supposed" to have taken place in Sep 1940, with the British Army in shambles, the RAF "knocked out of the sky," and the Royal Navy either driven to Canada or sent to the bottom of the sea.

I'm still not comfortable with "proof" of lack of logistical support meaning the invasion could not have taken place, or lack of amphibs. That in and of itself doesn't condemn the invasion to failure.

That said, if somehow the invasion did occur, it would face extreme challenges, even in the perfect world scenario above that it was supposed to have taken place.

mkloby said:

I'm still not comfortable with "proof" of lack of logistical support meaning the invasion could not have taken place, or lack of amphibs. That in and of itself doesn't condemn the invasion to failure.

Click to expand...

The failure was inevitable as the Germans didn't have the resources necessary to build and deploy sufficient amphibious craft to not only invade, but to also cover the inevitable loss's through attrition.