operation sea lion

[Civettone]

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.
(...)
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?

The production thing is a good point but keep two things in mind:
1. Germany was not producing as much as it could. Unlike Britain Germany had not yet geared up for war production. So theoretically Germany could produce many times more than it did, without cutting in other military sectors.
2. Amount of production is not everything. Germany will use less troops, less tanks and less artillery in the invasion of Britain than it used against Russia. Even if they had the resources the allies had in 1944, Germany could not supply more than 50 divisions.
British production of ships is also limited: battleships and carriers cannot venture in the Channel, can they? And the entrance to the Channel could have been largely sealed off by mines: just look what happened near Leningrad.

Kris

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I would not say that the Germans did not have the recourses to build landing craft. They did not have a shortage of the metals required to build ships.

 

[syscom3]

I'm referring to building an amphib force from the ground up in less than a year.

Remember that an invading force would have to be 2-3 times larger than a defending force, and the sealift required would have to be planned at worst case scenarios.

 

[Civettone]

Remember that an invading force would have to be 2-3 times larger than a defending force

Why do you say that? What do you base this on??

Kris

 

[mkloby]

Why do you say that? What do you base this on??

Kris

Traditional military thinking was that you need 3:1 advantage to launch a successful offensive.

 

[Ajax]

Traditional military thinking was that you need 3:1 advantage to launch a successful offensive.

What's more, the Germans needed garrisons in all invaded countries and they were about to stroll off to Russia. The Soviets weren't going to be walked over. Attacking Britain would have been a bad move. There would be too much money spent getting there and the Nazi horde would have been stretched. And if they did, maybe they would have dragged the USA in.

Plus, the British would have crushed an invasion force as they are the best

 

[mkloby]

What's more, the Germans needed garrisons in all invaded countries and they were about to stroll off to Russia. The Soviets weren't going to be walked over. Attacking Britain would have been a bad move. There would be too much money spent getting there and the Nazi horde would have been stretched. And if they did, maybe they would have dragged the USA in.

You can't say that - perhaps Germany would have postponed Barbarossa.

Plus, the British would have crushed an invasion force as they are the best
[/QUOTE]

Are they now

 

[Ajax]

You can't say that - perhaps Germany would have postponed Barbarossa.

They could have, but I don't think so. The whole idea of Panzer warfare was sweeping across europe before anyone could be bothered to stop them. Postponing things wasn't somthing the Nazis did...

 

[mkloby]

They could have, but I don't think so. The whole idea of Panzer warfare was sweeping across europe before anyone could be bothered to stop them. Postponing things wasn't somthing the Nazis did...

Not so fast... Barbarossa was postponed a good 6 weeks in order to clean up the Balkans. Imagine what could have happened if the German forces had 6 more weeks of good weather in 1941..

 

[Jabberwocky]

Not so fast... Barbarossa was postponed a good 6 weeks in order to clean up the Balkans. Imagine what could have happened if the German forces had 6 more weeks of good weather in 1941..

The weather in May delayed Barbarossa as much as anything else. On May-15, the original launch date for the operation the Polish-Russian river valleys scheduled be crossed by armoured forces were still flooded and partly impassable as a result of exceptionally heavy rains. The absolute earliest the invasion could of proceeded, without the delay from the Balkans Campaign, and the assembly and use of specialty bridging equipment imported from Germany, was around the 8th of June, and more likely the 14th.

Really, the Germans would of gotten another 1-2 weeks. It hardly mattered as inclement weather got them on both ends. The Russian rains started about 5 weeks early in 1941, delaying the Germans more effectively than the pause for the Balkan campaign ever did.

Maybe someone was trying to tell them something...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

They could have, but I don't think so. The whole idea of Panzer warfare was sweeping across europe before anyone could be bothered to stop them. Postponing things wasn't somthing the Nazis did...

And what do you base that on. Have you met any "Nazis"?

Oh and by the way try to use the term the "Germans" The Nazis was a political party not all Germans were Nazis. For instance I am not half Nazi...
...Not everyone in the UK likes to be called the British Horde.

 

[mkloby]

The weather in May delayed Barbarossa as much as anything else. On May-15, the original launch date for the operation the Polish-Russian river valleys scheduled be crossed by armoured forces were still flooded and partly impassable as a result of exceptionally heavy rains. The absolute earliest the invasion could of proceeded, without the delay from the Balkans Campaign, and the assembly and use of specialty bridging equipment imported from Germany, was around the 8th of June, and more likely the 14th.

Really, the Germans would of gotten another 1-2 weeks. It hardly mattered as inclement weather got them on both ends. The Russian rains started about 5 weeks early in 1941, delaying the Germans more effectively than the pause for the Balkan campaign ever did.

Maybe someone was trying to tell them something...

Good point - I didn't think of the late spring that year. I've done exercises before in spring mud. Definitely complicates things beyond imagine. Nevertheless, it was an example off the top of my head of a postponed German operation.

 

[trackend]

By the outbreak of war the Royal Navy had 15 large battleships, 15 heavy cruisers, 46 light cruisers, 7 aircraft carriers, 181 destroyers and 59 submarines.
This excludes the numerous smaller vessels from mine sweepers to MT MGBs the channel was indeed heavily mined and many are still being discovered in the mouth of the Thames (near my front door unfortunately) but this did not prevent shipping from moving though it and I believe without both air and sea supremacy a sea born invasion was never on the cards and even if delayed for a more sustained build up of materials the domination of the sea (other than the supply lines) never came within the grasp of the Germans.

...Not everyone in the UK likes to be called the British Horde.

I'm one of the ones that like being called a horde Adler ( I must go on a diet)

 

[Ajax]

Oh and by the way try to use the term the "Germans" The Nazis was a political party not all Germans were Nazis. For instance I am not half Nazi...
...Not everyone in the UK likes to be called the British Horde.

Sorry, but you're not really 'Nazi' unless you beleive in killing all jews. I'll say 'German' from now on.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I'm one of the ones that like being called a horde Adler ( I must go on a diet)

 

[Civettone]

Traditional military thinking was that you need 3:1 advantage to launch a successful offensive.

Most succesful offensives of WW2 didn't have a 3:1 advantage. I think it's more conservative than traditional.

What's more, the Germans needed garrisons in all invaded countries and they were about to stroll off to Russia. The Soviets weren't going to be walked over. Attacking Britain would have been a bad move. There would be too much money spent getting there and the Nazi horde would have been stretched. And if they did, maybe they would have dragged the USA in.

If the Germans had 150 divisions and would have used the best 50 against Britain, they still had a 100. I think it's obvious that starting Barbarossa at the same time as Sealion (41/42) would have been out of the question: it would have overstretched the German capabilities for sure. (Reading back on posts, it seems we were assuming Germany had finished off Russia and would now take on Britain. So in 1942. But we can also assume Barbarossa would have been postponed until the defeat of Britain.)

They could have, but I don't think so. The whole idea of Panzer warfare was sweeping across europe before anyone could be bothered to stop them. Postponing things wasn't somthing the Nazis did...

I think that's a bit simplistic. They were not the Borg, you know They could actually think rational ... usually

This excludes the numerous smaller vessels from mine sweepers to MT MGBs the channel was indeed heavily mined and many are still being discovered in the mouth of the Thames (near my front door unfortunately) but this did not prevent shipping from moving though it and I believe without both air and sea supremacy a sea born invasion was never on the cards and even if delayed for a more sustained build up of materials the domination of the sea (other than the supply lines) never came within the grasp of the Germans.

Trackend, I don't think you've read what this thread is about. Of course you're absolutely right but this is not about what the Germans achieved or didn't achieve. This is what they could have achieved had they taken the time to develop a military force capable of succesfully invading and defeating Britain.
There were a lot of mines in the Channel but as the Germans still needed access to it (at least until 1942) they could not completely seal it off. I'm thinking of the minefields in the Ostsee/Baltic Sea. Ever heard of the Juminda mine battle? (50 out of 200 vessels were destroyed due to mines .. in a single journey!).

Kris

 

[syscom3]

Civitonne, it doesnt matter how many divisions the Germans had. The size of the sealift and capacity of your logisitics that dictates how many divisions are available for invasion and then follow on.

After D-Day, even with the vast number of landing craft and transports available to the allies, only a division every two days were landed. And that was also with total and absolute control of the sea and air 24/7. Something problematic with the Germans.

Now look at your Germans invasion scenario's. Just exactly how many troops could be landed on the beaches with enough firepower to stay, and then build up forces faster than the Brits can contain them or throw them into the sea.

 

[Glider]

The production thing is a good point but keep two things in mind:
1. Germany was not producing as much as it could. Unlike Britain Germany had not yet geared up for war production. So theoretically Germany could produce many times more than it did, without cutting in other military sectors.
2. Amount of production is not everything. Germany will use less troops, less tanks and less artillery in the invasion of Britain than it used against Russia. Even if they had the resources the allies had in 1944, Germany could not supply more than 50 divisions.
British production of ships is also limited: battleships and carriers cannot venture in the Channel, can they? And the entrance to the Channel could have been largely sealed off by mines: just look what happened near Leningrad.

Kris

Kris
You are correct when you say that Germany wasn't working at full capacity but it was when it came to naval forces. As early as 1939 the Germans were cutting back on planned production to make way for other priorities. The Class vessels were cancelled to make way for Submarine production and scrapped on the slips.
The Seydlitz was launched in Jan 1939 and in July 1942 was only 90% completed. Her sisterships were commissioned only 2 years after launch, the delay was because they lacked the resources to complete her. The Lutzow was sold to the Russians in 1940 for the same reason.
M class cruisers and some destroyers were also broken up on the slipway to make way for Submarines.

Compared to building a ship its fairly easy to build an aircraft or tank factory. Shipyards are a different thing entirely.

As for ships entering the Channel, you wouldn't want an aircraft carrier to go their but battleships can and did. The Germans did the channel dash, what makes you think the British wouldn't do the same thing to smash an invasion force.

Re Mines
Lenningrad isn't the same as the channel, its bigger wider with more currents, plus how are you going to lay the many thousands of mines when the RN rule the sea and have literally hundreds of minesweepers.
The Russian Navy was the worst performing arm of any country large or small in the war. To compare them to the RN, is like comparing a scout troop to the 101st Airbourne.

 

[mkloby]

Most succesful offensives of WW2 didn't have a 3:1 advantage. I think it's more conservative than traditional.

Kris - do you have military experience? What is the doctrine that they employ in Belgium?

I can tell you that it's a traditional - not conservative - approach to offensive operations. We still employ it today. Concentrate and attack with overwhelming men, materiel, and firepower against a weaker enemy position.

 

[Ajax]

Kris - do you have military experience? What is the doctrine that they employ in Belgium?

I can tell you that it's a traditional - not conservative - approach to offensive operations. We still employ it today. Concentrate and attack with overwhelming men, materiel, and firepower against a weaker enemy position.

Supress the enemy with heavy fire, then send some troops round the flank to blast their hopelessly exposed be-hinds. Or something like that.