Sorens Really What If Thread

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Soren,

I am a little confused by your insistence that the shore defenses would be smashed by the LuftWaffe. Afterall, German shore defences seem to have survived well enough in June, 1944 to provide stiff opposition to the Allied landings, despite the Allies having over 2400 fighter bombers and 700 medium bombers at their disposal in two tactical airforces as well as massive naval artillery fire. This is ignoring the D-Day saturation bombing by approximately 1500 4 engined bombers as well.

Are you attempting to suggest that Germany, with 960 bombers available to them, and almost zero naval artillery for landing support, could do significantly better?

Secondly, it has been shown that it was logistically impossible for Germany to attempt a succesful landing in force. The first phase of Operation Sealion required 9 divisions to be moved across the English channel. Contrary to popular belief German targets were not Dover, but further South at Folkstone. The German landing flotilla would have to cross nearly 40 miles of Channel, maintain formation at sea, and then make a landing against a prepared and entrenched opponent.

To land just 9 foward divisions and their supplies, the orders for Operation Sealion give 11 days. Thereafter the plane calls to land two extra divisions every 4 days. To land the whole of the proposed German invasion force of 40 divisions would therefore take around 2 1/2 months!

The transoprt for the landing forces was also inadequate. With just a 9 division landing force the German High Command estimated shipping requirements of;

155 transports
1,722 barges
471 tugs
1,161 motor-boats

In reality only 1004 barges were assembled and most of those were unpowered. Only 386 tugs were available to tow them. Germany couldn't assemble the necessary transport for its least ambitious variant of Sealion.

The barges were flat bottomed with a loading capacity of between 600-800 tons and a draught of 6 feet. They were adapted as landing craft by removing the bows and replacing them with collapsible ramps. They were also given concrete floors so that they could transport tanks and vehicles, something which wouldn't of helped their already dubious seaworthiness.

In defence, the British army had 29 divisions either partially or fully equipped by September 21, 1940, the planned date for operation Sealion. They also had 6 independent armoured brigades and 2 independent infantry brigades.

So against this opposition, the German army is going to land 6,700 men from the sea and 9,000 from the air on the first day, 9 divisions in 11 days and up to an additional 30 divisions in the next 60 days. The other option for Germany was 'Sealion lite' with 13 divisions landing in a total of approximately 20 days..

Against this the Royal Navy had in the Home Fleet; 95 destroyers, 25 submarines, 9 battleships, 35 cruisers and 4 aircraft carriers plus more than 100 Motor Gun Boats and escort (light) destroyers. Even with complete German aerial superiority, it is difficult to imagine the situation where the LuftWaffe could render a force this large impotent. Ships are hardened, mobile, heavily defended targets. The Royal Navy is in home waters with friendly defended harbours in close proximity.

The Kriegsmarine had 3 battleships, 2 pocket battleships, 7 cruisers, 22 destroyers and 57 U-boats as well as approximately 80 E-boats to pitt against the Royal Navy. In otherwords, the only area it has superiority is in U-boats. The RN outnumbers it 2:1 in battleships, 5:1 in cruisers, 8:1 in destroyers and has far larger coastal forces (MGBs, MTBs, and the first of the D class boats).

Royal Navy policy was to bottle the German fleet up in the North Sea. For the Kriegsmarine to support Sealion they would have to run the gauntlet of Royal Navy destroyers, fast cruisers and submarines then assemble and maintain a sea corridor over 100 miles wide and over 60 miles deep for at least two weeks. Dring which the Royal Navy would be making fast runs through the Channel and night strikes on German naval bases with light forces, with overwhelming numerical superiority, interrupting the German landing and supply efforts.
 
The British Government happened to the Royal Navy after World War II. Ever hear of a thing called defence cuts, Udet? Well, when you do ...be sure to take a look in Britains direction, we've got loads of 'em.
 
I think it is all to clear that Japan had virtually no chance in WWII. Just look at the ship production table. Japan produced a total of just 17 aircraft carriers in WWII, where the USA produced 18 in 1942, 65 in 1943, and 45 in 1944. (quote)


These are figures of reality. Yes I agree that the US would have eventually won the war but if all three US CVs had been lost I think it would have been at least a year before the USN could have assumed serious offensive ops. Guadalcanal would have never taken place and while I also believe that that Japan could have never invaded or even taken Australia, it would have made the suppling the continent extremly hard to do.

I propose that Japanese would have established a full hold on the Solomons and New Guinea, especaily in the Solomons. And a US with only two fleet carriers, the Saratoga, which was in port for most of the 1st year of the Pacific war because of, if memory serves a power plant issue, and the Wasp, which if memory serves was smaller than the other fleet carriers, would have been hard pressed. I won't even go into the USN aircrews that would have been lost at Midway.

Economically they would have consolidated thier hold in the far east too. But here is where I agree with the article is that once the US industrial capacity reached its zienith, yes the IJN eventually would have become targets. Also the IJN, or for that matter the assinine way that the Japanese supplied thier Empire would have also, even with them winnig at Midway, eventually help in thier doom. Case in point would be how to supply parts of all those different engine parts that all of those different Japanese planes were using vs the Americans using Pratts.

Just my two yen

:{)
 


My mistake, Sealion was obviously just an illusion in minds of Hitler, the OKW, the Kriegsmarine and the Luftwaffe.

Germany obvioulsy assembled 1000 barges and 380 tugs on the French and Belgian coast because it didn't intend to invade Britain. Hitler issued Furher Directive No 16 on July detailing preparations for Operation Sealion for no reason at all. The OKW was mistaken in the belief that it had been preparing plans for the possible invasion of Britain since November 1939.

The OKW surely didn't order a "suprise crossing on a broad front extending approximately from Ramsgate to a point west of the Isle of Wight" In a July 2 document entitled 'The War Against England', because it always intended to invade Russia. Army group A didn't transfer two mountain divisions to the Channel in July as cliff scaling troops for proposed landings in Dover, they wouldn't have been needed. The German army was obviously dreaming when it stationed 9 divisions in and around Rotterdam, Bolounge and Le Havre in Mid-August. The August 30th decision to mount Sealion on September 21st was obviously completely farscical and merely meant to make the Army and Navy work hard.

Come on.

Sealion was a detailed, highly planned and organised operation. It never went ahead because Germany;

1) Failed to secure the necessary airsuperiority
2) Failed to neutraliase the Royal Navy and control the Channel
3) Realised from its own exercises that the task of shuttling troops and supplies across the Channel was well beyond its capacity, even when it was unopposed.

Crossing the English Channel was not like the OKW envisaged, as a 'river crossing on a broad front'. It was infinitely more complex than that, a true combined air-land-sea operation which the German armed forces had never attempted before.

Sealion was a product of German unfamiliarity with seaborne operations, blinkered optimism from German high command and rampant opportunism from its political leadership. When the plan met the actual realities of seaborne logistics and transport, the need for air and sea superiority, local operational requirements and the prospects of renewed British opposition in late September, THEN the whole thing crashed into upon itself and reality sunk in.
 

Jeeze how can you even compare a land based supporting invasion to a naval based one?


You're seriously using these examples of success against Destroyers to support your argument? These bombs would not likely destroy even a light cruiser with less than half a dozen hits. The Japanese used 1700 lbs armor penetrating bombs to sink US capital ships at Perl Harbor. The German's had no equivalent bomb in their arsonel in 1940, and the stuka would only have been able to carry one such bomb if they had.


Lets assume the British would not be stupid and line their ships up for slaughter. Instead they'd only spend what time in port was necessary for resupply. Only true dive bombers have much chance of hitting a moving ship. The He111 was not well suited to such attacks, and the Me110 lacked a bombing sight and could not really dive bomb so it would also do poorly. Level bombing and glide bombing attacks proved generally unsuccessful against warships thoughout the war, except when they were at anchor.

So out of the 960 bombers the Luftwaffe' had, only perhaps 200 were capable of successful attack against naval combat vessles at sea. Of these the best choice would have been the Ju-87R with a range of 1410 miles for the Ju-87R, apparently less than about 50 of these were available. This means a combat radius of less than 650 miles (allowing for climb and formation and a minimal reserve).

The next best choice is the Ju-88, but again only about 30-40 would have been available. The combat radius would have been about 700 miles but that required carrying a relatively small bomb load. It should be noted that in the 3rd week of the war four Ju-88's attacked British warships at Scapa Flow but inflicted no damage.

Liverpool is 605 miles from Calaise. No Luftwaffe bomber has the range to fly this far and then patrol to locate British warships in the waters off this port. And the RN really had no immeadiate need to go to port in England anyway, they could operate out of iceland or other available bases and still keep within range to defeat any attempt at an invasion.

And without fighter escort, these bombers would have been torn to shreads. Surely you are not suggesting that there would be absolutely no RAF remaining? That they might have been defeated and unwilling to engage the Luftwaffe bombers within fighter escort range I can accept, but the idea that the RAF would not even intercept unescorted bombers is just silly.

=S=

Lunatic
 
I am sorry if this ticks off a lot of people but I personally think that the Stuka was a piece of junk (Dauntless fan). They were short ranged and could not carry a good load. I was never impressed with thier record exept when they were going against 2nd rate powers such as Poland and such.

So in this what if situation I think that even if you covered the skies with Stukas, the RN would have turned them into guacamole.

:{)
 
Once the Brits knew the German troops were loading up the landing barges and getting ready, the RN could have sortied at nightime and blast the barges. I dont think the Luftwaffee could have put much of a fight when it was dark.
 
To continue with my last post. The long and the short of this is, the GAF exept for a few planes, such as the Condor, was a short ranged airforce, for that matter so was the RAF in 1940. Even if the situation would have been ideal the GAF would not have the legs to do top cover for the landings. The Nazis were a continental power and that mindset to me never changed. I know that, again this is going to tick off many people, but I was never impressed with either the leadership, tactics, or equipment of the GAF for reasons that I will not go into here because it is not a subject of this forum (read Geoffrey Perret's book Winged Victory).

Soooooooo

Even in the most ideal what if scenario the Luftwaffe would have not been able to be much help in Sealion.

Again my two yen
:{)
 
the lancaster kicks ass said:
Sealion was a detailed, highly planned and organised operation
Click to expand...

sorry just had to quote that- funniest thing i've read today!
Click to expand...

Lanc;

You should read "Operation Sealion" by Peter Flemming (Yes, THAT Flemming, Ian's younger brother).

He goes into great and exacting detail about how well Sealion was planned for by the OKW. First draughts of operational orders for invading England had been made in December of 1939 and were constatnly revised all the way up to August, 1940.

The main impracticality of the whole operation was the German Army's fundamental mis-interpretation of what crossing the Channel would entail. Infact, both the German Army and Navy initailly displayed an incredible optimism and an uncharacteristic naiveity about the crossing. It wasn't until August that they realised that Sealiion couldn't be done as easily as first anticipated.

Much of the initail planning for Sealion is a masterwork of self-delusion and fantasy but even so, the OKW was preparing and organising it for 4 months at least.
 

The Dauntless was deffinatly better but the Stuka was not bad at the beginnin of the war and the dedicated anti tank versions of it were also pretty succesfull.
 
Jabberwocky:

Sorry but I have to disagree.

I am aware of the German assembly of barges and tugs in the Channel coast; also I am aware of the OKW´s directive to proceed further with the alleged invasion of England.

There is plenty of sound evidence that will help strenghtening the notion of Hitler not being really interested about invading, let alone occupying England; I am sure you are aware of all the facts I´m about to comment here:

Firstly, and very firstly, who declared first war against the other?

For whatever reasons it was England who first declared war. The Reich had begun its move eastwards and the Brits decided to pick the fight.


Hitler offered peace to England twice: after the fall of Poland and after France surrendered, both rejected.

Contrary to what most apparently do believe, Chamberlain backed Churchill´s decision to refuse any peace offer issued by Hitler.

The fall of France, and the peace offer that followed, includes the acquital of the BEF, when the table was served to proceed ahead with its execution. The BEF was allowed to escape.

An authentic intention, then a plan, to invade and occupy England must imply the necessary destruction of the armed forces of the British Empire, oddly they let the BEF get away.

Why do you think the BEF was allowed to live?

In spite of all that, Mr. Churchill continued to present Germany as a menace to British people; even when a massive number of British soldiers returned home and had the chance of seeing their families again.

You do not believe Churchill´s hogwash on the "survival of Christian civilization depending on the Battle of Britain" do you?


So we have a country that:

(i) declared war against Germany, when no imminent threat was being posed to the people and culture of Great Britain and the integrity and possessions of the Empire.
(ii) sent its army into the continent
(ii-a) got its ass kicked on the battlefield -utterly-
(ii-b) was spared from extermination when caught in a mousetrap
(ii-c) was allowed to escape -in their trousers only-
(iii) received a peace offer issued after the battle... from the very winner of the battle.

What do you think? But of course you disagree don´t you?


The Battle of Britain. I stick to the notion of Germany launching the air offensive of mid/late 1940 to push England to negotiate peace and not to ensure the air superiority that would allow the alleged invasion to proceed.

Right, the Germans failed, and since no signs of any British faltering were visible, they decided the cancel operations over the Island. The Luftwaffe did not cancel operations over England due to "catastrophic losses" as depicted by the allied propaganda. There were days with high losses, certainly, but nothing the Germans could not handle.

As I have said before, oddly after the BoB, the Luftwaffe pounded all its enemies in operations following 1940, and not only yugoslavians and soviets, also British: in early 1941, I./JG 27 arrived in North Africa an shot down RAF and SAAF planes at will, suffering extremely low casualties.

I do not know Jabberwocky, you might laugh, you might clench your teeth and stroke the keys...who knows, I do not know. What I can do tell you is your case is weak.
 
I will not bother with the vast majority of that post since it was a load of anti-British crap spouting. I will leave that to the others. The one thing to question though is, why did Germany spend all that effort and loss on collecting all available seafaring craft for transport in the English Channel? As a joke?
 
Stunning bit of reasoning Udet.

Hitler directly orders preparations for the invasion of England because he wasn't going to invade.

From the 1st two paragraphs of Furher Directive No 16, July 16th, 1940.


The General Staff trained infantry in amphibious landing operations, moved in specalty forces and convert 250 tanks so that they had amphibious capabilities for what reason then?

30% of the canal and river barges in northern Germany, Belgium and France and the whole of the transport capability of the Kriegsmarine are diverted to France.

Germany had already assigned Ernst Bohle as Reichskommisar for Great Britain. The OKW put out instructions on September 9th headed "Orders Concerning the Organisation and Function of Military Government in England". The Gestapo had already prepared notices in both German and English, in bulk, for use in a conqured Britain.

The LuftWaffe parachuted spies in whose sole objective was to provide intelligence on South-western England which would help the leading formations of an invasion. 6 were captured in August, 5 in September.

Hitler intended to invade England. His 'appeals to reason' were done precisely because he was thinking of future conquests in the East. Why waste more troops and resources when he wanted to be elsewhere? The answer is simple; With a pacific Great Britain on his door step he wouldn't have to repeat the folly of the Kaiser and get Germany involved in a protracted two front war. Germany would have a free hand in Europe. Fortunately, the British people, embodied in their finest by Churchill, refused to back down from a bully who had given them a bloody nose.

They fought, and fought so well that they caused Germany to pause, reconsider and then give up its plans to invade England. With the RAF in the air and the RN in the Channel there was no way that Germany could land in the United Kingdom. Defeated in the air during the Battle of Britain, the first precondition to be able to launch Sealion was chopped away. After this Germany could do nothing but bomb cities by night and watch the RAF gain in strength and confidence by day. Hitler and Germany, beaten in the air, could do nothing but turn to the Western Desert and to the 'rotten edifice' of the Soviet Union.

Here is a little poem by A.P. Herbert which sums up the British feelings in the period;

Napoleon tried. The Dutch were on their way,
A Norman did it- and a Dane or two,
Some sailor-King may follow one fine day;
But not, I think, a low land-rat like you.
Click to expand...

I know that I won't have convinced you, all evidence to the contrary. Alas, I did but try.
 
Sorry Udet but I have to disagree with you. Do you really think that England could stand aside while Germany took over all of Europe? If you do then you are more naive than I thought.
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Sorry Udet but I have to disagree with you. Do you really think that England could stand aside while Germany took over all of Europe? If you do then you are more naive than I thought.
Click to expand...

And what are you saying - the UK sould of pursued peace with Hitler???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
How did the I-16 Really Perform in WWII?
3 4 5
Replies
88
Views
5K
bf109xxl
What if the Bugatti 100p became a fighter?
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
GTX
What Constituted A Mission
Replies
1
Views
750
Acree
A
A
If Italy is neutral what does its air force look like by Sept 1942
6 7 8
Replies
146
Views
16K
Elan Vital
E
S
Italian series 5/6 fighters really better?
Replies
8
Views
3K
GregP
Menu
Log in
Register