Operation "Sea Lion"

[Caius]

Hello all historicians,

Do you think what would have had happened if the opperation Sea Lion came into effect? Would Germany have lost sooner? What would have happened if they succedeed? We know that they couldn't, but its a What if scenario that I would like to explore.

What do you say?

Cheers!

[Pannonian]

Since Germany had no way of resupplying across the Channel, they would have lost any army resources they managed to land. Take the scenario from there.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

Operation Sea Lion never would have worked, it just was not practical. Great Britain still had a strong enough Navy and air force to make Germany pay dearly for ever man they had try to cross the channel. And once they were across the channel (those who were left that is) they would have been annihilated by the Brits on land. Sea lion was never really going to happen, even Hitler eventually got that, but it was a useful way to keep up morale. The British navy has been stopping world powers from attacking the isles for centuries, and almost all naval invasions have ended up being laughingstocks.

[Samurai Waki]

Just take the Dieppe and reverse it; and that would be how the scenario would have played out.

[Franconicus]

Well, this is a complex question.

The German army was much stronger than the British. Without the Channel, German tanks would have reached London rapidly. But there was the Channel.

The Royal Navy was much stronger than the German Reichsmarine, without any doubt. Further more, the transort capacity of the Germans was very limited and it took a long time to gather it. Neither the German battleship or cruisers nor the submarines would have been able to stop the British Navy.

But there was still the Luftwaffe. It succeeded over Poland and France. It had good planes. skilled pilots and prooved tactics. However, it had also suffered from the fights over France and needed new machines and new organisation. Furthermore, it had not the planes to fight a strategic long range war and it did not have the strategy - obviously Hitler never planned to invade England.
And there was not the will of the German command to attack England.

The Royal Air Force was not much weaker than the Germans. The pilots were skilled but not so experieneced. Numbers were slightly lower, but production of fighters higher. Biggest advantage of the Germans was the tactical skills. But the English had a bigger advantage- they did not have to fight before the landing. They could simply withdraw northwards and wait. And that is what they did. They only fought when they wanted to.

The Luftwaffe could not kill the RAF, because it was out of range. However, as long as the fighters of the RAF were still there, the Luftwaffe would not have been able to screen the bridgeheads and the flanks of the Channel. The RAF would have been able to attack the German convoys as well as the Royal Navy. Both would have suffered casualties, but the Germans would hardly be able to get enough supply to the islands. So, in the end, Germany would have lost the invasion troops.

Although the Germans made many mistakes during the Battle of England, they would not benn able to win it if they had done better.

If the invasion army would have gone, this would not have had a drastic impact on the balance of forces. But it would have some drastic effects. The neutral states would have seen that England was not going to loose, and if England would not loose, it would win in the long run.
This would have changed their policy, the policy from the USA as well as from Spain, Porugal and many others. Most important would have been the effect on the USSR. After all I know, Stalin would have raised the pressure on Germany, demanding more land in Central and Southeastern Europe. Romania, Bulgaria, Finland and Western Poland would propably come under Soviet control, Russian prussure on Turkey would have been bigger. With a defeated German army and a weakened Royal Navy, Stalin could have tried to get Turkey under his control.But these are only mindgames.

[al Roumi]

The Luftwaffe could not kill the RAF, because it was out of range. However, as long as the fighters of the RAF were still there, the Luftwaffe would not have been able to screen the bridgeheads and the flanks of the Channel. The RAF would have been able to attack the German convoys as well as the Royal Navy. Both would have suffered casualties, but the Germans would hardly be able to get enough supply to the islands. So, in the end, Germany would have lost the invasion troops.

I may be falling prey to pop history, but i thought the switch (at Hitler's command, and in retaliation to a single British raid on Berlin) to bombing cities rather than the first focus of the 'Battle of Britain', which had been destroying the RAF, came with maybe a week before the RAF would have been beaten? That was by the RAF's own estimation too i thought...

So, if the the Luftwaffe had been close to effectivley destroying the RAF's capability to defend itself, then presumably we could consider that the Luftwaffe could have destroyed it, had Hitler chosen not to.

With no air cover the Royal Navy would have been under severe pressure itself, and it's defense of the channel much harder alone.

Personaly, I think it would have been possible for an invasion to succeed, but the effort and losses in achieving the objective must have out-weighed the gains in Hitler or the German high command's view. The USSR's vast tracts of territory, resources and population offered a much greater incentive of future and immediate rewards than Britain presumably did.

Whether that was a strategic miscalculation of threats or not remains to be seen, Pearl Harbour had yet to "happen" and hence the US' engagement in the war was not, by any means, yet decided. If Germany had invaded Britain and maintained even a partial occupation (with supply) before Pearl Harbour, by the time the US joined things would have been very different.

D-day would have been pushed back for sure (assuming Britain and the US beat back the Germans from the UK), god knows what would have happened in the Maghreb and we might even have seen nukes deployed on Germany...

[King Kurt]

One thing not to forget is that the Royal Navy did fight in areas where they did not have air superiority - principally the Med. They took severe losses but were able to dominate the sea despite the forces ranged against them. Rommel constantly suffered from a shortage of supplies due to the lack of control of the sea - and this was about defending Egypt and Malta, not mainland Britain.

The old addage is the "Germans a week away from winning the Battle of Britain, but Hitler made them change strategy" is often mentioned in these discussions.All the attacks on the airfields did was cause disruption in defence - in the end they could have pulled back which would have diluted the ability to defend, but not stop it. A reverse position, not often discussed was the decision to send 12 squadrons to France in 1939 - a force not large enough to secure air superiority, but large enough to suffer significant losses which were missed in the Battle of Britain. Those 12 squadrons - arguebly the best trained - found themselves in a difficult situation, suffered severe losses and made no real impact on the Battle of France.

[al Roumi]

The old addage is the "Germans a week away from winning the Battle of Britain, but Hitler made them change strategy" is often mentioned in these discussions.All the attacks on the airfields did was cause disruption in defence - in the end they could have pulled back which would have diluted the ability to defend, but not stop it.

Pulled-back to where? Defence of what? I thought the focus of the first attacks was the RAF itself, not the population centres or even industrial sites yet.

A reverse position, not often discussed was the decision to send 12 squadrons to France in 1939 - a force not large enough to secure air superiority, but large enough to suffer significant losses which were missed in the Battle of Britain. Those 12 squadrons - arguebly the best trained - found themselves in a difficult situation, suffered severe losses and made no real impact on the Battle of France.

Wasn't the expeditionary force the closest thing GB had to a professional army at the time too (not-withstanding the forces in Egypt)?

If Britain hadn't intervened at all in France or elsewhere on the continent at the start of the war, i suspect the diplomatic make up of the rest of the conflict would have been much changed. It may be another popular myth I've swallowed but wouldn't Hitler rather have avoided war with GB? I thought he considered it only right that as GB and France had overseas empires, Germany should have the same, albeit more locally, "out back" or so to speak.

...Not to mention that racist guff about common aerian ancestory (Saxons, Friesiens, Angles et al.)

[King Kurt]

Pulled-back to where? Defence of what? I thought the focus of the first attacks was the RAF itself, not the population centres or even industrial sites yet.

What I mean is that the fighters could have been pulled back to the Midlands, out of range of escorted daylight bombers. That would have left Southern England a little exposed - and caused some political difficulty, but it was an option. The invasion would have had to come by say September/ October to have at least a fighting chance with the weather, and then the landings could be attacked from the air and the sea. Naval attacks would be at night, thus decreasing the effectivness of the German airforce. The air attacks would have been bloody, but you are talking about defending the homeland.

Wasn't the expeditionary force the closest thing GB had to a professional army at the time too (not-withstanding the forces in Egypt)?

If Britain hadn't intervened at all in France or elsewhere on the continent at the start of the war, i suspect the diplomatic make up of the rest of the conflict would have been much changed. It may be another popular myth I've swallowed but wouldn't Hitler rather have avoided war with GB? I thought he considered it only right that as GB and France had overseas empires, Germany should have the same, albeit more locally, "out back" or so to speak.

...Not to mention that racist guff about common aerian ancestory (Saxons, Friesiens, Angles et al.)

Politicaly it would have been difficult not to go to France, and optimism was high with the BEF etc. No one predicted the stunning sucess of the German attacks. However the RAF was not fully commited to France - I think I am right in saying that no Spitfires went to France - but we did loose a lot of planes and pilots. It is the benefit of hindsight to say it would have been better not to go - but isn't that the same as saying the Germans should have continued attacking the airfields? I suppose my point is both options have merit and can be chewed over - but neither happened and history went - possibly- on a different course.

[Pannonian]

Pulled-back to where? Defence of what? I thought the focus of the first attacks was the RAF itself, not the population centres or even industrial sites yet.

Fighter Command were losing trained pilots, but the training they had was outdated, and the experience the survivors were gaining more than outweighed the loss of pilots, who in any case were adequately topped up with new recruits (who had better training than the first batch). What was close to breaking point was the fitness of 11 Group, who were severely fatigued by battle stress. Any more of the same, and the backup plan would be used. That the Luftwaffe was similarly close to breaking point made this moot, but the plan was to withdraw 11 Group to the midlands, to rest and refit. There was an adequate supply of new fighters, so equipment wasn't an issue, and there was an adequate supply of new pilots, so numbers wasn't an issue. All 11 Group needed was a respite from action (which they would get in the midlands, since it was out of range of German fighters), and they would be able to return in strength when the invasion came. With the rate of attrition the BoB saw, if Sealion was actually launched, Britain would probaby have significant air superiority as well as naval supremacy.

As it turned out, as said above, 11 Group wore down the Luftwaffe to breaking point, which was reached when Bader's Big Wings appeared. While they didn't do much more damage than the standard piecemeal method of engagement, they showed the Germans that the British had fresh reserves which they didn't have, and persuaded them the current battle couldn't be won.

[Beirut]

If the Germans did invade, Churchill was going to gas them on the beaches.

If the Germans made it inland, the English had a public campaing planned with posters to be put up saying, "You can always take one with you."

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

which Is why I will always love the British!

[al Roumi]

If the Germans did invade, Churchill was going to gas them on the beaches.

If the Germans made it inland, the English had a public campaing planned with posters to be put up saying, "You can always take one with you."

hmm, "we will gas the on the beaches" doesn't sound as valiant as "we will fight them on the beaches"...

[Jolt]

If the Germans did invade, Churchill was going to gas them on the beaches.

Provided the German army was successful in landing in England, that was probably the dumbest thing Churchill could order. The consequence would probably be retaliating using gas weapons through the whole of England, most certainly against a lot of civilian targets. While France fell quickly and relatively bloodlessly, Hitler would gas his way to Scotland if any such thing was done against his troops. That would imply millions of civillian casualties. I don't think Churchill had the backbone to attempt such a thing, out of fear of the inevitable result such a measure would ensue.

[Yarema]

If Hitler would disembark his army of murderers on the British shores without eliminating the R.A.F., he would be cut to pieces by the Royal Navy and the R.A.F.

Besides, If the Germans would start Seelowe, Stalin would order a full scale attack on Nazi Germany, in which the latter would not stand a chance. The Soviets were technologicaly superior in every type of arms - they had excellent BT and T-38 tanks, they have already begun the production of KV-1 and T-34., they had the Katyusha and magnificent airplanes, and tens of thousends of paratroopers. The Germans, exposed from the east, would be defenseless.

[al Roumi]

Besides, If the Germans would start Seelowe, Stalin would order a full scale attack on Nazi Germany, in which the latter would not stand a chance. The Soviets were technologicaly superior in every type of arms - they had excellent BT and T-38 tanks, they have already begun the production of KV-1 and T-34., they had the Katyusha and magnificent airplanes, and tens of thousends of paratroopers. The Germans, exposed from the east, would be defenseless.

With all respect [a phrase which always announces an intellectual uppercut], I think you've got your dates and details a bit mixed up Yarema... The USSR certainly outclassed the 3rd Reich at the end of the war (having borne the brunt of its military might), but not in 1940.

Even though production of the first T34s started in 1940, the red army was still overwhelmingly using early-1930s equipment and had lost most of it's high command through the purges of the 30s.

The fact that it wasn't as effective a fighting force is most easily demonstrated by what happened when operation Barbarossa unleashed the Wehrmacht on the USSR...

...and I think I've been pretty kind there.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Germany did not have the sealift to perform more than a raid, and had no ability to re-supply across a beach. Translation = epic fail.

Moreover, even if they had had the sealift, they would also have had to radically increase the size of their naval forces at all levels. No European power had the economic strength to build such a fleet, and certainly not Germany. Remember, this is the English Channel and THE homeland. The Home fleet's sole purpose was to defend that, even at the cost of all units and personnel. No naval force existed that could have successfully screened such an invasion force against an all-out effort by the RN prior to the advent of the 1944 US Pacific Fleet.

The Soviets probably WOULD have attacked had Germany committed to an invasion of Britain, but it would have been a limited assault for purposes of acquiring Rumania and some of the other Balkan territories. It has been theorized that part of the "too far forward" deployment that the Germans exploited during Barbarossa was because Stalin was hoping for an opportunity to do just that.

[Pannonian]

Germany did not have the sealift to perform more than a raid, and had no ability to re-supply across a beach. Translation = epic fail.

Moreover, even if they had had the sealift, they would also have had to radically increase the size of their naval forces at all levels. No European power had the economic strength to build such a fleet, and certainly not Germany. Remember, this is the English Channel and THE homeland. The Home fleet's sole purpose was to defend that, even at the cost of all units and personnel. No naval force existed that could have successfully screened such an invasion force against an all-out effort by the RN prior to the advent of the 1944 US Pacific Fleet.

The Soviets probably WOULD have attacked had Germany committed to an invasion of Britain, but it would have been a limited assault for purposes of acquiring Rumania and some of the other Balkan territories. It has been theorized that part of the "too far forward" deployment that the Germans exploited during Barbarossa was because Stalin was hoping for an opportunity to do just that.

The Germans would certainly have lost anything they managed to land in England, lost anything they committed to compete for control of the seas, and given the increasing strength of Fighter Command and the rest 11 Group would have had, lost a large proportion of what they committed to compete for control of the air. What's harder to predict is how this would affect Germany. In the event, the absence of Sealion meant German confidence in their military supremacy was undented, which led to the invasion of the USSR, which ultimately led to their defeat. Would the comprehensive defeat of Sealion have led to better or worse ultimate results for Germany?

[John the Mad]

Command Magazine had a very good article in the mid-90's on the feasability of Sea-Lion.

Their conclusion was that Germany would have had to wreck its internal economy while sending the invading force across the channel in river barges.

Worse yet was the estimantation that the initial landing would have had to gone 3-7 days without re-supply or reinforcment.

Not to mention that the best idea to protect the initial assault and follow on landings was to create a corridor across the channel using destroyers.

In reality Sea-Lion has always been a pipe dream but a great what if.

[Husar]

Eh, I thought before the invasion in Normandy the british and americans built all those beach landing craft, why couldn't germany have simply built some beach landing craft as well? It's not like they looked like very sophisticated or complicated boats.
I can see how it would have taken Germany longer than it took Britain and the US though.

[John the Mad]

Eh, I thought before the invasion in Normandy the british and americans built all those beach landing craft, why couldn't germany have simply built some beach landing craft as well? It's not like they looked like very sophisticated or complicated boats.
I can see how it would have taken Germany longer than it took Britain and the US though.

LST's and LSI's were in fact very sophisticated craft at the time.As were the smaller crafts such as alligators.

Also an amphibious invasion is more then just putting troops ashore.There is a whole logistical element behind it.

It took the US 3 years to learn how to conduct amphibious warfare semi-effectallialy.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

LST's and LSI's were in fact very sophisticated craft at the time.As were the smaller crafts such as alligators.

Also an amphibious invasion is more then just putting troops ashore.There is a whole logistical element behind it.

It took the US 3 years to learn how to conduct amphibious warfare semi-effectallialy.

And that was even factoring in the work done by the USMC prior to the war.

LSTs and LSIs etc. were not as sophisticated as subs or carriers, of course, but drop ramps and all the other tech that makes things work did take some development. Moreover, they took a fair bit of effort to build. The USA never achieved the ideal numbers it sought throughout the war.

[Pannonian]

Eh, I thought before the invasion in Normandy the british and americans built all those beach landing craft, why couldn't germany have simply built some beach landing craft as well? It's not like they looked like very sophisticated or complicated boats.
I can see how it would have taken Germany longer than it took Britain and the US though.

From Alison Brooks' extremely entertaining debunk of Sealion, but no longer online unfortunately. Fortunately, I've saved a copy to my local drive.

Operation Sealion - Improvisations

Given the shortage of transports, it was inevitable that the
Germans would look to improvisations. These proved to be
decidedly imperfect.

The Engineer Battalion 47 of VII Army Corps was designated as
having responsibility for the "construction of seaworthy ferries
out of auxiliary equipment, local supply and bridging
equipment". What was unusual in this was that this task,
requiring a good knowledge of matters maritime, was tasked to
this particular battalion, which had its home base in Bavaria.

The engineers were nothing if not enthusiastic. They built rafts
from pontoons, and were undismayed when half of these rafts sank
while in harbour. Attempts to provide these rafts with power
failed, because they broke up under the strain. Nonetheless, the
Wehrmacht announced that these rafts would be towed behind the
barges being towed by the tugs, and that the horses would thus
be transported across the Channel on these rafts, saving the
difficulties of loading the horses into the barges. One wonders
what the horses would have made of this concept.

The engineers turned their attention to pontoons used for
crossing rivers. Even the most optimistic observer had to regard
this as a failure. The open pontoons filled with water and sank.
The iron beams holding the pontoons together snapped in waves,
and the exercise was discontinued.

[British Mutt + Viking]

If Germany had conquered Great Britain, the Germans would have effectively won all they wanted out of the Second World War.

First and foremost, the loss of Britain meant the elimination of the United States as a threat because to launch an invasion three-thousand miles over the Atlantic that would be big enough to matter was simply not practical. Besides, America really had no beef with Hitler as long as he respected American commercial interests,

The British Empiresimply could not afford to carry on the war without Great Britain as a staging ground and political focal point. That is assuming that the Empire even remained loyal with the head decapitated. Many crucial parts of the Empire, like Egypt and India, probable would have broken away if Great Britain was forced to do a Free French routine and pretend to have a functioning government outside of the home nation. The ANZACs probably would have reamined friends but what good could 50,000,000 people separated by thousands of miles of ocean to do the combined forces of Western Europe under Nazi control? U-Boats alone would render communications beyond reason.

Finally, partisans only fight when they feel that there is hope. The French resistance fought on because it knew that it was only a matter of time before liberators crossed the channel. Without the certain knowledge of a liberation, partisans become less and less effective over time.

Last, a Germany free to use the resources of Europe as it wished, without a Royal Navy to blockade it, could easily overwhelm the Soviet Union. Hell, The Germans would not need to conquer the Caucausus oil fields because they would not have 750,000 British and Commonwealth troops backed by the largest navy in the world between them and Mesopotamia or the Dutch East Indies. Considering how successful the Germans were using the limited resources of Europe available to them in reality, it is not a stretch to imagine how much they could have done without the British stop sign at every corner of the continent.

Germany was ultimately defeated because the British divided German efforts enough to prevent it from overwhelming the Soviet Union. The Royal Navy effectively blockaded Germany from all sides apart from the Eastern Front. Great Britain allowed the bombers to slowly bleed the German warmachine to death while the full strength of the United States slowly massed for Overlord. Without the British Isles, victory was impossible.

[al Roumi]

Firstly, If i may be so bold, i think that's all a bit Anglo centric. There are some fair stategic points in there but you may be overstating Britain's role a little there.

Finally, partisans only fight when they feel that there is hope. The French resistance fought on because it knew that it was only a matter of time before liberators crossed the channel. Without the certain knowledge of a liberation, partisans become less and less effective over time.

As for this, i have serious reservations about its accuracy. I suspect one only really knows about partisans who were ultimately successful.

Also, I am intrigued to know how one acquires the "certain knowledge of a liberation".

People fight for many reasons. Some, oddly, fight to die -and die free. (Especially if you are in Team America anyway)

[Brenus]

“relatively bloodlessly” between 90,000 and 110,000 KIA is not bloodlessly, in 1 month and half.

Now, I don’t think Hitler had the means to cross the Channel. And even if, let's go:
Infantry and tank on land: Petrol and Ammo? Have to cross.
Air support? On the other side of the Channel and thus deny the Blitzkrieg effect.
How many soldiers would have cross and when? Because too late and you have you entire army cut by the bad weather from air support and logistic. Remember what happened in one of the artificial harbour in Normandy… Here we speak of September D-Day was the 21st of September with 11 division (2 Airborne Divisions), or October weather…
As mentioned, the RAF had just to withdraw a little bit to be out of range from the Luftwaffe. However the Germans units would have been in the constant attack of the bombers.
True is after Dunkirk the British had lost all heavy equipment and tanks but the English had 4 fully equipped divisions and 8 in a reasonable shape…
When Hitler abandoned Sea Lion, the RAF had destroyed the 214 on the1,918 Landing Crafts gathered and 21 of the 170 transports.

Then the battle of Hannut and Gambloux (against the French) can give a idea what could happened to the Germans on the English soil:
“The losses are heavy on both sides. The French lost 105 tanks (75 Hotchkiss H35/H39 and 30 Somua S35 tanks) and the Germans about 164 tanks, mainly due to the action of the Somua S35 tanks (despite being often manned by crews lacking experience) but also several because of the Hotchkiss tanks or because of the infantry strong points including AT guns and AT mines. Concerning the French tank losses a good part was probably destroyed by the Luftwaffe and not at all by German tanks.”

“The 2 Panzerdivision supported by 2 infantry divisions were again blocked in Gembloux, by 2 French infantry divisions this time. On the overall strategic level of course the allies failed in May 1940 but Hannut and Gembloux are French undisputable tactical successes over the German army. Despite a numeric superiority and heavy aerial support, the advantage of the radio sets in their faster tanks etc. the Germans failed in face of the French cavalry corps and the 1st army which were devoid of aerial support.” In Axis History Factbook article by David Lehmann

So, the Germans Expeditionary Corps would have finf itself in really really deep problems...

[KARTLOS]

It makes you wonder what would have happened if the Germans had made no attempts to invade/ attack britain whatsover, i.e if they had declared a "unilateral ceasefire"

I think it could have had a big impact politically, there probably would have been some internal pressure in the UK to come to terms with the Nazis.

[Brenus]

“It makes you wonder what would have happened if the Germans had made no attempts to invade/ attack britain whatsover, i.e if they had declared a "unilateral ceasefire"
UK would have rearmed faster…

[InsaneApache]

Historically Britain always took the view that a single European power acheiving dominance in mainland Europe was a bad thing and not in Britains interests. Hence the alliance against the French in the late 18th centuary, early 19th centuary and the next centuary when it allied with France against Germany. Also in the mid 20th centuary against Russia.

Once the phoney war was over it was a fight to the end for the British.

[Dodge_272]

I pulled off operation sealion on hearts of iron even with the CORE mod! Can't have been that hard!