Operation Sealion Should Have Happened

Actually I recall reading about operation Seelöwe that the German plan looked like treating the channel more like a "big river". I suppose the operation Dynamo gave them some wrong ideas there.

 

How many ships and of what types do you, POS, think Germany would have needed for a successful invasion of Britain? How long would it take Germany to build the ships you think they needed? What would Britain's response / reaction to German naval construction be?

 

I am basing this post on somewhat of a happy medium of the landings at Anzio and Normandy. For any chance of success the Germans would have to land about 250.000 troops in England within the first month of the operation.

Due to this fact it would have to be done in two trips. The Germans built about 700 troop transports throughout the course of the war. The most likely used by the Nazis would be the Marinefa:hrpraham Type D[1]. with a 200 troop capacity or 140 tons of supplies. The landings would have to be supported by the LW and KM. The LW would need at least no less than 5000 planes flying various support missions. The operation would require on initial landing 112.500 troops, 1000 pcs of artillery and about 500 tanks. To land this the Nazis would need no less than 2200 transports and 1000 other surface vessels to protect the convoy. To even consider any of this the Z-Plan would not only need to not be scrapped but multiplied by a factor of at least 5. Planes could be built for the operation in about 6 months, and troops allocated even faster. The problem comes in the form of the ships involved. The steel could be found for the transports, without allocating extra steel in about 2-2.5 months time, but building them is another story. For all additional ships Germany is screwed. The Z-Plan called for 13 BB’s, 4 CV’s, 15 “Pocket Battleships”, 23 CA’s , and 22 DD’s over a 7 year period. It is very questionable that Germany was capable of achieving even this. In this timeline we are not looking at Germany waiting 1-2 years to launch the operation but 3-4 DECADES. This is more than a “What If” It is an IMPOSSIBILITY. Period

NOTE:
I figured this all out in about a half hour so feel free to correct any errors, but please give me some leeway on the type of transports, I used the largest available for this quick analysis

[1] I could'nt figure out how to put the : above the a. Sorry


Mike

 

I'll throw in my 2 cents here.

Agreed that a successful invasion in 40 was impossible (read extremely unlikely). Maybe, though, Hitler did have it correct in his strategy, that Britain could be bombed into surrendering. I find that most of you are only discussing the military aspects of the entire BoBritain, and not the political. The question is, how long would Britain want to stand alone again Germany? The Nazi leadership made it quite clear repeatedly that they did not wish to conquer Britain, either because they couldn't or didn't want to.

What if, what if, what if, Germany decides in May 41 NOT to invade Russia, but to continue the Blitz against British cities (nightbombing only), vigorously pursue the Middle East campaign, capture Malta, and invest their naval resources into their U-Boat fleet as opposed to surface fleet? I actually see a war-weary and fed-up citizenry after, let's say, 3 years of weak or no successes, wanting to simply negotiate an end to the war. Maybe a new gov't in a different timeline would have preferred peace instead. By late 1942, with no Barba, Germany, with Italy, could have accomplished these limited objectives. I do agree there is a possibility of Russia invading Germany in 42, but I don't know if a communist Europe would be more or less desirable than a Nazi-economically dominated one. Would UK have 'helped' Russia communize continental europe by actively aiding them? Maybe, just maybe, they would have opted to make peace with Hitler, and let the 2 land titans fight it out.

Germany could have beaten the UK, just not by direct invasion. Raeder knew this, as well as possibily Hitler. Raeder, however, thought that a Med strategy would be the best plan for beating Britain, while Hitler thought that a Barba victory would do the same.


Also, to respond to these 'Germany didn't have the naval tradition, it would take 3-4 decades to build up'. That's so ridiculous. 3-4 decades? maybe 3-5 years ok, but not 3 decades. IMO the Germans did a good job using the limited naval resources/technique they started the war with, and they could have improved upon that with more experience. Invading Norway gave them experience, so did Crete, so would a theoretical Malta, etc. I do agree however, that it would take, of course, 3-5 years to build said landing craft for a MAJOR amphibious invasion (ie UK). But again, this would have been still risky and there were better alternatives to bringing Britain to the negotiating table.

Cheers from Canada.

 

As it has been mentioned before, in order for Germany to even consider an invasion of Great Britain, air superiority would have to be achieved.

Without this, nothing was possible as the mighty Royal Navy was simply too much for Germany.

 

You do realize that the RAF managed to stand its own vs. the Luftwaffe? The Luftwaffe continued to lose planes faster than the Brits by the end of that battle, and the Brits were outproducing the Luftwaffe at the time (I think). Not to mention that every German pilot shot down over Britain was doomed to POW status.

Also, if the strategic/terror bombing of Germany has any message behind it, it's that a populace can and does get used to bombing.

None of this, by the way, delays Pearl Harbor and the American entry into war.

 

I advocate a night bombing campaign against UK, no daylight raids allowed, losses would be far too heavy. UK nightfighting/interception was quite primitive, and german losses after the switch to night bombing were far lower, and sustanable (the Blitz started in Sep 40 -> May 41).

Regarding Pearl Harbour, it might not have happened if Barbarossa was never launched.

BTW, would the USA have entered the war had Japan only attacked UK possessions in Asia (ie HK, Singapore)? I believe I read that they would have, but I can't confirm that....

 

Are you asking me? I think they did a marvelous job.

Or killed....

 

The one and only decision by Hitler to call off Sealion was correct. I'm not going into it again any how a lot of Germans would have burnt to death on the invasion beaches and those giant flame throwers would scare the hell out of you. I am referring to film footage of the time, and now here is my last word.

Sealion a few months of planning.

D-Day years of planning.


Place your bets now.

PS: Hitler's plans always laid in smashing Russia, as Hitler saw it, Russia falls and England would ask for an end to the war.

 

My only comment to this, is that the circumstances were quite different. The Germans also had years to prepare their Atlantic defenses, while Britain was taken quite aback that the Battle of France had been so short. Their '40 coastal defences were not anywhere near the level of the Wehrmachts in '44, and so it's harder to compare. The Wehrmacht, in their limited planning, did advocate a quick invasion of the Isles right after the fall of France, because they also knew how unprepared Britain was for an invasion. Less time was needed, theoretically, to prepare for Sealion than Overlord. Anyhow, it's still my belief that a Sealion in '40 had around a 5% chance of success, a chance simply not worth taking.

 

True, I was only making a general remark.

Boiled down to the bone it means you can not really be serious about an invasion.

 

Fry is cool, but Bender is my personal hero.

 

Operation SEA LION and the Role of the Luftwaffe in the Planned Invasion of England, by Karl Klee (1955).

http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/numbered_studies/468155.pdf

 

Operation SEA LION and the Role of the Luftwaffe in the Planned Invasion of England, by Karl Klee (1955).

http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/numbered_studies/468156.pdf

 

Three to Five years is simply not possible. Ok maybe a Z-plan times five is a little over zealous but times three would easily put Germany as an equivalent to the RN. I know This is incorrect but as of right now I have found six shipyards that built ships of cruiser size or larger just prior and after the start of war. Each shipyard shows that at least two ships this size could be built at one time(one only built one and another had three). I also broke down the approximate time to build and commission each type of vessel. When I multiplied this number by the number of ships built at one time I got 14-15 years just for the Z-plan and we know Germany wasn’t capable of that plan in it’s allotted time frame, as she just didn’t have the steel to throw at the project. While these shipyards are building up the KM other yards are still producing U-boats, minesweepers, patrol boats ect. When I thought these figures into the size I estimated the fleet would need to be(about 1000 ships to support 2200 transports) I got 47 years just to build the capital ships. Factoring in that my info is as yet incomplete I deducted 12 years to get a grand total of 35 years. Hence 3-4 decades.


Throughout this whole build-up, Germany and her allies are still at war. Germany still finds that N. Africa needs more troops to help the Italians. The U-boat number would most likely not be dropped for some time. Planes are still needed to fight the Battle of Britain, and the RN is in no mood to just sit by and watch the Germans build an invasion force. While one group of freshly built warships awaits the next round to be finished they are out on patrols and fighting battles with the RN.
The largest obstacle for the KM to now overcome is men and resources. Simply put Germany doesn’t have the steel for this kind of venture. Men can be found since there is no eastern front but there is no experience amongst its ranks and will fight poorly for a little while(1 year?).


Time to commission each type of ship:
Carrier: 4 years – I got this figure with two ships being launched after two years but neither was commissioned so I added an additional two years
Battleship – Around 3-4 years depending on size of the yard
Cruisers - this I got 3-4 years however as the industries gear up I decided on 2-3 as more likely
Pocket Battleships(is this the official term?) – Slightly smaller than a battleship with cruiser armor 2.5-3 years


Note: As my Research unfolds I will update this post . Am still looking into French shipyard use for the KM.

At least we can agree on some things

Mike

 

But time was against them. The RAF was increasing in strength relative to the LW for the BOB and would have continued to do so until well into 41 and if the LW continued its efforts vs GB probably would have until the LW was ground down to nothing. The British army was also at an all time low during the summer of 1940 after that it was simply too strong for the force the Germans could land.

 

This is quite an interesting and vocal thread. Here's my two cents worth:

I think all sides have valid points on the pros and cons of Germany invading England. On paper, invading England would be a plus for Germany but in reality, Germany didn't have the resources to properly mount an amphibious operation in the scale needed at that time. That's historical fact.

Now I respectfully disagree to the views aired that a country without any amphibious ops experience cannot learn how to do it. It's not out of the realm of possibility for Germany to learn how. The problem would be on how they would go about in learning the basics of it.

Sea Lion in its basic form wouldn't work. But I do think that tweaking the plan, plus a little creative thinking, another way could have been found to mount an invasion of England within the resources available for Germany. Of course, I say this in the context that Barbarossa will not be mounted.

The basics of the plan I think that might be workable:
Germany raises the scuttled French fleet and use it.
A sustained aerial campaign on British bases and installations in England (ignore the cities) while developing better aircraft to deal with the RAF.

Germany military observers study the ongoing Pacific campaign. They could learn a lot from it. That's not impossible to do.

In short, invading England is not out of the realm of possibility. I wouldn't say this would succeed but it would increase Germany's chances of succeeding.

 

The problem[/b]s[/b] with sea lion is that they are starting big with jury rigged equipment, without air superiority, with a huge naval inferiority, and at best a quickly vanishing local superiority on the beaches.

It also must assume that the Soviets don't attack Germany in the intervening years.

Even the combined German and French fleet is inadequate vs the RN. Just what ships are you talking about raising? Also incorproating French ships into the km is going to throw a lot more manufacturing and logistics problems into the works.

The LW was destroying itself in the BOB. Continueing to do so is hardly going to improve the situation.

They might indeed learn a lot from the Pacific. Whether this would be enough to give up on an invasion of England is another matter. I doubt in any case that they could achieve the capability to invade prior to the allies achieving a nuclear capability.

 

Are you suggesting that the Germans wait until 1942 to invade? There was no "Pacific campaign" to observe going on at the time. Not until after Dec of '41. And after that the US is involved. Also in regards to "raising" the French fleet you would have to take into account training and logistics. For even if the Germans were to have the French fleet there would have to be a period of training for the ships of German crews. I seriously doubt there would have been time and trained naval personell available.