Operation Sealion Should Have Happened

And to remember how Hitler reacted to the losses figures at Crete....

 

Exactly. No more massive, airborne fallshirmjager operations.

 

So what are you saying in this context that Germany could have carried the day and invaded and occupy Britain.

This is confusing to me at the very least, you have thrown several large replies stating that Germany could never achieve victory, an attempt yes but no victory, so have you changed your position?, and you believe now that Operation Seelowe would be successful.

 

One main factor that Rommel pleaded with the Chiefs to deploy those forces allocated to Crete to be deployed over Malta, yes imho just as expensive but with Malta out of the picture the entire Med would be Axis and that the DAK would have it's supply lines intact. Rommel would have defeated the Brits in Egypt.

 

At times durimg the desert war the Luftwaffe managed to successfully neutralize Malta as an offensive base, but this didn't stop the attacks on the convoys. The British had bases in Egypt and the Middle East from which they operated during these times.

 

Even before Crete there were huge losses of JU-52s. So the loss of this type of aircraft would also have to be factored into a Paratroop attack. And this was in just 5 days against a even smaller country.


"At the start of the Second World War, the RNlAF has a total of 125 combat ready aircraft, including 20 Fokker D-XXI's fighters, 26 Fokker G-Is twin boom fighters, 12 Fokker T-V bombers and 12 Douglas-Northrop 8A-3N bombers, all stationed at airfields in the western part of the Netherlands. During the 10 may 1940 attack by Germany, which lasted 5 days, 328 German aircraft were shot down, including 220 Ju-52 trimotor transporters, at a loss of 94 Dutch aircraft. Most of the training aircraft managed to escape to England, together with other members of the RNlAF, and with these resources a Dutch squadron operating under RAF command is formed : 322 squadron, equipped with different types of Spitfires."

http://www.scramble.nl/nl.htm

 

Neutralization and Elimination are two different things, Hitler never could see the effect of Eliminating Malta out of the equation, Rommel pleaded with Hitler to cancel the Crete mission and to use those forces on Malta, this backed up with amphibious Italian and German ground troops, Rommel argued that eliminating Malta as an Allied base of operations would seriously damage the Allies in North Africa, and that with Malta in Axis hands would curtail convoy routes through the Med or severely restrict them. And that for the Axis their supply routes are unhindered.

Hitler refused to listen to Rommel, and eventually paid the price for his arrogance.

 

Eliminating Malta does nothing to alleviate the major logistic problems of the Germans. Tobruk and Bengahazi are still marginal ports due to the inability of the Germans and Italians to clear them of wrecks. The lack of an alternative to trucking supplies to the front (due to the inability of the Germans and Italians to build a rail line) means that there will still be massive shortages of supplies at the front.
There is no way around this. When it takes five gallons of gasoline to deliver one to the Alamein position for the Germans how can it be otherwise? When the Italians and Germans are running convoys with tankers half full due to a general shortage of petroleum products the same is true.
Malta is largely irrelevant to the situation in North Africa. Rommel was an amateur when it came to logistics. Literally, totally free of interference Rommel could not supply six mechanized divisions 500 to 800 miles from his logistical base in Libya and Tunisa by truck alone.

 

could a purely air capture of southern england been successful had they planned it in advance?

after dunkirk, the brits would have raised at best 2 divisions. now what if four german airborn divisions captured bomber fields in southern england, landed in more men and material, while keeping me-109s stacked up overhead. the other airfields still with the brits would have been bombed round the clock, while fast boat units would dash across the channel to ship in more men and material? could they have marched to london without heavy tanks and artillery?

 

I suggest you read this thread carefully along with others on this board mac. Britain had 26 1/2 divisions in England of which just over half were more or less full strength 60 days after Dunkirk. They also had a half dozen immediately after more or less full strength. Germany had exactly one badly mauled parachute division that was the equivalent at its establishment strength of about half a regular infantry division less heavy weapons for an air assault.
Of couse, this doesn't include the 250,000 to 500,000 Home Guard being raised in the same period.

 

Not at all. Still no chance. For alot of reasons already brought up before in this thread and others on the subject.

"The British government introduced conscription and by May 1940, British Army strength was brought up to 50 divisions. Of these, 13 divisions were in France fighting against the German Western Offensive. After the evacuations from Dunkirk were complete, the British Army had 1,650,000 men.

 

whoah, man. i said, had they planned it in advance, meaning they had more airborne troops, transports, longer-ranged fighters and airlift-table weapons. and i'm sure they would have considered more enemies than just two divisions. my mistake, something i read years back concerning dunquerque.

 

OK. Where do the Germans get these additional units. Paratroops were largely untried until the Low Lands / French campaign. Doubling their number still leaves the Germans with insufficent numbers to overcome British defenses. The other problem is where do the transports come from? Do you propose cutting production on other aircraft like the Ju 88 in favor of more Ju 52? Then, the other problem is pilots. Historically, the Luftwaffe didn't have enough to man all the transport aircraft they had. So, they pulled all the instructors, flight crews, and advanced students from pilot schools to man these aircraft during operations for short periods.
Historically, the transport the Germans did have allowed for a drop of about one half of 7th Fallschirmjäger division or about 3500 men. So, even with a doubling of everything the Germans are still faced with making several drops which over England would have required more than one day to accomplish.

 

and just in case he missed it,


Even before Crete there were huge losses of JU-52s. So the loss of this type of aircraft would also have to be factored into a Paratroop attack. And this was in just 5 days against a even smaller country.


"At the start of the Second World War, the RNlAF has a total of 125 combat ready aircraft, including 20 Fokker D-XXI's fighters, 26 Fokker G-Is twin boom fighters, 12 Fokker T-V bombers and 12 Douglas-Northrop 8A-3N bombers, all stationed at airfields in the western part of the Netherlands. During the 10 may 1940 attack by Germany, which lasted 5 days, 328 German aircraft were shot down, including 220 Ju-52 trimotor transporters, at a loss of 94 Dutch aircraft. Most of the training aircraft managed to escape to England, together with other members of the RNlAF, and with these resources a Dutch squadron operating under RAF command is formed : 322 squadron, equipped with different types of Spitfires."

http://www.scramble.nl/nl.htm

Thats 220 JU-52s lost in just 5 days against a country where the Germans HAD command of the air.

 

Which bomber airfields in Southern england ? The established bomber airfields were generally in the Cambridgeshire/Lincolnshire area - the South had the fighter airfields many of which at the time of the BofB were still little more than grass flying fields.....

 

In late 1944 the Nazis hatched a plan for a mass breakout of POWs in Britain, the aim being for them to form a division-sized force which would seize arms and supplies and then march on London. The plan was foiled by complete chance when a German-speaking US officer touring one of the camps overheard a conversation between two prisoners and alerted intelligence.
The fact the Nazi High Command even thought this was possible shows how bad their intelligence on Allied military strength was.

 

After the losses in Norway and France and the Low Countries Britain lost something like.

45,000 POWS and the estimated 200,000 wounded.
67,000 to 70,000 vehicles
250 to 500 tanks
10,000 artillery pieces
250,000 other weapons
10,000 horses
1 million tonnes of supplies and minor equipment

Immediate post evacuation Britain had three fully equiped field division (1st, 2nd and 3rd London Territorial Divisions), the rest were heavily stripped of almost all heavy artillery pieces to fortify South East Britain and East Anglia also the GHQ Line. You mentioned the Home Guard, please forgive me laughing, even though over 1,250,000 LDV (Local Defense Volunteers) had signed up, many trained with broom sticks, shovels and other implements due to the lack of weapons, almost all were never issued with a uniform, the only thing the bulk had were rudimentary arm bands with LDV on them.

 

You left out 1st and 2nd Canadian. As for the Home Guard by September the US had provided nearly a half million rifles, old US pattern Lee-Enfields in .30 caliber often seen in photos of Home Guard units with a red or white stripe on them to make the user aware that .303 rounds wouldn't work.
Regardless of losses, the Germans were in no position to launch a major invasion and in even worse shape to launch one that could have been successful.

 

What "fast boat units" are you referring to? And what types of "fast boat"?They would have to be very large to be able to ship in more men and sufficient materials in order to keep up the attack.

 

Weren't there also Australian units in Britain at that time? I seem to recall they were bound for somewhere else when war broke out and they were diverted to the UK?