BUT IT WOULDNT WORK!!!! SO IT COULDNT BE!!!

List me the reasons that the Germans could have militarily, logistically and technologically have successfully carried out Op. Sealion?

Even those involved with its planning state it would have failed yet you beg to differ. Tell us the reasons for this?

Getting that 'banging head against wall' feeling...

__________________
"The Americans will always do the right thing ... After they've exhausted all the alternatives."

Winston Churchill

Ya think?

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

Just a little...

__________________
"The Americans will always do the right thing ... After they've exhausted all the alternatives."

Winston Churchill

Sounds pretty logical.

If you consider that invading USSR was Germany's worst move, leading to their defeat, then postponing Barabarossa until the impossible completion of Sealion operation, would have been a good idea.

__________________
Police cars carry three agents. The first one can read, the second one can write and the third one keeps watch on those dangerous intellectuals.
Unknown subversive activist - 20th century.

While highly improbable, in retrospect we all know what happen to the Wehrmatch in Russia. So perhaps an invasion of England might have been a better choice?

Like I say though, highly improbable.......


I think we are starting to beat a dead horse here guys.

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

What's this "we" business, Kemo Sabe?

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

So they should have waited longer to launch Operation Sealion, built more landing crafts, whats the harm in waiting another year or so to act upon it?

Which part of the Germans were not going to match Britain in seapower and were highly unlikely to achieve aerial supremacy isn't getting through? Until Germany can achieve at least one, and preferably both they lose trying to invade England.

__________________
Truth is stranger than bullshit!

And what happens when the landing ships runs right into an minefield or a British fleet?

I just "love" this golden oldie on Seelöwe

"British propaganda Aug 1940:


...and so it will be best, mein Herrn Engelandfahrer, if you learn a few useful English phrases before visiting us. For your first lesson we will take: Die Kanalüberfahrt.. .
Now just repeat after me: Das Boot sinkt. . . the boat is sinking...
Das Wasser ist kalt... The water is cold. Sehr kalt... very cold.
Now, I will give you a verb that should come in useful. Again please repeat after me:
Ich brenne... I burn
Du brennst... you burn
Er brennt... he burns
Wir brennen... we burn
Ihr brennt... you are burning



http://www.documentatiegroep40-45.nl...el/radio2.html

__________________

Do I even bother replying to such a sweeping, unfounded statement... PactofSteel do you ever actually read other peoples posts or do believe in your own mind so much that discussion with you is pointless..?


1 - Who is going to build the landing craft? Germany has no experience or doctrine to do so. They wont suddenly come up with a way of landing materials easily on a beach. Look at how long it took the Allies to get it right with years of experience... But Im beginning to think you have a 'thing' for the Germans so logic and rationale wont be obvious to you where your 'Master Race' is concerned...

2 - Who knows what the harm would have been to wait a year? A Soviet invasion of Europe? British Forces moving up through Greece and the Balkans... If we apply the same logic to your flight of fancy we could say that in a years time the British may land in France and push Germany out as Russian invades from the East...

3 - People who fail to provide any form of historical precedent to their 'what-ifs' really aint worth bothering with...

__________________
"The Americans will always do the right thing ... After they've exhausted all the alternatives."

Winston Churchill

you really need to lay off your WWII guru ego trip, it gets old fast.

Or you could make a reasoned arguement as to how the Germans could have made Sealion succeed?

Just a thought...

__________________
"The Americans will always do the right thing ... After they've exhausted all the alternatives."

Winston Churchill

are you blind? how many times have I said on this thread they should have DELAYED it until they built more ships, landing craft whatever need be but not done Barbarossa until the threat of Great Britain had been removed. How many times did they change the Overlord strategy? and they delayed it as well.

I may be blind but you obviously cant read or understand plain English.

To build landing craft you need the experience of amphibious landings and doctrine to know what to build.

GERMANY HAD NO EXPERIENCE THEREFORE THEY WOULDNT HAVE KNOWN WHAT TO BUILD NO MATTER HOW LONG THEY WAITED!

The Allies conducted many operations, in both WW1 and WW2, and developed not only doctrine but technology. But regardless of this, Britain as major maritime power for centuries had developed knowledge in transporting and landing troops by sea. Germany has never had this history.

You are ignoring the prime fact that German concentrated its armies devlop in land based strategies and their lack of presence as a major naval power in history is reflected in their lack of amphibious expertise.

What you are saying cant happen. They dont know what to build.

Your argument is flawed from the outset by ignoring German military development in respect of amphibious doctrine and technology.

Sadly converted barges will be easily sunk by the weather and conditions in the English Channel... But I suspect you think its like a millpond to cross...

__________________
"The Americans will always do the right thing ... After they've exhausted all the alternatives."

Winston Churchill

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?

__________________
Truth is stranger than bullshit!

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

__________________
Anyone who clings to the historically untrue--and thoroughly immoral--doctrine that 'violence never solves anything'... Violence, naked force, has settled more disputes in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms." Robert Heinlein

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.

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

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....