If one is bringing up Crete it worth mentioning that most if not all the damage to the British CLs was after they were very low or out of AA ammo. Something that's not likely to happen in home waters.

Too true, I was only bringing up Crete because it demonstrated how poorly the Luftwaffe fared against the RN when it tried to sink their ships. The lack of AA ammo would not be a problem in home waters, just as you say.

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.

I think the KM had enough mines to complete the barrages, but the problem was that they didn't have enough mine layers to do the job in a reasonable amount of time. You are correct that it would take several trips with all the complications that entails. The Germans frequently used their DD's and TB's as mine layers, and most of the operational ships were so used in the September, 1940, time frame; makes it kind of difficult for the destroyers and torpedo boats to also escort the invasion fleet. Their crews are going to exhausted by the time the main event kicks off.

Of course, the RN was watching the Channel closely and would quickly become aware of the mine laying missions. The British light forces would not sit on their duffs while this was going on, so it is questionable that the German mine fields would ever come into being. How durable they would have been against British mine sweeping is also an open question.

Neither the Lutzow, nor the Admiral Scheer were actually available during the period Operation Sea Lion was being contemplated. Admiral Scheer was in the dock yard receiving major modifications from February, 1940, until July, 1940, and then on trials in the Baltic until October, 1940. The Lutzow had her rudders and props blown off by a British submarine torpedo in April, 1940, and was subsequently under repar until May, 1941. Both vessels, BTW, were reclassified as "heavy cruisers" by the KM at this time. As you point out, the Admiral Graf Spee had been scuttled by it's crew in the fall of 1939.

The KM was never anywhere near as strong as the RN, and had been severely hurt by the Norwegian campaign in April, 1940. It's absurd to think that the German Navy had any hope of challenging the RN for control of the Channel waters, or for that matter, even temporarily protecting an invasion fleet capable of lifting nine divisions across the Channel.

Macca,


"2.everybody seems to pre-suppose that the british navy would be able to enter the channel and get among the german invasion force unmolested,there are two ways into the channel,from the east through a channel thats is only 20miles wide or from the west through a seventy mile gap,
This isnt the channel dash,had they tried it the germans would have wiped the british navy out."


This one takes the prize for the silliest and most uniformed claim I have seen (so far) on this Forum.

It destroys your cred!



John.

__________________
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". - Voltaire.

A more clear example of just how disasterous Seelöwe likely would have been comes from the Japanese invasion of Malaysia.
The main landing at Kota Bahru consisted of a single division (reinforced) of Japanese troops. The defenders at this beachhead consisted of part of an Indian infantry Brigade that was ill-trained and marginally equipped.
The Japanese first wave in using proper landing craft for the most part was largely wiped out and pinned on the beachhead. Successive waves came ashore in anything they could find that floated. Neither side had air support but, the Japanese had total naval control of the waters off shore and provided limited bombardment from their ships.
It was only Japanese leadership and troop quality that ended up saving the day for them.
In the end they managed to get ashore and stay there. The Indian brigade was withdrawn inland.

Now, going to Seelöwe: The Germans have zero naval superiority and would have no gunfire support to mention off shore. All of their landing craft are improvised and most crewed by personnel with little or no sea going experiance.
While the troops would be well trained and led, the landing itself would have been a disorganized debacle. Many of the landing craft would have ended up capsizing in the surf (as happened in some small scale exercises that the Germans carried out in France). Those getting ashore and disembarking would have almost always ended up stuck on the beach with no means of retraction.
Air support would have been largely non-existant as there was only very limited means to coordinate strikes. There would have been a real danger of amicide from such strikes as were delivered.
The Germans also planned to land forces on three widely spaced beachheads that couldn't support each other. On top of this, once the first wave was ashore there was little possibility of getting a second one ashore in under a week or more, if ever.
Then the Royal Navy comes along and dominates the waters off shore. So much for the assault and reinforcements.
Seelöwe would have been a disaster.

You do know on other threads on Seelöwe it has been demonstrated that the Royal Navy could and did operate effectively in the Channel, North Sea and, off France in the face of Luftwaffe air power successfully. This includes using battleships to bombard French ports on occasion.
It takes a destroyer less than a day to travel from Scapa Flow to the Channel. The Luftwaffe is completely ineffective at night. The RN would have simply owned the Kreigsmarine, such as it was, off these beaches had the Germans attempted an invasion.

First off the british didnt have an endless supply of ships,royal navy in the channel=fish in the barrel for the luftwaffe.

Who would win?a destroyer or 12 stukas?
The RN could have got past calais with just one or two losses and maybe they could have halted the invasion but it would have been the end of the RN,at the end of the day airpower beats naval power.

They only thing the KM could have done is guard the approaches ond maybe knock off a few RN ships.

Tactically the luftwaffe were better than the RAF ,if the invasion did kick off then facts and figures from the BoB are of no use,the luftwaffe would be flying different missions over a smaller area,completely different ball game altogether.

And as for the actual land battle of GB did something magic happen to make the british army better than they were in france?

Also people keep going on about beach landings,why?whats wrong with capturing a port and bringing over troops and supplies that way?

__________________

Did you just skip reading all of the previous posts?

Yes clearly the British didn't have an endless supply of ships, who does? But it is clear and has been stated way too many times for me to have to say it again that they had way more than the KM and that they had absolute dominance of the sea.

"who wins a destroyer or 12 stukas?" I think you are seriously overestimating the power of the Luftwaffe in comparison to the RAF, and drastically underestimating the advantage and necessity of a strong navy in an over-SEA (sea=navy) invasion. Again, if you read earlier posts you would realize that the Germans had no large armor-piercing bombs, aerial torpedoes, or torpedo bombers at that point in the war. I don't know about you but those seem pretty important to my attempt to stop an attack over the sea.

Now, as for you last question about whether the British army got better since france. Again, reading other posts would help me not to have to explain this but, the actual German plan for Sealion was not good at all. They were to land at 3 seperate locations which were spread out far enough to be easily eliminated individually. They are also now fighting for their homeland and the homeguard comes into play.

Of course i read the above posts,what do you think i was responding to and all i hear is british good germans calamity.

The RN arent a big impregnable silver bullit and i think my airpower versus seapower arguement is perfectly valid.

As for the land battle are you trying to tell me england would have prevailed where france,poland and russia couldnt(the russians did eventually but had that been in england it would have been long over)

__________________

Macker,

How does a Stuka with 11 mates, sink a ship travelling at 30 knots in a zig-zag course?

Not stationary like at Dunkirk and Crete, charging about the ocean at 30 knots?



John.

__________________
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". - Voltaire.

No one is saying the RN is impregnable but they would of caused enough carnage amongst the invasion fleet to of made any landings ineffective, if the invasion barges even got that far. A destroyer at speed is hard enough to hit, one at speed amongst an invasion force even harder (how many German 'blue on blue' would be caused by wayward bombs?) and then you have MTB's which are just as fast and present an even smaller target. And as for any German big ships I think it is safe to assume that there would of been a screen of British submarines waiting for them at the entrance to the Channel if it looked like they were going to support an invasion. As for getting into the channel you don't seem to realise that the RN had already based Destroyer forces in Channel (and East Anglian) ports - and I am not including the two main south coast bases at Plymouth & Portsmouth (three, if you include Portland).
And I think the Luftwaffe would of had it's hands full with trying to protect the invasion force from the RAF to provide effective protection from surface forces as well.

__________________
Main Collecting Interests: WW II German Soldbucher, Wehrpasses & Award Citations.

I believe it was one of the threads over on the axis history board where someone actually looked up the number of mines they had and calculated things out. If they completed the barrages there were enough mines for something like a single row with a 30m seperation. I'll see if I can find the reference. (I didn't look to deep into it so the numbers or the math could be wrong and the above is from memory so don't treat it as anything like gospel).

An endless supply no, but they do have several hundred that are a threat to the invasion fleet. As mentioned ships at speed with a decent AA suite are not trivial targets even without air cover. Then there's the fact that the RN light vessels would probably engage the invasion fleet at night. Afterall it's going to take the barges over half a day to get to the invasion beaches and some might take over a day. So no they are not "fish in the barrel".
At that point in the war the DD would have had a very good chance of surviving the attack if it was at speed. And the Sukas could have some problems if any RAF fighters wandered by.
Hardly. RN light forces and the British coastal artillery would probably have shredded the invasion force before it reached the beaches. They would have taken some damage but not enough to come close to "the end of RN". At that point in time for the duration required the LW didn't have the power to beat the RN.
Guard the approaches? And die trying to prevent the RN from getting through. And what happens the next day when what little the KM has is damaged or destroyed and the RN still has most of it's light forces and all it's heavies.
Indeed it would be much worse for the LW. First of all they have to maintain CAP over the invasion fleet during daylight hours. Then they have to attack any RN units going after the invasion fleet, and do prep bombing of the invasion beaches, and interdiction bombing further inland. They are massivly over tasked and the RAF has the ability to sieze the initiative when ever they want.
1) They didn't do that badly in France.
2) They have a numerical advantage over the Germans.
3) They have an armored advantage over the Germans
4) They have an artillery advantage over the Germans.
5) They have a mobility advantage.
6) They have fixed defences.
7) They have an intel advantage.
8) Thay have a logistic advantage.
I'll stop here.
The Germans did plan to try and capture one ASAP. However I'm pretty sure the only one close was Dover and it had some pretty decent shore batteries as well as naval defences. Landing in a city is also very problematic until it's under control so you pretty much have to land outside the city and then assault it. If you do there's a pretty good chance that the opposition will demolish the port. It can be put back in operation but it took the vastly supperior engineer capability of the US months to do that in France in some cases. You still might be able to land a few troops but no heavy equipment and no large volumes of supplies.

Actually, that's immaterial; the British had far more than enough ships to destroy any invasion attempt by the Germans long before it got across the Channel.

As for the Luftwaffe, it can't even intervene for the first 10-12 hours because it will be dark. That means the British Navy will have at least 36 destroyers attacking the invasion barges for hours before the first Luftwaffe aircraft even shows up. Not exactly a recipe for a successful landing.

The answer to your question is, it would take aircraft a long time to destroy every one of the RN's ships and the invasion fleet would be history before it could be accomplished. The Luftwaffe didn't do all that well against the RN at Crete, and didn't even have a significant impact until the ships ran out of AA ammo. At Dunkirk, the RN ships carried out their mission despite opposition from the Luftwaffe, and despite losses. It would NOT have been the end of the RN; they would have taken losses, no doubt, but the invasion would most likely be defeated in the first 6-9 hours BEFORE the Luftwaffe can even get into action.

Perhaps, if they are very lucky. But the KM ceases to exist except for the ships not committed to Operation Sea Lion. And they really can't stop the RN from savaging the invasion fleet, which is the real issue

The Luftwaffe might be tactically better than the RAF, although that is an arguable question. But the Luftwaffe can't work miracles and will have it's hands very full. Their missions will not be over a smaller area because most of their BOB missions were over the South of Britain and that is where the invasion will take place. The Luftwaffe will have to not only assure air supremacy over that area, but will also have to attack the RN ships in the Channel, and fly two airborne divisions into Britain, and provide close air support for the beachhead (if the Germans ever manage to establish one). That's a lot of tasks to accomplish simultaneously. Personally, I don't think the Luftwaffe could do it, especially since they never destroyed the RAF and it would still be active.

In a manner of speaking, yes. They are now fighting on their own soil, in defense of their own homes and families. That fact does wonders for one's fighting abilities.

Because in order to capture a port, you have to invade with a force of troops, how do you manage that? Ports were defended against just such attempts. Besides, what port do you capture? Small ports are almost useless due to their very small capacities. And the British would certainly close any port captured by the Germans simply by mining it with aircraft-delivered mines. Capturing a port might look good to an amateur, but it presents it's own problems nort easily overcome.

No they didn't. But, they had several hundred ships of destroyer size and larger. They had 36 destroyers alone specifically assigned to anti-invasion duties and initially home ported in Channel ports. After the Luftwaffe made hundreds of air strikes on these ships in harbor and damaged (note that) several, the British moved them to ports just north and south of the Channel where this did not happen.

Given the historical evidence: The destroyer. If you look at the losses off Crete most occured for one or more of the following reasons:

The ship was at anchor (like off Dunkirk) and loading troops.
The ship ran out of antiaircraft ammunition. This occured several times at Crete where there were no replenishment dumps nearby like there would be in a cross-Channel invasion.
The ship suffered other damage.
The ship was travelling alone and was overwhelmed by 50+ aircraft.

You have none of these things present in a cross Channel invasion except possibly the last one.

Then there is that little problem called NIGHT. The Luftwaffe can't fly at night to attack ships. The RN can move a destroyer from over 100 nm away from the Channel into the Channel at NIGHT create all sorts of havoc for several hours and then withdraw again before sunrise. The RN has radar on most of their ships and they can fire star shell as well. The RAF could also illuminate targets for the RN.
Since there are ZERO examples of the Luftwaffe attacking any ship after dark during this period (and for well over a year thereafter) there is no evidence that can be presented they could have managed such a feat if they tried.

On the other hand, the Luftwaffe pilots have ZERO knowledge in ship identification and there are alot of German ships of all sorts in the Channel for a Seelöwe. Amicide is very likely. Compounding this issue will be the German crews and soldiers who will be very trigger happy simply due to fear of British air or naval attack.
As I have pointed out before one British ship opens up on an invasion convoy at night and it is likely the convoy will start shooting at each other far more than the British ship.

If that. The KM was planning on most of the escort vessels having nothing larger than a 3.7cm cannon aboard with no fire control system outside a ring sight. Basically, their escort was cosmetic at best.

I severely doubt this. By the BoB the RAF was about on par pilot-wise with the Luftwaffe. The Luftwaffe was also outside Von Richtofen's VIII Flieger Korps not trained in or equipped to perform tactical air support missions. The system in place for such missions required that the request travel up the Army chain of command to army level were the Luftwaffe liason officer forwarded it to the Air Force for consideration. If the mission was accepted then the strike was generally planned for the next day.
The Wehrmacht wasn't going to get a lot of useful air support from the Luftwaffe on those beaches.

The BEF in France fought well. It was the French collapsing around them that caused their defeat. Certainly Arras showed the Germans that the British could launch an armored assault and cause serious problems. The British simply didn't have the numbers in France to take on the Germans alone.
A similar attack on a German beachhead to Arras would have been disasterous. The Allies later in the war when faced with such a problem used their overwhelming naval gunfire support to stop such attacks. The Germans have no naval gunfire support to speak of so they are doomed in that situation.

First, you have to capture a port big enough to supply the troops you landed. The three the Germans initially proposed to take Folkestowe, Dover and, Ramsgate were all small ports that in perfect condition could have only supplied a fraction of the initial landing force.
The British knowing that the Germans would try and take ports had the ones on the Channel coast wired for demolition and had block ships in place. Had the Germans actually tried to land and take these ports they would have found them largely useless.
Worse yet, the Germans have ZERO means at their disposal to repair a demolished and blocked port. So, they would be back to landing reinforcements and supplies over the beaches.

It's not a major point, since the KM really didn't have the capability of laying them all in one night, anyway.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Germans had retained massive numbers of naval mines from WW I, and that the Treaty of Versailles ignored them because they were considered defensive weapons. I don't think that, even if it had been possible to lay the mine barrages, they would have been very effective because they couldn't be made wide enough to preclude easy sweeping by the British

I know but I'm curious now. Let's see:
Axis History Forum • View topic - Seelöwe: British Defensive Measures - Naval and Air Ops
has the following: Here are links to a wealth of Sealion info:
Axis History Forum • View topic - What If Subject Listing Index

And here is the source thread on Sealion mining ops:
Axis History Forum • View topic - Seelöwe - German & British mining operations
It contains the following:
Note some of their mine layers didn't cary this many mines so it's not clear what ships this is for.
There's a lot more there.

Some of the arguements put to me are bogus,especially the ones regarding the RN being able to destroy the invasion before morning,
The germans landed many times on the south coast so how is it that british destroyers didnt prevent them?

I think for some clues to how the british would have responded people have to look at how the channel dash played out,
According to the article i read the british had only 9 destroyers available,the britsh MTBs were nullified by german Eboats and the RAF with 675 aircraft managed to do nothing,also the coastal batteries were more or less just bypassed.

How can anyone argue that the british defences would have done better during sealion?



(Take portsmouth,then take oxford and bristol,then cambridge and norwich,then nottingham and leeds.)

__________________

Interesting, but I think the numbers of mines available, and those which could be laid by the mine layers in a single trip are suspect. Is he saying that the German mine layers could only carry 200 mines per ship at one time? The web site below claims that on the night of April 29-30, 1940, three German mine layers (Kaiser, Roland, and Preussen) carried, and laid, "over 1,000" mines in one operation. I know most, if not all, German destroyers and torpedo boats were also equipped to carry and lay mines; destroyers could carry 60-80 mines and torpedo boats, 30-40. The Brummer, formerly the Norwegian minelayer, Olav Tryggvason, is credited with being able to carry 280 mines. The German ferry, Tannenburg, was also converted to a mine layer in 1939, and was credited with a capacity of 460 mines.

Z4 Richard Beitzen Operational History

and;

Minelayer

The total numbers of mines available may also be misleading. if the Germans are counting only modern mines and not those left over from WW I. Twelve thousand mines sounds a bit low to me, given the German's penchant for using both offensive and defensve minefields, but I have no real evidence that the actual numbers were higher.

I do agree, however, that the dimensions, thickness and extent of any defensive Channel mine barrages were problematic. I seriously doubt they could have been large or thick enough to present a formidable obstacle to British ships seeking to come to grips with invasion forces in the Channel. A single line of mines spaced saeveral hundred yards apart is simply not going to impede the British Fleet during an invasion attempt.

Speaking of "bogus", when and where did the Germans land "many times" on Britain's south coast? Could you perhaps cite some authorities for this assertion?

The RN doesn't have to completely destroy the German invasion fleet before morning, although this is certainly a possibility. All the RN has to do to defeat the invasion, is sink a significant number of invasion transports and landing craft, and/or create enough confusion, and disrupt the organization of the landing force to turn the landing force into a disorganized rabble. No invasion attempt during WW II survived after even a minor force of enemy naval vessels penetrated the defenses of the invasion landing vessels. Several assault landings nearly failed after poor planning, or other unforeseen disruptions, created confusion and caused the landing units to become disorganized.

The Germans themselves recognized this potential and issued orders to the commanding officers to expect confusion and disorganized units. It's not hard to imagine this happening to an invasion fleet, made up of thousands of slow, cumbersome, very difficult to steer, vessels of varying speeds and conditions of seaworthiness, proceeding blacked out at night, with inexperienced officers and crews, toward an unfamiliar shore, and very possibly under attack by enemy destroyers and torpedo boats.

Read about some of the landings in the Pacific where none of these factors were significant, yet landing craft became lost, their crews confused, and their loads deposited on the wong beaches or simply returned to the transports, and you will quickly have an appreciation for the difficulties the Germans were facing.

Did you by any chance note the date on which the Channel Dash was initiated? It was in February, 1942, long after the British had released most of their naval defenses in the Channel for more important duty. The British had, at a minimum, FOUR times as many destroyers available in the Channel in September, 1940, as they did in Feruary, 1942. Furthermore, the Channel Dash was carried out by warships capable of at least 25 knots, whereas the German invasion fleet would be capable of not more than 5 knots. It should also be noted that both the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were damaged when they hit mines; the Gneisenau never returned to active duty.

How can anyone draw any inference of similarity between the Channel Dash and the plans for Operation Sealion?

Yeah, right! All the Germans have to do is snap their fingers and it's a done deal.

I normally don't comment on posters' apparent knowledge of military operations, but I must say that I have never seen anyone seemingly as ignorant of history or basic military operations as the original poster of this thread.

Bednobs and broomsticks,the eagle has landed and dads army,ok?

The Strategic Geography Of Southeastern England: THE STRATEGIC GEOGRAPHY OF SOUTHEASTERN ENGLAND - TIME

stubborn stubborn stubborn.lose the cosy picture of germans paddling across the channel in 5 or 6 boats to invade england.
Had the germans decided to invade they would have coordinated it properly and they would have had suprise.

How is it people can accept that the allies crossed the channel prior to d-day with 3 armies undetected but somehow for some reason the germans are incapable of crossing the channel undetected(maybe i'm ignorant?).

Dont say radar because british radar didnt work at sea level.Dont tell me the british had pickets every 500 meters.

Okay devilsadvocate heres a basic lesson on firepower so try and not forget it..if you have a 3v3 situation and one side sends in its units piecemeal it will lose 1 1/2 to nil.Dont bother argueing,thats the way it works.

Also if the germans determined that destroyers were the greatest threat then the destroyers would have been the first to suffer german attention,thats one of the basic tenents of blitzkrieg.

So,would the british have sent the destroyers in piecemeal or would they have assembled them first?the clocks ticking,visability is bad.theres new mines in the harbours to avoid.Theres the luftwaffe to worry about as soon as it gets light.theres bound to diversions.

The only problematic thing on the side of the germans isnt getting across the channel its establishing a foothold.


(isle of wight looks good,i think i'll take it)

__________________

"and they would have had suprise."

During the BoB the RAF were sending recon Spitfires over the invasion ports EVERY DAY!

The krauts could not scratch themselves without the RN and RAF knowing about it! And then when they set off at 5 knots in a 7 knot tide flow, and take 30 hours to get to a balmy English beach with 500,000 Lee-Enfields and Brens to greet them.

.....and maybe FM Macker can tell me how an UN-powered barge gets from the towing tug to the beach with 50 sea-sick krauts hanging over the side, possibly with a 6 foot surf to contend with. Remember how concerned Ike was about the weather in June 1944? It would have been just as important in 1940.

And I can assure you that 'Ozjohn39 - 1st Sea Lord' would have had EVERY tramp steamer in an English port sent out to create bow waves and to cut tow lines on day 1. Together with the RN, they could have swamped THE LOT without firing a shot!!

On top of that is FIVE Battleships, ONE Aircraft carrier, TWELVE Cruisers, about SIXTY Destroyers and lord knows how many Frigates, Minesweepers, and MTBs etc, ALL within a days steam of Dover, most with a few hours of it. And all that lot is ONLY the RN 'Home Fleet'

For the life of me I cannot understand HOW a person who thinks he knows his subject, still believeing that it would be anything other than a massacre for the poor miserable krauts.

They could not get to England, they could not stay in England.


John.

__________________
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". - Voltaire.

Ok, where is the documentation for your assertion that the Germans "landed many times" on the south coast of Britain? Or are we just going to forget that little piece of bombast?

There really is no point in trying to present the facts to you as you just ignore all those inconvenient little concepts and continue to assert that the Germans could work miracles in 1940. Don't you think it's time to wake up and smell the coffee? Have you even bothered to read all the posts wherein several people are trying to tell you that the Germans really couldn't do anything they wanted in 1940?

Well, the Germans certainly were rattling their sabers about invasion in the summer of 1940; Hitler even gave a speech promising that "he is coming", so why didn't they "properly coordinate" their invasion plan, and why didn't they achieve surprise? In the early part of September, 1940, the RAF and RN were even attacking the German invasion fleet on a daily basis; doesn't sound like the Germans had surprise on their side and even a cursory study of the German invasion plan reveals a very amateurish planning process involving dozens of mistakes, questionable assumptions, and outright wishful thinking. With the benefit of hindsight. it's painfully obvious (except, apparently, to you) that the Germans had absolutely no idea of the "proper" way to plan and launch an assault landing against defended beaches.

I have no idea what your gibberish about "firepower" is all about: there was no parity between the British and German destroyers, the RN outnumbered the KM something like four or five to one in destroyers (counting only those British destroyers based on the Channel). Worse, the Germans planned to deploy their destroyers only on the western flank of the invasion fleet; the only German surface units on the eastern flank were torpedo boats and that is where the main British naval attack would fall.

The British destroyer squadrons are already assembled and have been since July. Their only orders are to oppose any German invasion attempt, and they are capable of doing so within a couple of hours of being alerted. They will ignore any diversionary feints, and are ably supported by minesweepers and other small craft. Their skippers and crews are traditionally the most aggressive men in a notably aggressive navy, and after nearly four months of tedious duty, are just chomping at the bit to get at the invasion fleet. The Luftwaffe can't intervene for something like 10 to 12 hours, so the destroyers have that long to find and attack the invasion fleet completely unmolested by aircraft. Visibility may be bad, but if so, it will also hamper and slow the German invasion fleet and any German defensive measures. And there are 36 of these destroyers; at least four times as many as the opposing German destroyers.

It's apparent there is one thing (among many) that you haven't considered. In the German plan, the timing of the invasion force hitting the beach is dawn. In order to accomplish this on schedule, the invasion force, particularly those units assigned to the western flank, proceeding at an average speed of 4 knots, will take up to 16 hours to cross the Channel, so they must leave their embarkation ports not long after noon or 1:00 PM on the preceding day. Loading of equipment and embarkation of troops for these units will have to be completed by mid-morning, meaning that much of this activity will be going on for at least 24 hours, and more likely 48 hours, prior to the invasion barges approaching the beaches. It's stretching credibility to think that this activity will escape the notice of British air and naval recon patrols; it's very likely that the British destroyers will be alerted and in the Channel before the invasion barges are halfway across.

To sum up, it's clear there are four things the Germans cannot guarantee.

1. They cannot guarantee their invasion forces will have sufficient armor, artillery (or offshore fire support), and logistical support to secure and sustain the beachhead.

2. They cannot guarantee that the RAF will not be able to deliver significant air attacks on either the invasion barges or the beachhead.

3. They cannot guarantee that the RN will not attack the invasion fleet in significant force and disrupt the landings.

4. They cannot guarantee their supply lines to the beachhead will not be attacked in significant strength by both the RAF and RN.

The Allies, in carrying out their numerous successful assault landings during WW II, deemed that the inability to guarantee any one of these eventualities would render a planned assault landing extremely inadvisable. In fact, the Allies NEVER attempted, or even planned, such a landing because the cost of failure was so high; the Germans would have had to have been extremely desperate, or foolish, to have gone ahead with Operation Sealion.

In answer to your last question. Yes.

1) I've read recently for instance the big guns at Dover had to check fire while airplanes attacked and couldn't open up until the engagment geometry was pretty poor. Not only will this not be a problem vs Sealion a lot of smaller coastal guns will get into the act. Barges and transports can't take many hits from such shore batteries and remain fucntional. Even if they take the hits after offloading that means they woun't ve available for resupply or reinforcement runs.

2) As noted the Germans hit mines during the channel dash but major warships could do so and keep going. The same cannot neccarily be said for barges, cargo ships, or small warships. The British had deployed quite a few mines.

3) As has been noted hitting a warship with AA when it's at full speed is non trivial for aricraft. Barges and cargo ships crawling along at 3-6 knots are another matter completely. Note that strafing doesn't do much to BBs or CAs. It can be a real problem for barges, cargo ships, and small combatants.

4) The British had a lot of small armed vessels. A 12 knot trawler with say a 20mm gun isn't much of a threat to the twins. It's a very dangerous threat to a barge.


Checkout the Sea lion links I posted.

I suspect that it was some sort of average. Especially since some of the mine layers as you note could only carry 30 or so mines. However he says: and the source you quoted says: Note that it says that the 3 ships carried over 1,000 mines and not that they layed that many in one night. Based on the above one could expect them to take around a day to lay over 1,000 mines so the two are not necessarily contradicotry.