Operation Sealion: Could it have been pulled off?

[Alexander's Horse]

Britain was lucky Prussians don't like water.

The invasion of Britain was quite feasible in 1940. Britain was practically defenceless. The army left most of its equipment at Dunkirk, the navy and air force would have been hard pressed to interdict an invasion force.

The lucky thing was the effect on air power on capital ships had not yet been demonstrated in 1940 so Hitler had no idea just how easy it would have been for the Luftwaffe to keep the Royal Navy at bay.

What saved Britain was Hitler did not want to risk a fighting invasion like D Day. He wanted a risk free landing.

[Capt Dizle]

Absolutely wrong AH. As I posted earlier Hitler wanted to rule the world alongside the Brits. He never wanted war with the West, at least not beyond avenging the defeat of WWI. He was satisfied by the humiliation of the French defeat.

Revisionists be damned. Hitler is condemned for the bombing of London but the facts are that England was the first to institute mass bombings of civilian targets. Hitler only retalitated.

Hitler almost certainly allowed the BEF to escape. Hitler was true to his core beliefs and England he considered a sister Aryan country.

Sealion was never seriously contemplated by Hitler for two reasons. It was not feasible and he wanted to settle with England.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Britain was lucky Prussians don't like water.

The invasion of Britain was quite feasible in 1940. Britain was practically defenceless. The army left most of its equipment at Dunkirk, the navy and air force would have been hard pressed to interdict an invasion force.

The lucky thing was the effect on air power on capital ships had not yet been demonstrated in 1940 so Hitler had no idea just how easy it would have been for the Luftwaffe to keep the Royal Navy at bay.

If one looks at the later war statistics of the effect of German air against allied warships one can come to a markedly different conclusion. Other than a raid or two against the main base at Scarpa Flow (something like a single days sailing IIRC) the RN was basically unscathed. German naval transport was sorely lacking after the debacle in Norway and had an attempted invasion been cut off the Wehrmacht could've found itself in much the same state as the BEF when it was pulled out of Normandy.

What saved Britain was Hitler did not want to risk a fighting invasion like D Day. He wanted a risk free landing.

That I'd agree with 100%. Sealion certainly wasn't risk-free.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Revisionists be damned. Hitler is condemned for the bombing of London but the facts are that England was the first to institute mass bombings of civilian targets. Hitler only retalitated.

Germany was the first to bomb civilians - residential areas of London with no military or strategic value were bombed when German planes got lost and dropped their payloads (intended for Rochester docks) on London.

Britain was the first to target civilians - They dropped bombs on Berlin in retaliation for the bombing of London. More British aircrew died (eight in total) from that raid than German civilians. This is in no way mass bombing. Germany retaliated to this by the Blitz, dropping hundreds of thousands of bombs on London and other cities - killing tens of thousands of people.


Conclusion? Britain was not the first to mass bomb civilian targets, but they were the 'first' to intentionally target non-military targets.


Edit - clarity

[Alexander's Horse]

Yes, the Norway operation probably had a big influence - the germans lost a lot of ships.

But my point is British capital ships would have been useless - except if the weather closed in - quite likely in the Channel. Then there could have been mayhem.

But you come back to the basic point that Prussians just don't like water.

Amazing how The Channel, that narrow muddy ditch of water, has shaped history. It really was all that stood between Britain and oblivion.

Those who think the British army could have made a stand should go and have look at their equipment establishments in 1940.

[Adam Smith]

Would Hitler have been better off capturing the Suez canal, crimping or cutting off the flow of raw materials?

[monkspider]

Interesting question Adam. If the Germans hadn't had to worry about the Soviets, they could have crushed the British in North Africa, and gained access to the Suez and middle east quite easily.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Would Hitler have been better off capturing the Suez canal, crimping or cutting off the flow of raw materials?

The Suez canal was effectively cut off from 1940. All trade went around the Horn of Africa.

[David Floyd]

If the Germans hadn't had to worry about the Soviets, they could have crushed the British in North Africa, and gained access to the Suez and middle east quite easily.

Only if the took Malta, and won control of the Med. Almost every Axis convoy from Italy to Africa was hit hard by the British, and supply is one of the big reasons Germany lost in North Africa.

But for the Axis to seize supremacy in the Med, the Italian Navy would have to throw out the Royal Navy. Frankly, this was not going to happen. Even when the RN had two battleships sitting in the mud in Alexandria harbor (as a result of Italian frogmen), the RN was still going after the Regina Maria.

In 1940, British air attacks from a carrier crippled three battleships in Taranto, the main Italian naval base, and in 1941, the Battle of Matapan - a cruisers/destroyer fight - was a major British victory.

The Regina Maria was not going to seriously challenge the Royal Navy after this, and in fact that is one of the reasons Hitler cancelled Herkules (invasion of Malta) - he feared that the Italian Navy would run off at the sight of the British Navy.

[Alexander's Horse]

One of Hitler's biggest mistakes of the war, probably his biggest, was not following the "Mediterranean strategy" to defeat Britain. This involved mounting and air and sea blockade on Britain whilst defeating the British forces in the Mediterranean. If Britain had been driven out of the Egypt, the Middle East and India was threatened it is very difficult to see how Churchill's government could have survived. Then Hitler would have had a free hand in Russia.

[David Floyd]

I agree, but part of his failure in the Med, IMO, had to do with the Italian Navy and German perceptions of the Italians.

[JCG]

The Germans did not have even half the Navy they would have needed, Dunkirk was a big mistake, and the Battle of Britain was simply mishandled by Goering.

If 2/3 of the above issues had been addressed/corrected in time, maybe Sealion could have succeeded, but casualties would have been dire in any case. Still, the rest of the British Empire would still pose somewhat of a threat, albeit a very reduced one without England.

[Alexander's Horse]

I think Sea Lion would have been a walkover if Hitler had the courage to launch it in 1940. The barriers were mainly psychological i.e. Prussians don't like water.

[TheStinger]

If the Germans has won the BoB and then invaded Britain would have sacrificed all the cruisers and destroyers to stop the invasion.
They would have probably stopped the Germans but weakened the fleet to such an extent that the U-boats would have a field day, of courses whether Hitler could have survived the massive losses and blow to his prestige is another matter

[Dis]

no

didn't I start a thread on this same subject nearly a year ago?