Operation Sealion question...

[Gyrene]

Suppose that the Luftwaffe managed to quell down the RAF and the german Army proceeded with the invasion, my question is:

How were the Germans planning on getting their troops ashore? If I am not mistaken, not only did Germany have very little if any experience with opposed Amphibious landings, I don't think they even had any specialized amphibious ships or landing craft other than the odd Land-Wasser-Schlepper.

A huge undertaking, like the invasion of Britain, surely would not be the time for Germany to learn the unforgiving art of amphibious warfare, granted that Britain did not have the same amount of time to prepare as Germany did just before Overlord and that Paratroop use could have been very successful.

I guess in hindsight it was a smart decision for Germany not to start landing troops before the air campaign had ended, as it would have been doubtful that Germany could have maintained it's supply lines to support a beachhead in the face of the remaining RAF & with Britain's more powerful Navy; Germany could have been faced with it's own Dunkirk.

Gyrene

[peter tilbury]

In a programme lat year here on GErman TV it was put forward that Hitler was not seriously considering a landing in the first place, but played out an elaborate build-up - stockpiling, troop movements and air campaign to deflect from the real next focus of agression - the Soviet Union. Can't quite buy it myself, but this may be simply because it would put the backs-against-the-wall effort of Britain into a rather dimmer light.

[mikeadams]

The Germans had commandeered almost all of the river barges in Northern Europe, and planned to use these to carry the men across. Depending on a river barge to cross the channel was extremely optomistic, even given good weather. One of the resons for having to abandon the invasion was that tying up all of the barges was crippling the war economy, which depended on them for transporting vital supplies

[Michael Emrys]

I suspect Sealion was more of a charade to pressure the UK into accepting terms. Hitler saw the British resistance as irrational and thought that once they could be brought to "see the light" a diplomatic solution could be achieved which would give him a free hand on the Continent in return for the continuation of the British Empire. It was his bad luck that Churchill et al weren't buying.

Michael

[tabpub]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

I suspect Sealion was more of a charade to pressure the UK into accepting terms. Michael<hr></blockquote>

Which was eerily similar to Napoleon's Grand Armee sitting by Boulougne for nearly 2 years waiting for the English to give in (or waiting for the Franco Spanish fleet to gain the upper hand; wait, was that a flying pig?) Without a ironclad control of the sea, amphib operations are very risky. The Guadalcanal operation could have turned into a tragedy for the Americans, had 2 of the naval battles gone badly for them. Even then, it was certainly no walkover.

[CombinedArms]

Ultimately, along with the transportation problem, there was the problem of Britian's large navy, which commanded the sea. Maybe the Axis could have sneaked a large land force over to Britain one dark night--though such an effort would place their chief military asset at tremendous risk-- but how would they keep it supplied and supported once it landed? And instead of naval gunfire in support of their landing, they would have had to cope with having 14 inch shells landing on the attackers. Not a pretty picture.

That's why the Axis at least needed command of the air--that might have given them the hope of parrying the British navy with their air force, and somehow holding those Royal Navy ships at bay. When that effort failed, Sealion began to look impossible even to Hitler.

Now if we want to indulge in "what if" scenarios, Japan and Italy should have lent their navys to Germany for the Sealion invasion. They, with Britain knocked out the war, they could have taken on the USSR and US in succession and ruled the world. The one problem with this scenario is that, as far as I know, it was not even considered by any of the parties involved because the Axis powers were too selfish in their individual war aims to engage in such coordination, which, by contrast, was one of the hallmarks of Allied strategy.

[Kingfish]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gyrene:

A huge undertaking, like the invasion of Britain, surely would not be the time for Germany to learn the unforgiving art of amphibious warfare...<hr></blockquote>

The invasion of Britain would not have been Germany's first attempt at amphib operations. The Norwegian campaign was launched with less planning, fewer troops, longer LOCs and against both British and French opposition, yet it was a complete success.

[Gyrene]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>By Kingfish: The invasion of Britain would not have been Germany's first attempt at amphib operations. The Norwegian campaign was launched with less planning, fewer troops, longer LOCs and against both British and French opposition, yet it was a complete success. <hr></blockquote>

I'm not too familiar with the Norwegian campaign, how much opposition did the Germans face at the landing sites? Did they secure existing port facilities or did they land over a beach?

Gyrene

[Conscript Bagger]

But weren't the troops invading Norway offloaded in port because there were no landing craft? I could be mistaken. But if so, that's pretty different from opposed beach landings.

And CombinedArms, interesting theory re. Italy and Japan lending naval support. But I wonder how eager the IJN would have been to strip assets it needed for its own upcoming operations in the Pacific, and any Italian invasion craft would have had to steam slowly past Gibraltar...

[Kingfish]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gyrene:

I'm not too familiar with the Norwegian campaign, how much opposition did the Germans face at the landing sites? Did they secure existing port facilities or did they land over a beach?

Gyrene<hr></blockquote>

The Germans went straight for the ports. Oslo, Bergen, Trondheim and Narvik were all captured on the first day. Norway at the time was a neutral country, and the call up hadn't been issued (or just did), so she couldn't have offered much in the way of resistance. The invasion force did lose the a heavy cruiser in the attack on Oslo, but that was about it.

[Michael Emrys]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Kingfish:

The invasion force did lose the a heavy cruiser in the attack on Oslo, but that was about it.<hr></blockquote>

The Royal Navy also later trapped and sank a whole slough of German destroyers in Narvikfjord. These were ships the Germans absolutely could not afford to lose if they wanted to contemplate an invasion of England.

Michael

[ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]</p>

[Kingfish]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

The Royal Navy also later trapped and sank a whole slough of German destroyers in Narvikfjord. <hr></blockquote>

Trapped in the fjord with the heavy shells from Warspite screaming in. Can you say 'Fish in a barrel'?

[Simon Fox]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

The Royal Navy also later trapped and sank a whole slough of German destroyers in Narvikfjord. These were ships the Germans absolutely could not afford to lose if they wanted to contemplate an invasion of England.

Michael

[ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]<hr></blockquote>

Yes, I agree. The heavy German naval losses in the Norwegian campaign basically put paid to any possibility of Sealion.

What is also overlooked is that the British targetted the concentration of shipping (ie barges) along the French coast very heavily with their own bomber force during the BoB and caused considerable damage.

[Gyrene]

Could any of those river barges safely cross the Chanel? Were any used at Dunkirk, for example?

If I'm not mistaken they are flat bottomed and have little freeboard.

Gyrene

[Affentitten]

Further fuel on the Sealion bonfire is the late stage at which it was planned. I understand that it wasn't until early August that Hitler, goaded by Goering's reassurances, firmly started to consider the idea. It wans't then until September that the Luftwaffe really got into the swing of things. I'm sure that most of us are familiar with the complex equations of time, tide and weather that had to be considered for Overlord. Even has the BoB succeeded in its rather loose aims, the cross-Channel invasion would have taken place in late Autumn or early winter. On a flat barge in the Channel during winter? Forget it.

[Herr Kruger]

Hmm, is the consensus on this forum then that Hitler never really intended to invade Britain? That the "planned invasion" was more to mislead the Soviets then an actual plan... personally, I think Hitler would have gone ahead with it, had the Luftwaffe been able to achieve complete air superiority. The poor amphibious capabilities are one of the reasons total air superiority was needed... As for the Soviet Union, I think Hitler himself recognized and published that the two front war is to be avoided at all costs, yet he goes ahead with the invasion of the Soviet Union after they had already lost the air battle/war over Britain? Clearly he was bent on total domination of Europe, and as the German armed forces successes continued to mount, was so drunk on power he went ahead into the two front war anyway.

[Gyrene]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Hmm, is the consensus on this forum then that Hitler never really intended to invade Britain? That the "planned invasion" was more to mislead the Soviets then an actual plan...<hr></blockquote>

I don't think that opinion is in the majority here, but is a point that has some merit, I personally think that Hitler was way over his head in attempting to invade Britain, but he was serious about it nevertheless.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> I think Hitler would have gone ahead with it, had the Luftwaffe been able to achieve complete air superiority. <hr></blockquote>

Complete air superiority was nowhere near being accomplished, and I think this is more evidence on how much Hitler & Goering underestimated and underplanned the whole operation, the lack of planning for sea superiority was also another major oversight.

If the Luftwaffe had managed to gain total air supremacy the British were still left with the option to heavily mine or even destroy their East facing harbors stretching further the german supply lines and possibly forcing patrolling Luftwaffe aircraft to fly over English AA defenses on a regular basis.

Gyrene

[peter tilbury]

All I can say is that the German documentary was fairly forthright in stating that the invasion was a sham. It is so long ago now that I can't recall the sources. It certainly hit my conception of the BoB for six, although I am still a little sceptical.

Didn't Napoleon aim for a "window of superiority" in the Channel to get his troops across and almost pulled it off, Nelson dutifully following the excursions of the French fleet, but luckily informing the Admirality which in turn fortuiously picked up the French fleet on its way to the Spanish coastline. Was such an attempted deception something that Hitler could have pondered or were communications by that time so far advanced that a bluff of this nature would not have worked?

[Peaveyyyyyyyy]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gyrene:

Complete air superiority was nowhere near being accomplished, and I think this is more evidence on how much Hitler & Goering underestimated and underplanned the whole operation, the lack of planning for sea superiority was also another major oversight.

Gyrene<hr></blockquote>

Most of the BoB histories make a point that the Luftwaffe could have won, if they had realised how effective their short-lived strategy of bombing the RAFs airfields was. They stopped and started bombing London for political reasons, just as they were starting to get the RAF on the run. If they had pressed home this advantage, then lack of Naval superiority could have counted for far less. The Royal Navy would have had its work cut out defending itself from Stukas etc without its own air cover. The combination of airfield bombing and radar installation bombing was really affecting the RAFs capability to get to the bombers. Luckily Hitler was such a sh*te that he wanted to kill some women and children, thinking that Britain would then get scared and give up. Lucky he was stupid really. It begs the question: "What if he had poured his entire effort into finishing off the UK, then turned on Russia in 1944?" The US would have had no base from which to help, and that would have been that.

[Skipper]

My take on it is that it was a real thing initially, but at some stage has become a cover story for Barbarossa preparations. A cover story that worked wonderfully well, I would add.

[CMplayer]

Yes. Military planning has to be flexible and prepare for many contingencies. Many more operations are planned and even trained for than are actually carried out. So it could have been a potentially real option that just didn't materialize, and eventually worked well to help mask efforts in another direction.

[peter tilbury]

The Luftwaffe pilots interviewed in the programme, were far from confident. They seemed to suggest that they were on to a loser from the off, many bemoaning the casulties they were forced to sustain.

[Kingfish]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gyrene:

Complete air superiority was nowhere near being accomplished...<hr></blockquote>

Perhaps not complete air superiority, but they were gaining the upper hand on the RAF. The only thing that saved them was the German's decision to turn away from the destruction of the RAF and bomb London.

I honestly don't think the RAF could have continued at the pace they were going.

[Skipper]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by pt:

The Luftwaffe pilots interviewed in the programme, were far from confident.<hr></blockquote>

Hindsight 20/20. I am sure that their commanders (and probably themselves, too) thought differently at the time.

[Gen-x87H]

This is very true. The RAF was being bled dry. Germany's bombing of RAF airfields and Aircraft factories really did take a toll on the RAF. To the point where Germany was gaining a significant upper hand. Hitler then decided to bomb civilian populations hafter a German bomber crew who was lost in the fog dropped thier bomb load by accident into the middle of london. This sent the British bombers over and I think they bombed Hamburg? I believe Hitler was actually in the middle of making "we are the greatest race in the world" speeches. Talk about a slap in the face. From that point on the Germans decided to bomb British civilian centers. This allowed the RAF to recoup.

If the Germans were to continue on thier pace I bet the RAF would be to the point of inconsequential within a couple more months. Lucky for us Hitler was a moron

I dont know even then if Germany would have gone ahead of Sealion.

Gen