"The High Water Mark" for the Germans?

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

... Barges were, in fact, moved - they were at Dieppe in August 1942 and were one of the targets of the Raid there; Commandos were to secure the boat house in Dieppe's harbour and remove one of the barges, for towing back to England. ...

Not just in 1942. In 1940 photo-recon showed a massive buildup of barges in the mounting ports along the channel. IIRC, it was the thinning out of these barge fleets (again reported by photo recce) in Oct? - rather than 'victory' in the Battle of Britain - that led to the UK downgrading the invasion threat level.

If SEALION was just a bluff, it was a fairly elaborate one - the BoB seems to have been persued fairly vigourously, the concentration of barges drastically affected Rhine River traffic (with big effects on the German economy), army units were concentrated in the appropriate ports in France, and - as Mike pointed out - various units were busy training for the invasion.

Was SEALION practical? Probably not, and certainly not with out air superiority. Was it a 'real' plan? IMHO, yes, at least for a few months in late 1940.

BTW,Ant in this comment

which is probably why Britain built up the bulk of it's effective European forces in...........North Africa

may have been talking about Churchill moving 7RTR to North Africa in mid-to-late 1940 (i.e., during the period when invasion sensitivity was highest). Many commentators have remarked on Churchills courage in sending that unit overseas at that time. The arrival of these Matildas made O'Connors Operation COMPASS in December a realistic proposition.

However, 7RTR was just one battalion-sized unit. It certainly didn't represent 'the bulk' of the British Army. The WDF in its entirety consisted of the 7th Armoured Division, the 4th Indian Division, 2/3rds of the NZ Division (still untrained and deemed combat-ineffective), and the forming 6th Australian Division (again in the process of forming up and training). Not very 'bulky' really, was it?

Regards

JonS

[ June 03, 2003, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Certainly the British had to take it seriously either way; 1st Canadian Division is often described as the only fully equipped division in southern England in Aug 1940; I doubt this is true, as the division was deficient in such things as transport and heavy weapons. But the state of the BEF was quite bad, and 1 Cdn Div may indeed have been one of the best equipped, if not the only equipped division in the Isles.

The re-equiping of the British forces after Dunkirk is a fascinating issue that I wish I knew more about. What I have read suggests that few formations at first had more than their rifles and other light arms to man the trenches. Gradually, as more and more heavier weapons and transport became available, they were able to form first battalion and then brigade sized mobile reserves to respond to possible landings. Finally, by spring of 1941, they had several more or less fully formed divisions in hand. At least I think that's how it went. But the details are still vague in my mind.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

BTW, I have to believe that a lot of the German fixation on an Allied invasion in the Pas de Calais stemmed from their own worries about a naval crossing. To them, with a minimal navy, crossing at the narrowest possible point seemed the only way. They seemed to forget that the Allies had a huge navy and massive merchant service and (in the Pacific and to North Africa) habitually transported invasion forces over thousands of miles. The Germans showed a real inability to put themselves in the shoes of their foes on that one.

I think the important difference was that the Allies had a (relative) abundance of specialized landing craft that could transport large forces fair distances across open water and land them directly on the beach. The reason the Germans felt compelled to use the shortest possible approach is that they were forced to rely on makeshift transport, often in the form of unpowered river barges which were both slow and apt to founder in any kind of heavy sea. So, even if the Royal Navy could be removed as a factor, they were still in trouble.

The Germans had a fair amount of merchant shipping that could have been pressed into service temporarily to transport and support a ground force large enough to maintain and expand a lodgement against the meager forces then available to the British. The catch is that such shipping needs deep water ports with heavy cargo handling capabilities, and there wasn't a hell of a lot of that between Portsmouth and Dover, and what there was had been carefully prepared for demolition at the first sign of German troops appearing. It would have required virtually an Act of God for the Germans to have obtained the necessary facilities.

Michael

[John Kettler]

Michael emrys,

May I commend to your attention Richard Cox's OPERATION SEALION, Presidio Press, 1977, which presents the results, in narrative form, of a mid 1970s Sandhurst wargame involving, among others, Luftwaffe General Adolph Galland, British Air Chief Marshal Sir Christopher Foxley-Norris, and Kriegsmarine Admiral Friedrich Ruge?

Regards,

John Kettler

[ June 03, 2003, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

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

Certainly the British had to take it seriously either way; 1st Canadian Division is often described as the only fully equipped division in southern England in Aug 1940; I doubt this is true, as the division was deficient in such things as transport and heavy weapons. But the state of the BEF was quite bad, and 1 Cdn Div may indeed have been one of the best equipped, if not the only equipped division in the Isles.

The re-equiping of the British forces after Dunkirk is a fascinating issue that I wish I knew more about. What I have read suggests that few formations at first had more than their rifles and other light arms to man the trenches. Gradually, as more and more heavier weapons and transport became available, they were able to form first battalion and then brigade sized mobile reserves to respond to possible landings. Finally, by spring of 1941, they had several more or less fully formed divisions in hand. At least I think that's how it went. But the details are still vague in my mind.

Michael </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Michael emrys,

May I commend to your attention Richard Cox's OPERATION SEALION, Presidio Press, 1977, which presents the results, in narrative form, of a mid 1970s Sandhurst wargame involving, among others, Luftwaffe General Adolph Galland, British Air Chief Marshal Sir Christopher Foxley-Norris, and Kriegsmarine Admiral Friedrich Ruge?

I've heard of this book before and seen it advertised, I believe. What recommends it to your mind? Aside from an interesting cast of characters?

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

...the Canadians moved about southern England, to fool German intelligence, I suppose, but also to man several points along the coast and develop defences.

Apparently something of this sort was continued practice as late as 1943 (if not later). George Blackburn mentions his battery taking a turn at manning artillery positions along the south coast from time to time in his book Where the Hell Are the Guns?.

Michael

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

They seemed to forget that the Allies had a huge navy and massive merchant service and (in the Pacific and to North Africa) habitually transported invasion forces over thousands of miles.

Forget?

Guys, we're not talking about a game, we're talking about the invasion of a whole, highly industrialized country with the most powerful Navy, excellent airforce, well trained infantry and being an ally of the USA.

The preparations that were made on the german side were nothing, compared to the necessary size of such a huge operation.

Ofcourse Germany did everything to make the British secret-services and the government make believe, that Sealion could happen, if the government doesn't return on the peace-table.

Sealion was a classical bluff and i'll try to show why it was necessary for the germans from their point of view and why they had no other chance:

1. If they do nothing, Churchill would not come back to the peace-table. All the german efforts were rejected: letting the british expedition-army escape, was the biggest possible sign, a country can make, that it doesn't want the war with GB.

2. The bombing of city centers without any industry showed to the German command, that Churchill wanted the escalation.

3. The obviously support of GB by the USA.

4. The mass-media in GB and USA were full of anti-german propaganda, showing the germans, that governments wanted to bring the people on the anti-german side, while people, especially in USA, still didn't want to become involved into the 'European War'.

5. The jewish influence in USA, that even had grown, with the immigration of the jews that had to leave Germany.

6. On the other side the USSSR, with the communistic highest priority aim of world-revolution and that world-revolution needs Europe and to conquer Europe, Germany needs to be thrown down first.

This is not Nazi-propaganda, this can be found in Lenin's considerations and plans, was supported by every Communist and official line of the Highest Soviet.

Long speech short: the Germans knew, that the war in the east is only a matter of time and it will be only possible to stop the Red Wave, with highest concentration of all available german forces.

They also knew, that such a huge army - at this time already the strongest one in the world, with the best and most tanks - can not be stopped within a few kilometers, once it is rolling.

Several hundred kilometers will be necessary to stop such a huge and well equipped army.

Once rolling, the red army would easily run until Berlin and, further in the German conclusions, Europe would be lost to Communism.

What could be done by the Germans?

On one side, they knew that the war in the east is unavoidable and only a matter of time.

On the other side they had Churchill, absolutely unwilling to grab the reached out hand.

There was only one solution: to force the British government to come back to the table.

The chances were not that bad from the German point of view: the opposition against Churchill's strict pro-war course still was huge.

But what Germany didn't know: Churchill already had Roosevelt's word, that the USA will join the war as soon as possible and that Churchill was really willing, to deliver the whole empire to the US-money-lenders.

While before WWI, GB were the biggest money-lender to the US, during WWI, this turned around and WWI was a huge deal for the US, and GB became deptor of the US.

In WWII Churchill sacrified the rest of the Empire.

From the german point of view, it was unimaginable, that a British Leader would really prefer to continue the war against Germany, while losing the rest of the Empire to the Wall Street.

[ June 04, 2003, 06:18 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[Lars]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

But what Germany didn't know: Churchill already had Roosevelt's word, that the USA will join the war as soon as possible and that Churchill was really willing, to deliver the whole empire to the US-money-lenders.

While before WWI, GB were the biggest money-lender to the US, during WWI, this turned around and WWI was a huge deal for the US, and GB became deptor of the US.

In WWII Churchill sacrified the rest of the Empire.

From the german point of view, it was unimaginable, that a British Leader would really prefer to continue the war against Germany, while losing the rest of the Empire to the Wall Street.

Hey, wait a minute!!!

They still owe us India!!!

[Richie]

I have to agree with Michael Emrys, Barbarossa, despite the planning was fairly hopeful to annihilate a country the size of the USSR in 6 weeks let alone six months. Intelligence was poor, few maps and no... NO preperations for Winter. (In the eyes of an ASL gamer, Excuse my blaspheme, Hitler hoped for a three and rolled box cars. YES I KNOW IT WAS WAR AND NOT A GAME. )

No, Germany did not win the airwar over the English Channel and hence it was viewed as non-viable. The logistics were terrible, but so was supply in the UK at that time.

Was the invasion of Russia really imminent because of the RED threat? I understand Stalin couldn't believe it for nearly two days when it did happen. :eek:

Yes if Hitler hadn't delayed or diverted troops they 'might' have seized Moskov.

I 'think' if he had realized the reality of the situation he should have destroyed what he could of the English forces in France, and made plans and waited to invade the UK without the attack on the USSR.

But he didn't...

...And we were asked "what do you THINK the high watermark for the Germans was?"

You don't make war and hope for peace. I guess Hitler did. He lost.

[Hat Trick]

Selected nuggets originally posted by Steiner14:

1. If they do nothing, Churchill would not come back to the peace-table. All the german efforts were rejected: letting the british expedition-army escape, was the biggest possible sign, a country can make, that it doesn't want the war with GB.

Germany wanted the BEF to escape? I had always thought that the BEF escaped because Goring wanted to prove how effective his airforce was. They did try to bomb the evacuation boats, which is not exactly consistent with a deliberate decision to let the BEF get back to Britain.

2. The bombing of city centers without any industry showed to the German command, that Churchill wanted the escalation.

I'm not as familiar with the air war; did Churchill initiate strategic bombing of non-industrial cities? I had always thought that the blitz preceded the allied bombing of German cities, but would be happy to be enlightened if I'm wrong.

3. The obviously support of GB by the USA.

4. The mass-media in GB and USA were full of anti-german propaganda, showing the germans, that governments wanted to bring the people on the anti-german side, while people, especially in USA, still didn't want to become involved into the 'European War'.

5. The jewish influence in USA, that even had grown, with the immigration of the jews that had to leave Germany.

The implication here is that the American "elite", influenced by some sort of Jewish cabal, forced a war on an unwilling populace. While many American leaders did support Great Britain, the idea that "jewish influence" was responsible for this position is simply anti-semetic nonsense. American support for Great Britain had far more to do with the USA's long cultural and economic ties to England than to any influence that American jews held.

6. On the other side the USSSR, with the communistic highest priority aim of world-revolution and that world-revolution needs Europe and to conquer Europe, Germany needs to be thrown down first.

This is not Nazi-propaganda, this can be found in Lenin's considerations and plans, was supported by every Communist and official line of the Highest Soviet.

Long speech short: the Germans knew, that the war in the east is only a matter of time and it will be only possible to stop the Red Wave, with highest concentration of all available german forces.

They also knew, that such a huge army - at this time already the strongest one in the world, with the best and most tanks - can not be stopped within a few kilometers, once it is rolling.

Several hundred kilometers will be necessary to stop such a huge and well equipped army.

Once rolling, the red army would easily run until Berlin and, further in the German conclusions, Europe would be lost to Communism.

What could be done by the Germans?

On one side, they knew that the war in the east is unavoidable and only a matter of time.

Ah, yes, the preventative war argument. There was a whole other thread on this topic, and I think that the general conclusion was that this argument doesn't wash. I'll just say that, in general, while the Soviets did support world revolution, the evidence that they were about to invade Germany is, shall we say, scant.

But what Germany didn't know: Churchill already had Roosevelt's word, that the USA will join the war as soon as possible and that Churchill was really willing, to deliver the whole empire to the US-money-lenders.

While before WWI, GB were the biggest money-lender to the US, during WWI, this turned around and WWI was a huge deal for the US, and GB became deptor of the US.

In WWII Churchill sacrified the rest of the Empire.

From the german point of view, it was unimaginable, that a British Leader would really prefer to continue the war against Germany, while losing the rest of the Empire to the Wall Street.

This is just nonsense. Yes, the balance of payments between Great Britain and the USA reversed after WWI, but this has nothing to do with losing an empire to "Wall Street", whatever that means. Though I will grant you that it is possible that Hitler, seeing the world through his anti-semetic haze, may have thought that such a thing is possible, hopefully no one here is dim witted enough to believe such statements.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

This is not Nazi-propaganda, this can be found in Lenin's considerations and plans, was supported by every Communist and official line of the Highest Soviet.

Wow, and I thought Lenin had died in 1924, being followed by Stalin who ousted Trotsky and others opposing Stalin's heretic (from a pure Leninist-Marxist point of view) 'socialism in one country' doctrine. But I guess Lenin still was very much alive in 1941, and there was just a waxwork in his mausoleum. All this leads us to a Jewish conspiracy. Thanks for teaching us new information about Soviet history!

[Reichenberg]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

Guys, we're not talking about a game, we're talking about the invasion of a whole, highly industrialized country with the most powerful Navy, excellent airforce, well trained infantry and being an ally of the USA.

The preparations that were made on the german side were nothing, compared to the necessary size of such a huge operation.

Ofcourse Germany did everything to make the British secret-services and the government make believe, that Sealion could happen, if the government doesn't return on the peace-table.

Sealion was a classical bluff and i'll try to show why it was necessary for the germans from their point of view and why they had no other chance:

I would not consider Sealion as the classical bluff. You are right, that after September 1940 it was an all out bluff, but before that time it was a considered last resort plan of the Germans. They were doing all they could in such short a time to get ready for an invasion. They were trying to put the RAF to its knees and were trying to get the transportation ready. And 'yes' again, they totally underestimated the needed effort for such a task like landing in England. The German Navy as the center of the planning noticed this first by the end of July.

Steiner14, I think you are looking a little bit too much from our perspective today on the whole subject. Let me try the opposite and let me look at it from the German point of view in Summer of 1940 and be a little bit too optimistic about the German possibilities - probably not so unrealistical.

The BEF had to leave all there heavy equipment in Belgium and Northern France. They returned without weapons and had to be completely reequipped. The RAF was in a desperate struggle against the Luftwaffe and came very close to a defeat. (when the Luftwaffe changed the main targets from RAF airfields to civilian targets they were supposed to keep up the pressure on the RAF - that did not work at all, because the reserves of the Luftwaffe were stretched to thin to fight to targets)

At the beginning of July the tensions between the defeated (the British thought more of defected) French and Engalnd rose. On July 3rd the British took over 2 BB in British ports and were killing nearly 1300 French sailors in Mers el-Kebir. It even came to a French air raid against Gibraltar. After that there were parts of the French military that supported stronger French actions against the British and even against the Free French (mainly to get back the defected colonies).

Originally posted by Steiner14:

6. On the other side the USSSR, with the communistic highest priority aim of world-revolution and that world-revolution needs Europe and to conquer Europe, Germany needs to be thrown down first.

This is not Nazi-propaganda, this can be found in Lenin's considerations and plans, was supported by every Communist and official line of the Highest Soviet.

Long speech short: the Germans knew, that the war in the east is only a matter of time and it will be only possible to stop the Red Wave, with highest concentration of all available german forces.

They also knew, that such a huge army - at this time already the strongest one in the world, with the best and most tanks - can not be stopped within a few kilometers, once it is rolling.

Several hundred kilometers will be necessary to stop such a huge and well equipped army.

Once rolling, the red army would easily run until Berlin and, further in the German conclusions, Europe would be lost to Communism.

On June 16th the Germans found secret papers of the French general staff. They were detailed plans about the planned British and French bombing of the Russian oil fields at Baku and facilities at Batumi. A few days later these papers were in Moscow and giving Stalin a pretty clear sight of what to expect at that time from Chuchill. The Germans had still close trade agreements with the USSR and by then both were benefitting from it.

But I know, that the British were trying to increase the distrust between Hitler and Stalin.

The Germans totally underestimated the strength of the Russians in Spring of 1941. Why should they have had a more realitic view of the USSR a few months earlier?

Originally posted by Steiner14:

What could be done by the Germans?

On one side, they knew that the war in the east is unavoidable and only a matter of time.

That is right. Hitler was AFAIK totally expecting a Russian attack in the east as soon as the struggle with England would suck up more German strength.

Originally posted by Steiner14:

On the other side they had Churchill, absolutely unwilling to grab the reached out hand.

There was only one solution: to force the British government to come back to the table.

Or overestimate your strength and think that you would be able to defeat the British. After September 1940 you are absolutely right again.

Originally posted by Steiner14:

The chances were not that bad from the German point of view: the opposition against Churchill's strict pro-war course still was huge.

But what Germany didn't know: Churchill already had Roosevelt's word, that the USA will join the war as soon as possible and that Churchill was really willing, to deliver the whole empire to the US-money-lenders.

While before WWI, GB were the biggest money-lender to the US, during WWI, this turned around and WWI was a huge deal for the US, and GB became deptor of the US.

In WWII Churchill sacrified the rest of the Empire.

From the german point of view, it was unimaginable, that a British Leader would really prefer to continue the war against Germany, while losing the rest of the Empire to the Wall Street.

And again: I agree with you about the German perspective. Especially after Roosevelt was reelected in November 1940 it was clear for the Germans what to expect from the forming alliance of England and the US.

I still think that in Summer of 1940 the Germans hoped to bring down England on it knees and come to a diplomatic solution. But would have the planning come to a more promising outcome, they would have tryied to invade England. The noticed it from the beginning on that their last resort plan would not have worked out and therefore never reached the stage of direct preparation for an invasion.

Regards

Uwe

[Reichenberg]

Originally posted by Hat Trick:

I'm not as familiar with the air war; did Churchill initiate strategic bombing of non-industrial cities? I had always thought that the blitz preceded the allied bombing of German cities, but would be happy to be enlightened if I'm wrong.

If you are just talking about the bombing of London and Berlin the situation is the following:

On August 2nd Göring had added the RAF ground organisation in the area of London as viable targets for the Luftwaffe. On August 24th, the day Hitler declared that all air attacks against London had to be approved by him, the attack against the RAF ground organisation came. The firefighters in Lodon reported 76 'incidents' in the city and in the suburbs of Bethnal Green, East Ham, Stepney and Finsbury. On the night of August 25th to 26th The RAF flew an attack against Berlin. Right afterwards Hitler ordered the city of London to be a legal target for the Luftwaffe as a retribution. The attacks were targeting mainly the docks.

This is AFAIK the beginning of the attacks on civilian targets between the British and the Germans.

Regards

Uwe

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Hat Trick:

Though I will grant you that it is possible that Hitler, seeing the world through his anti-semetic haze, may have thought that such a thing is possible, hopefully no one here is dim witted enough to believe such statements.

Hat Trick, if you are intersted in understanding history, why and how things happened how they happened, it is necessary to try to understand the reasons of the acting parties and not to judge them, like politicians.

Personal opinions and judgements about right or wrong, good or bad, are not good in trying to understand why things happened.

There does not exist one truth. Neither you own it, nor me.

This is the reason, why every court follows the principle "audiatur et altera pars". You have to listen to both sides, before you can judge.

And i clearly stated, i'll try to show the german point of view.

Do you have a problem with that?

If yes, i suggest to rethink your understanding of history.

You'll never be able to understand why things happened in former times, if you are judging everything from your point of view today, with simple 'good' and 'bad' categories.

History is much more complicated and it makes it necessary to try to forget the own point of view, to be able to understand how involved persons decided and why they decided.

Ofcourse this is often contrary to the personal opinion, but that is not the standard if you're interested in history.

'Good' or 'bad'?

Depends on the point of view of the acting parties.

THE Truth?

Nonsense for the masses and necessary for the politicians to drive the masses.

But not of interest, if you want to understand why things happened.

Classical theme for tragedies: the different realities for different persons or parties. Sometimes it's also called fate.

Taking a closer look abroad the simple 'good' and 'bad' categories, European history is full of such tragedies.

[Michael Dorosh]

Guys, Steiner14 was threatened with banning by Madmatt once already. I saw the reference to "Jewish influence" in his post, and his juvenile remark regards "experts" in an earlier post, and came to some conclusions about whether or not to respond to him. I might humbly suggest others review his posting history and draw their own conclusions about what can be accomplished by discussing with him.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

There does not exist one truth.

Care to support that statement?

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Guys, Steiner14 was threatened with banning by Madmatt once already. I saw the reference to "Jewish influence" in his post, and his juvenile remark regards "experts" in an earlier post, and came to some conclusions about whether or not to respond to him. I might humbly suggest others review his posting history and draw their own conclusions about what can be accomplished by discussing with him.

Reading helps, liar.

Sometimes a doctor, too.

[Jim Boggs]

Okay time to review the Historical Perspective German style:

1. Poland actually attacked Germany after a shameless campaign of butchering the innocent citizens of Danzig. After all you must remember that it was Britain and France who declared war on Germany.

2. Norway was not invaded, rather it was a friendly occupation to forestall an Allied attempt to invade this sovereign neutral country.

3. With the surrender of France, Hitler, in an incredible show of humanity, offered Peace to the British, only to be rejected by the warmongering government of Churchill.

4. The decision to move into Russia was forced upon the German nation by the aggressive and hostile build-up of the Soviet forces along the border. Germany was once again only acting in self-defense.

Unfortunately the Germans lost the war and Herr Goebbels true account of history was rewritten by the Allies.

It would seem that, despite all the efforts of the victors, that the truth, as espoused by the little doktor, was not lost to future generations.

[edit]-The above does not apply to most Germans.

Thanks MD

[ June 04, 2003, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: Jim Boggs ]

[Michael Dorosh]

I wouldn't be so quick to brand all Germans revisionists. I certainly would never think to put Markuss or Andreas in that category. Though it was certainly amusing to read that precis and can think of one or two others whom would fit that mold.

[Steiner14]

Dorosh, what you write is full of hate, no matter how many smilies you use.

Why are you that full of hate?

Why are you denouncing me, and telling lies?

Where is your problem?

[Jim Boggs]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

Reading helps

Try Berlin Diary by WL Shirer. Most of what you write is covered very well by his account.

You might also read The Goebbels Diaries edited by Luis Lochner. You might find it enlightening.

Hope this helps!

[Steiner14]

Jim, sorry but i want an answer by denouncer Dorosh.

His nick carries the name of a brave soldier who died in fulfilling his duty. I would be interested in, what this man would have said about denouncers.

The nick Dorosh here, should at least have the courage to answer.

[SFJaykey]

I am late here and fear the thread may be too far gone for comment on the viability of Sealion, but here goes:

Germany was certainly not doing "nothing" to actually prepare for Sealion. Their huge and costly effort to knock out the RAF would gain air superiority, which could cover a possible invasion. The conscription of cargo barges, tugs, and even fishing vessels from Germany, and holding them on the French coast for several months as potential landing craft put a very heavy strain on German industry that relied on these vessels for merchant transport.

The Royal Navy might not have presented the great obstacle many seem to think it would have. The Admiralty had already issued an edict that no vessels larger than a destroyer were to enter Channel waters, and none of the accounts I've read of Royal Navy planning allow for using larger vessels. And the Royal Navy was running very short of destroyers. The main reason Churchill asked Roosevelt for the old US destroyers provided under Lend-Lease was "to combat invasion." But only a handful of those destroyers were available before Summer '41, IIRC.

To compare the preparations needed for Sealion with those for Normandy is apples and oranges. Germany in Spetember '40 would have been invading an isolated, largely unfortified Britain almost entirely bereft of heavy military equipment. The Allies in '44 were storming Hitler's Atlantic Wall into continental Europe, where Germany had all its mechanized might at its disposal....at least all that could be spared from the Eastern Front.

Could Sealion have actually worked? I don't know; it would have been touch and go. I think the 1977 Sandhurst wargame resulted in a decisive German defeat, but then, it was held at Sandhurst. Many German officers, especially in the navy, were pessimistic, but then many German officers were pessimistic about Barbarossa, and the war in general, and that didn't affect Hitler's decisions. To state definitively that Sealion was a hoax from the outset is to read too much into Hitler's warped mind. I'm not sure, but I believe that he was serious about it, at least for a while and as a last resort.

(Source for most of this is the Sealion article in "No End Save Victory.")

[ June 04, 2003, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

[Michael Dorosh]

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=025085;p=3#000059

I'm sorry, I guess it was a different Steiner14.

With the same member number.