[WHAT IF #1] OPERATION SEA LION

Bootie

Bootie

FGM OWNER
Staff member
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
22,817
Reaction score
6,357
Age
47
Location
Scotland
I love alternative histories... the great 'What If' discussions. In the first of a series of these I ask you to consider Operation Sea Lion and think about the following.

  1. If the Axis forces had air and sea superiority would the invasion succeed?
  2. Would partial air and sea superiority be enough to force a landing?
  3. Did Germany have the logistics and supply lines to fight an ongoing battle in Great Britain?
  4. What shape was British armed forces in after the BEF retreated from France?
  5. How would it have shaped WW2?
Just some things to consider. :)

Operation Sea Lion (German: Unternehmen Seelöwe) was Nazi Germany's plan to invade the United Kingdom during the Second World War, following the Fall of France. For any likelihood of success, however, the operation required both air and naval superiority over the English Channel, neither of which the Germans ever achieved during or after the Battle of Britain. Sea Lion was postponed indefinitely on 17 September 1940 and never carried out.
Click to expand...

2000px-Sealion_svg_zpsb71cd50e.png
 
Without air & sea superiority ... no

Think the real question is ... if we had lost the battle of Britain, could they have launched a successful invasion in 1940.

Considering all that the allies had to do to prepaired for the invasion ... think the answer would have been yes they could have invaded... in those river barges, but mostly likely it would have failed.

Would like to know how they could have moved their armour, within the first few hours or days.
Without his armour there Blitzkreig would not have the momentum (?).

If the crossing had proved a success, their problems of resupplying the army would have sank them... unless they had broken the spirit of the people, within a few hours or days.

If they failed in their attempt to invade Britain, how would they have retreated... how secure would there position in Europe have been. Stalin was already waiting for his opportunity, (planned for 42) would he have moved his plans forward.
 
Last edited:
Nelson1812 said:
Without air & sea superiority ... no

Think the real question is ... if we had lost the battle of Britain, could they have launched a successful invasion in 1940.

Would like to know how they could have moved their armour, within the first few hours or days.
Click to expand...

Yeah without air and seas superiority its a suicide mission at best.

If we lost the Battle of Britain would the Germans have then moved on and smashed our Navy?

If I was looking to move armour across I would concentrate on securing harbours on the south coast in the first few hours with crack troops then letting the big ships cross and unload the armour at these harbours.

Does anyone here think the Operation was only ever given credence to actually instil fear in the British public and government and perhaps force their hand in any negotiations?
 
Bootie said:
If I was looking to move armour across I would concentrate on securing harbours on the south coast in the first few hours with crack troops then letting the big ships cross and unload the armour at these harbours.

Don't think the Brits would have left these in working order, once we had lost control of the air... on the south coast.

Does anyone here think the Operation was only ever given credence to actually instil fear in the British public and government and perhaps force their hand in any negotiations?
Click to expand...

Think that may have been the case... but Hitler and his generals must have been on a high after the fall of France... so may have looked at it, seriously at one point. Given the choice though would you try to blockade Britain or invade?
 
I seem to recall reading something a long time ago about the mindset of a continental army (like the Germans in 1939/40's) and that a barrier like the channel would never have been considered. I also think the blooding of the Falschirmjager on Crete was probably a factor - if you accept a 'harbour' based invasion, the para's and the various specialists (mountain divisions maybe) would be key...

Despite a large collection of boardgames - I do regret never buying SeeLowe by SPI - though I seem to recall playing some turns of an invasion using the Europa series games (GDW) I think it was There finest hour - maybe...
 
  1. If the Axis forces had air and sea superiority would the invasion succeed? - very possible
  2. Would partial air and sea superiority be enough to force a landing? - yes, but it wouldn´t have lasted
  3. Did Germany have the logistics and supply lines to fight an ongoing battle in Great Britain? - if the MBL/defensive paramters were established it would have been very likely
  4. What shape was British armed forces in after the BEF retreated from France? - similar as all other beaten armies of WW2 - fanatic or fatalistic or both
  5. How would it have shaped WW2? - a great deal to the favour of the axis

Reasons
to 1.) - To this time no one had an real answer for the Blitzkrieg tactics. If both, air and naval superiority, were achieved Great britain would have been cut from all supplies and reinforcements. The Germans had had the opportunity to send over their forces without a real threat, assembled them and started a well prepared strike. Much of the heavy military material of the BEF was lost in France. Further Tauchpanzer (Diving Armor) were tested and made combat ready on axis side. To the times of WW2 an absolute novelty. I think in reality they were used to cross the Don in russia after the Sealion OP was cancelled and showed their value. The russian T series of the postwar period were in general built after that principle.

to 2.) - A landing could have been forced but would not have lasted because of lacking of secure reinforcements and supplies. And what would have been much more important the costs of material and men for such a landing would be too high to have more as propaganda purposes. In the end the landed forces would have been cut and outworn/battered so much they would have lost their use.

to 3.) - Supposed the landing was a success and the superiority to sea and air established they would have had enough logistics because no military secured transports and armored ships were needed anymore. They could have used the much-maligned river barges and ships. One should remember the transport space of them would have been enough. Only the security of that barges and ships against enemy fire and rough sea etc. was too weak or not even existent. But if one has the control it is almost as shipping in peace (metaphorically spoken). A fuel pipeline would have been erected on the ground of the canal. Me-321 and similar types would have transported soldiers en masse or tanks and guns - and that added to the naval supply. So yes, they would have had the logistics.

to 4.) - In reality both, fanatism and fatalism, is a real problem in fighting. An opponent who is one of this is unpredictable. And that is the worst what could happen. A fanatic is ready to sacrifice all included his own life to gain his goals. That is what makes suicide attackers so dangerous. For a fatalist it is of no matter anymore what is happening so he follows his learned patterns or tries to sell himself well. That, too, makes a man dangerous. For an opponent who has to fight one of that both, fanatic or fatalist, it makes no great difference. The result is most of the time one has to fight someone who goes till to the end and surrender is no option for him.
So I think it would have been for the Brits as it was for the Germans as the Russians pushed them back to Berlin. The losses on attackers side would have been very high but in the end the defender had lost.

to 5.) - One has only to imagine the possibilities. The Germans would have learned by doing what it means to prepare and execute such a naval invasion. They would have been prepared after that against an allied naval invasion - the west wall would have gotten a higher priority. Further the allied naval invasion in the Normandy would have been cancelled. No multiple fronts war would have been possible anymore. British colonies would have been broken over the time - at least the possibility would have been risen. Maybe even civil war there. The german forces had had a huge base for aircrafts, ships, submarines etc. what was not encircled on all sides by enemy nations etc. etc.
I don´t know if that would have been enough to win the war. But in every case the constellation for the end of the war would have been changed dramatically.

Greetings :)
 
Excellent post Sempai.... I think if Sea Lion had of succeeded that the local population in England would have bowed their knee like the French and accepted their lot. Of course you always hope that the civilians will rise but the ferocity of the Germans would have quickly subdued any dissent... I mean a couple of village massacres and folk would soon step into line.

If Sea Lion succeeded would the Americans invade Ireland. @nathangun what is your thoughts on this?
 
Bootie said:
Excellent post Sempai.... I think if Sea Lion had of succeeded that the local population in England would have bowed their knee like the French and accepted their lot. Of course you always hope that the civilians will rise but the ferocity of the Germans would have quickly subdued any dissent... I mean a couple of village massacres and folk would soon step into line.

If Sea Lion succeeded would the Americans invade Ireland. @nathangun what is your thoughts on this?
Click to expand...

The Americans could have invaded.
They had troops in N.Ireland at the time. During the war I know the Americans had a plan in place. As the Irish president, Dev valera was a American born citizen.
Plus the Germans had 'Operation Green' the invasion of Ireland drawn up.
 
@Bootie: I don´t think so! The Brits hadn´t bowed. The french hadn´t either if not their allies had let them bleed out in WW1 and if more british troops would have sent in WW2 instead of that "sham" (hope it´s the right word) army named British Expedition Force or British Expedition Corps or whatever. Further Germans saw Brits as almost "friends" (and I mean the folk not the bosses). I may only commemorate the Christmas Truce in WW1 as french, british and german troops celebrated Christmas and even refused to continue fighting against each other after that. Interesting fact - almost nobody of the participants survived WW1. May it as it want to be - it wasn´t clear where the Brits stood. So a great bunch of the Germans believed the british empire would follow The Reich if they would a) see how successful their fighting was and b) see no further option as to follow to avoid annexation. Even America was hoped to follow the Reich against the CCCP or at least taking no part against the Reich.

@nathangun: The Americans hadn´t been able to invade because it was assumed by the questions of that thread that the Germans would have the naval and air superiority. If there would have been enough US troops/units to have the opportunity to intercept from Eire that would mean to negate the assumed hypothesis.

Greetings :)
 
I think it would have rested on the outcome of Luftwaffe vs the Royal Navy surface battle fleet. (the carriers would've been useless, as RN had no carrier planes that could stand up to Luftwaffe fighters)

In the close range battle for air superiority over the channel, with the RAF having to do the attacking vs the invasion fleet and covering the RN, the Luftwaffe could've prevailed -- when not handicapped by the Me-109's limited range over England, the Luftwaffe tended to win out in fighter vs fighter contests due to experience and superior fighter tactics at the time -- remember, Spitfires were still a

Looking at how the RN Med Fleet got hammered in the waters around Crete -- it would have been one hell of a battle.

But in a battle for survival of the British Isles against an invasion force, the Royal Navy surface fleet would've been prepared to accept 60 to 70% or higher casualty rates -- far higher than the German armed forces after the high point of the victory in France.
It would have been the difference of a country fighting for its very survival and a highly skilled force until then winning victories "on the cheap" -- well, in comparison to WW1.

If the German ground forces had managed to establish a viable and supplied bridgehead, then the ground campaign would have been a desperate affair for the British -- after the Dunkirk disaster, there were practically no fully equipped, battle-experienced veteran formations left in the UK -- and the Home Guard and inexperienced British divisions lacking proper training and artillery, AT guns etc vs Fallschirmjaeger and other veteran German formations... it would not have been pretty.

As is, all hinged on outcome of the air-sea battle for control of the channel ... and with these desperate stakes, the Royal Navy battle fleet would have gone in guns blazing ... and even a few battleships and cruisers breaking through to the invasion barges would've resulted in a massacre and cutting off of the advance parachute and air-transported forces in isolated bridgeheads.
That's the big "what if."

As to US invading from across the Atlantic after Britain is defeated? ... very unlikely without forward bases ... it would've taken naval resources dwarfing the Pacific Fleet to maintain an invasion army without proper forward bases against an opponent as powerful as the Germans -- Ireland far too small and its harbour and transport infrastructure for that to bean option -- also, any US presence in Ireland would have to achieved under a rain of Luftwaffe bombs.
 
I think the Germans get ashore, destroy the RAF, severely maul the RN and the British government and Hitler sign an armistice, which in effect takes the British Isles out of the war, but not the commonwealth. Hitler then throws the full weight of his military, sans 2-3 divisions on garrison and defeats Russia. Eventually Germany and Japan take on the US and the surviving Commonwealth armies...
 
Some very interesting reading and good points made. I have read that if the Germans kept up the attacks on airfields and the radar stations their air campaign would have improved vastly and air superiority over the channel would be there. The idea to bomb German cities by the Brits to enrage Hitler to turn on London was a major factor. I read or heard on a documentary that psychologists advised that Hitler would retaliate against London if they bombed German cities. Hmm sounds like sacrificing civilians to save the country. From what I have read most Americans believed the European war was none of their business. Roosevelt was well aware of keeping the UK afloat though. After Pearl Harbor congress was only prepared to declare war on Japan not Germany.

Hitler was itching to use his available ground forces against Russia and wanted to get on with that as soon as possible and he considered the Brits doomed. But what if the Germans didn't have to rescue the Italians in the Balkans which delayed Operation Barbarossa by a few months. Time enough to have taken Moscow and historians have stated if you take Moscow you have Russia in the bag. Also, what about instead of treating the Ukrainians as allies instead of enemies. I've seen pictures of Ukrainians throwing flowers at the invading German troops as liberators. My father was Ukrainian born but conscripted into the Red Army and told me that if Hitler went into Ukraine as friends the Ukrainians would have been more than happy to fight the Russians. I remember him also stating that "Yes Hitler was bad like Stalin but at least Hitler treated his own people good."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom