Feasibility of Sea Lion and effects if Britain is Conquered

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
Dark Age
Member
Posts: 70
Joined: 03 Jul 2012, 23:18

Feasibility of Sea Lion and effects if Britain is Conquered

#1

Post by Dark Age » 22 Apr 2014, 10:42

Hello in this thread I would like to explore a complex alternate history topic:

*Just how feasible and logical was Operation Sea Lion, the planned German invasion of Britain? Could it have been accomplished in reality and what are its long term effects if successful?*


FEASIBILITY OF OPERATION SEA LION

I have always questioned whether or not it was truly within Germany's ability to invade Southern England in the late summer/early fall of 1940. Several sources I have read mention that the initial German air raids were having a decisive effect against the RAF and that Hitler's order to have the German Air Force bomb British cities rather than continuing to bomb British airfields and radar stations saved the RAF and gave them an important reprieve. It is mentioned that had Hitler continued the initial attack against the RAF, the RAF would possibly have been defeated giving the Germans air supremacy allowing them to launch Sea Lion.

Firstly are these claims true? Was it possible for Germany to achieve air supremacy by wiping out the RAF? I have my doubts due to the lack of range of German fighters and aircraft and the ineffectiveness of tactical bombing at the time.

Secondly even if air supremacy was achieved, how could Germany launch such a massive sea borne invasion immediately after the French and Norwegian Campaigns? After the campaign in Poland in 1939, I read that the German generals continuously postponed an invasion of France in 1939 because of troop and equipment losses. The Germans suffered even larger troop and equipment losses after the Battle of France and they suffered substantial naval losses when conquering Norway. Was it truly possible for the Kreigsmarine to ship hundreds and thousands of German troops across the channel under hostile fire? It took the Western Allies years to plan Operation Overlord yet historians are claiming that a country like Germany, with fewer resources, greater threats on its borders (Soviet Union) and more of a land power, can launch a cross channel invasion in a mere 3 months? This seems unlikely.

Thirdly even if Germany can successfully land on England's shores, would it have been successful? Historical record proves that an invasion of Britain would be very costly. In the Battle of Crete the German's sustained thousands of casualties. Invading Britain, an island over 20 times larger and with 100 times the population where the British would fight with greater ferocity could only decimate the Wehrmacht. I don’t see this changing whether the Germans invade right after the fall of France in 1940 or build up for a year or two and invade in 1941/1942. In 1940 while the British would be less prepared so would the Germans. In 1941/42 Germany would be more prepared but so would the British.

Fourthly, occupying Britain after it’s defeated would also be an enormous undertaking requiring hundreds of thousands of men and a large quantity of material. Therefore how can taking Britain improve Germany’s chances to win the war? This seems impossible as it could only drain Germany of men and material.

STRATEGIC OPTIONS OF THE USA/COMMONWEALTH SHOULD BRITAIN BE CONQUERED

I believe that war between Hitler and the Alliance of the USA/USSR was a high probability yet I do not feel conquering Britain would improve Hitler’s chances at all. Hitler would eventually have to send a bulk of his army to the East to deal with Stalin which would be weakened as more of his troops are tied down occupying Britain. Should the United States enter the war, as there is a high chance it will (especially with Britain conquered), the American and remainder of the commonwealth forces would still land in North Africa and the Americans would bolster Iceland to attack German held Britain. I feel it is also likely the Americans would invade Ireland and use it as the prime staging area to invade German held Britain.

North Africa, Iceland and Ireland are the main alternatives in my opinion if Britain is hypothetically conquered but I have no idea how possible these really were. Was it possible for North Africa to sustain a much larger allied army than what existed historically? Also could Iceland have been used as a base to attack German held Britain? And would the Americans invade Ireland, whether German held or neutral? Could Ireland even support such a massive invasion force?

Overall I am trying to see how deadly the threat of German invasion really was and the how important Britain truly was geographically. I do not think Hitler really had the means (at least in the short term) to conquer Britain and even if he did, this would not improve the German position as long as Hitler would likely have to fight the USSR and USA. Taking and occupying Britain would just be too costly.

Thank you

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Feasibility of Sea Lion and effects if Britain is Conque

#2

Post by LWD » 22 Apr 2014, 14:03

Compounding two such questions in a "what if" or indeed in any thread is I believe rather frowned on. Furthermore the feasibility question has been addressed in quite a few threads already.


User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Feasibility of Sea Lion and effects if Britain is Conque

#3

Post by phylo_roadking » 22 Apr 2014, 14:45

Furthermore the feasibility question has been addressed in quite a few threads already.
...which is a very very conservative estimate! :lol:
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

alltoes
Member
Posts: 226
Joined: 29 May 2011, 00:07

Re: Feasibility of Sea Lion and effects if Britain is Conque

#4

Post by alltoes » 22 Apr 2014, 16:34

Yes many threads here.
However, if Germany placed 2 divisions including paratroopers in southern England AND they held ground for 2 months, I believe an armistice would have been achieved. This would allow troops in England, France, and Norway to be used in Barbarossa. USA would not declare war against Germany. With an armistice with England, they would not create tension which would be unfavorable against England.
Woop Woop

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Feasibility of Sea Lion and effects if Britain is Conque

#5

Post by LWD » 22 Apr 2014, 16:54

If all they were doing was holding ground I don't see it. The German resuplly effort would be getting progressivly worse as they lost hulls. While they would have started with over 2,000 barges a significant fraction (1/3?) were never even intended to make a return trip. Based on the results of the one experiment the Germans did conduct even without the efforts of the British defenders I suspect half the barges would not have made a return trip. With losses it's even worse. If you say start with 2,400 barges and suffer 50% losses each trip after three trips you are down to 300. Likewise they only had around 100 cargo vessels and those would be prime targets for the British. After 2 months I just don't see there being much sea lift left.

Then of course the OP mentioned "conquest" rather than "armistice". In the latter case what's to prevent the British from entering back into the war. Oh by the way did you really mean an armistice with the England? or with Great Britain or perhpas the Commonwealth?

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Feasibility of Sea Lion and effects if Britain is Conque

#6

Post by phylo_roadking » 22 Apr 2014, 17:44

However, if Germany placed 2 divisions including paratroopers in southern England AND they held ground for 2 months, I believe an armistice would have been achieved.
TWO divisions...facing 17-18 British ones...and in a location that did NOT threaten any major British ports, or airfields - would have achieved an armistice?

Yes - with the GERMANS asking for it!!! :lol: It would be like a green, leafy Stalingrad...
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

alltoes
Member
Posts: 226
Joined: 29 May 2011, 00:07

Re: Feasibility of Sea Lion and effects if Britain is Conque

#7

Post by alltoes » 22 Apr 2014, 18:50

Look guys. Sealion would have failed. But the what if was presented. Prior to landing, air supremacy was a must. Once this was accomplished, the LW could assist in the crossing as well as continue to harass the British on their soil.
I agree the barrages were not up to par. As well apparent, there was no real planning for an invasion up to France's defeat.
Also, British heavy equipment was abandoned on the continent.
The point of holding ground was to create public dismay (hearts and minds...kind of). The public could demand the end of British involvement.
The other point is the absurdity of the German "elders"....knuckleheads if you will. Once on British soil, they would have demanded British surrender. Instead, a proposal of leaving the British Isles with a number of conditions.
IMHO, the true direction for Sealion would have been no Dunkirk (or limited escape) AND destruction of the RAF. Phylo's 17-18 divisions would mostly be made of untested soldiers.
Woop

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Feasibility of Sea Lion and effects if Britain is Conque

#8

Post by phylo_roadking » 22 Apr 2014, 19:16

Phylo's 17-18 divisions would mostly be made of untested soldiers.
...apart from the seven (ten if you count the three "labour" divisions) that had been on the Continent - not all of which were actually "beaten".
Prior to landing, air supremacy was a must.
Check again :wink: "local air superiority", not supremacy. Which begs a still-active Fighter Command, though possibly operating under range constrictions due to flying from fields north of London and west of the invasion bridgehead...
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Feasibility of Sea Lion and effects if Britain is Conque

#9

Post by LWD » 22 Apr 2014, 19:33

alltoes wrote:.... But the what if was presented. ...
A what if that by the standards expoused in the FAQ for this board is deeply flawed. One that also questions whether or not it was possible. Note that your suggestion of an armistice isn't really relevant to either of the what if's in the OP.
alltoes wrote:... The point of holding ground was to create public dismay (hearts and minds...kind of). The public could demand the end of British involvement.
If after a couple of months all they are doing is holding one or more small enclaves on the Engilsh coast I don'ts ee it creating a lot of public dismay. Indeed given the likelyhood that their situation was deteriating perhaps just the opposite.[/quote]

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Feasibility of Sea Lion and effects if Britain is Conque

#10

Post by phylo_roadking » 22 Apr 2014, 19:42

Indeed given the likelyhood that their situation was deteriating perhaps just the opposite
...let alone the crusading zeal that would fire the British to eject an invader from "England's green and pleasant land"...
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

alltoes
Member
Posts: 226
Joined: 29 May 2011, 00:07

Re: Feasibility of Sea Lion and effects if Britain is Conque

#11

Post by alltoes » 22 Apr 2014, 20:18

35+ million casualties in WW1. This number was felt by virtually every family in Europe either directly through family or via friends. Many countries 20+ years later did not want another war. The UK have always had strong military, tactics, and professional soldiers. Hadrian's wall is testament. However, I believe an invader holding ground in southern England could have far reaching moral effects. If this happened AND Germany offered a peace treaty which included leaving England, it is possible public opinion could force an armistice, treaty, or some type of agreement. But as stated before, the Berlin Knuckleheads would not allow as such. And this is one of the many reasons which led to their defeat.
By the way, didn't British propaganda create adversity to end WW1?!!

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Feasibility of Sea Lion and effects if Britain is Conque

#12

Post by LWD » 22 Apr 2014, 21:09

Initially I suspect an invasion would inspire some aprehension. If it was seen as advancing even more so. However once the advances are stopped Britain especially if they were stopped in the first few days all that would pretty much dissapear IMO by the end of the first month. After that it would be apparent that the foot holds were simply not viable long term indeed trying to support them would be a "bleeding ulcer" as far as Germany was concerned and one from which they would have a very hard time withdrawing any of the units landed. Remember the post war gameing allowed for the initial landing to go off fairly readily but as I recall it was pretty much defeated withing the next couple of weeks. The RN might need to make some significant sacrafices but the Germans just didn't have the naval forces to maintain a supply line back to the continent.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Feasibility of Sea Lion and effects if Britain is Conque

#13

Post by phylo_roadking » 22 Apr 2014, 21:24

The UK have always had strong military, tactics, and professional soldiers. Hadrian's wall is testament.
I don't suppose there's any point in noting that it was built by foreigners??? And who, unlike virtually every OTHER arrival on these shores....went home?
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Feasibility of Sea Lion and effects if Britain is Conque

#14

Post by LWD » 22 Apr 2014, 22:25

Well some of them did. I think the intent of his post was to indicate the efforts the "foreigners" went through to defend themselves from the "natives" although I'm not sure I would consider the Picts to be professional soldiers.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Feasibility of Sea Lion and effects if Britain is Conque

#15

Post by phylo_roadking » 22 Apr 2014, 23:26

I think the intent of his post was to indicate the efforts the "foreigners" went through to defend themselves from the "natives" although I'm not sure I would consider the Picts to be professional soldiers.
Yes - but I'd hardly regard Hadrian's legions and those following them on the Wall as being representative of...
The UK have always had strong military, tactics, and professional soldiers. Hadrian's wall is testament.
....the United Kingdom!
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

Post Reply

Return to “What if”