Why Operation Sealion would always have failed

[Dave]

Did you know that the Mulberry Harbours that he talks about at 10.46 are just left rotting on the River Thames off Coldharbour, Rainham?
It's a criminal neglect given their importance to the Allied D Day Landings. They should be maintained, conserved and in a museum of some kind.

 

[Foxbat]

It's the same in Normandy. Bits of Mulberry just wasting away.
When I was a youngster (early seventies), I remember a visit to the beaches of Arromanches and there was still a landing craft there.
When we drove through the Ardennes, I also recall seeing a rusting German anti-tank gun by the side of the road. Many rich collectors would kill for such stuff just lying about today.

As for Sealion, I think it was dead in 1919 when the Treaty Of Versailles placed severe restrictions on German naval strength. Even if they had won the air war, they would not have had significant capacity (or protection for that capacity) to transport enough troops and (more importantly) supplies quickly enough. Even with a rapid naval exapnsion from '33 onward, it still wasn't enough to face the RN.

Of course, if the channel dash by Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and Prinz Eugen had happened a bit earlier, it might have encouraged Hitler to try his luck and just go for it.

But it's also worth remembering that the lack of naval strength was exacerbated in April 1940 when the Germans successfully invaded Norway. It was a phyrric victory because they lost a third of their destroyer strength achieving that objective. After that, it was probably always just a pipe dream and the real aim was to bomb Britain to the negotiating table.

 

[reiver33]

If, and it’s a big if, the Luftwaffe attack on the RAF was better managed, achieving temporary air superiority over the invasion site, and Sealion is a ‘go’, I think it would have resulted in a Phyrric victory for the Royal Navy. As they were to find off Crete, confined searoom offers no defence against a sustained air attack. By ‘confined’ I mean they know exactly where you have to be, and when.

 

[paranoid marvin]

If, and it’s a big if, the Luftwaffe attack on the RAF was better managed, achieving temporary air superiority over the invasion site, and Sealion is a ‘go’, I think it would have resulted in a Phyrric victory for the Royal Navy. As they were to find off Crete, confined searoom offers no defence against a sustained air attack. By ‘confined’ I mean they know exactly where you have to be, and when.

I agree. The RAF could (relatively) easily repair and replace aircraft; you simply can't do that with large ships. The problem is though that dive bombing ships would have been extremely hazardous for the Luftwaffe. As the Japanese found when attacking the US fleet, there was a world of difference between attacking ships in harbour and out on the sea. I'm guessing that most of the German pilots would have had little to no experience of attacking packs of well defended ships, and it was only later in the war when (fairly) accurate weapons were developed.

Having said that, this was a war of attrition. As we saw in Barbarossa shortly afterwards, the Luftwaffe had an awfully large number of planes and pilots to fly them. And they had lots of factories capable of replacing their losses. It's questionable just how much damage the RN would take before withdrawing its forces. With air supremacy won, the Germans could take their time in attacking ports and harbours that the RN might have used, and with a combination of U Boats, battleships and bombers - and nothing to oppose them - the flimsy barges could cross the Channel.

The thing is though that this would have bought the army time to set up (almost) unbeatable defences. We saw in Normandy just how close the Allies came to failure - and that was with the Germans unaware of the point of attack and incredibly poor leadership back in Berlin. Imagine with months of time just how effective the British forces would be when they knew where the Germans were going to land, had dynamic commanders and were defending their home turf. Britain would have been taken eventually, but the cost would have been incredibly high.

 

[BAYLOR]

I agree. The RAF could (relatively) easily repair and replace aircraft; you simply can't do that with large ships. The problem is though that dive bombing ships would have been extremely hazardous for the Luftwaffe. As the Japanese found when attacking the US fleet, there was a world of difference between attacking ships in harbour and out on the sea. I'm guessing that most of the German pilots would have had little to no experience of attacking packs of well defended ships, and it was only later in the war when (fairly) accurate weapons were developed.

Having said that, this was a war of attrition. As we saw in Barbarossa shortly afterwards, the Luftwaffe had an awfully large number of planes and pilots to fly them. And they had lots of factories capable of replacing their losses. It's questionable just how much damage the RN would take before withdrawing its forces. With air supremacy won, the Germans could take their time in attacking ports and harbours that the RN might have used, and with a combination of U Boats, battleships and bombers - and nothing to oppose them - the flimsy barges could cross the Channel.

The thing is though that this would have bought the army time to set up (almost) unbeatable defences. We saw in Normandy just how close the Allies came to failure - and that was with the Germans unaware of the point of attack and incredibly poor leadership back in Berlin. Imagine with months of time just how effective the British forces would be when they knew where the Germans were going to land, had dynamic commanders and were defending their home turf. Britain would have been taken eventually, but the cost would have been incredibly high.

Most of Germanys limited resources were going toward the Luftwaffe and the German Army, They didn't have enough to also build a large surface fleet capable of taking on he Royal Navy. On the orinal time table Hitelr wanted to start the war in 1945 , the problem with time table was the German economy was not great shape , they were facing mountains debt from costs of re-arming and would've collapsed long before 1945.

 

[Foxbat]

I think it's also worth keeping in mind that it's easier to replace planes than experienced pilots. Allied pilots surviving being shot out of the sky would either be ditching in the channel or on British soil. German pilots suffering, the same fate would most likely end up in a prisoner of war camp and, therefore, the attritional nature would always be in favour of British and allied pilots.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Most of Germanys limited resources were going toward the Luftwaffe and the German Army, They didn't have enough to also build a large surface fleet capable of taking on he Royal Navy. On the orinal time table Hitelr wanted to start the war in 1945 , the problem with time table was the German economy was not great shape , they were facing mountains debt from costs of re-arming and would've collapsed long before 1945.

Not only the ships, but the crews and the organisation behind it. The RN had been an effective force for most of the last 500 years; it knew the seas like the back of its hand. Where most of land-locked Europe concentrated mainly on its armies, for the English/British, it had always primarily been the navy (it's actually called the 'senior service'). Even with the ships it was going to be hard for the Germans to compete in any meaningful way against the Royal Navy.

Also Hitler seemed to be convinced that bigger = better, when in fact it could work out better two have several 'pocket' ships instead of one large target.

Having said all of that the U-Boats (until the cracking of Enigma) were having a devastating effect in the Atlantic, and with more and better supported submarines a blockade of ships arriving in Britain could have been more effective than an attempted invasion.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I think it's also worth keeping in mind that it's easier to replace planes than experienced pilots. Allied pilots surviving being shot out of the sky would either be ditching in the channel or on British soil. German pilots suffering, the same fate would most likely end up in a prisoner of war camp and, therefore, the attritional nature would always be in favour of British and allied pilots.

This is true. At this stage of the war, the ability to manufacture sufficient war material was not in question. Having properly trained, battle-hardened people to crew them was an altogether different matter. Aeroplanes like the Spitfire were technically great machines, but they required pilots with a degree of skill to get them to work properly. It's probably no surprise that (at this stage of the war) it was the less-impressive but easier to handle Hurricane that was by far the aircraft with the highest number of kills in the Battle of Britain. I understand that the greater majority of casualties in this conflict were rookie pilots, of which there were a lot (especially on the RAF's side).

 

[Foxbat]

The Hurricane is certainly overlooked somewhat when compared to the Spitfire. For all the Spitfire was a beautiful and nimble thoroughbred of an aircraft, I don't believe Britain would have won without the much more numerous and rugged Huricane.

It's also worth shouting out the contribution by pilots from other places (Poland, Canada, Czechoslovakia etc..). The Few would have been much fewer without these brave men.

 

[mosaix]

Not only the ships, but the crews and the organisation behind it. The RN had been an effective force for most of the last 500 years; it knew the seas like the back of its hand. Where most of land-locked Europe concentrated mainly on its armies, for the English/British, it had always primarily been the navy (it's actually called the 'senior service'). Even with the ships it was going to be hard for the Germans to compete in any meaningful way against the Royal Navy.

Also Hitler seemed to be convinced that bigger = better, when in fact it could work out better two have several 'pocket' ships instead of one large target.

Having said all of that the U-Boats (until the cracking of Enigma) were having a devastating effect in the Atlantic, and with more and better supported submarines a blockade of ships arriving in Britain could have been more effective than an attempted invasion.

It’s a sobering thought that even though the army, navy and airforces of the Allied Powers were fundamental to the defeat of the Nazis a relatively small team at Bletchley Park also played a significant part. No doubt the war would have dragged on for months and years without them.

The cracking of Enigma gave Montgomery the upper hand against Rommel in North Africa in what was the turning point of the war in Europe.

 

[mosaix]

The Hurricane is certainly overlooked somewhat when compared to the Spitfire. For all the Spitfire was a beautiful and nimble thoroughbred of an aircraft, I don't believe Britain would have won without the much more numerous and rugged Huricane.

It's also worth shouting out the contribution by pilots from other places (Poland, Canada, Czechoslovakia etc..). The Few would have been much fewer without these brave men.

Here in Bridgnorth, where there was a fighter base, there is a row of 11 graves of Canadian air crew in the cemetery.

 

[Foxbat]

Here in Bridgnorth, where there was a fighter base, there is a row of 11 graves of Canadian air crew in the cemetery.

Here's a breakdown of the numbers and nationalities defending our skies

Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[paranoid marvin]

It's a sobering thought that the average life expectancy of a Spitfire pilot in the Battle of Britain was just 4 weeks. It was more a case of 'when' than 'if'. Even more tragic when you consider that most of them would still have been very young.

 

[mosaix]

It's a sobering thought that the average life expectancy of a Spitfire pilot in the Battle of Britain was just 4 weeks. It was more a case of 'when' than 'if'. Even more tragic when you consider that most of them would still have been very young.

I think 'young' is the key to the armed forces, @paranoid marvin. I distinctly remember my son's general attitude to life in his late teens / early twenties. He thought he could do anything, that he was impregnable, that he would live forever. It's exactly what the armed forces need from people who are expected to 'go over the top'. Now he's in his late forties he's more likely to think "Now hang on a minute, let's just think about this".

 

[Pyan]

If the Kaiser, with his almost-parity in naval strength with Britain in 1914, considered an invasion wasn't an option, there was no chance that Hitler could have managed it with his far-inferior navy in 1940.
Historically, the German strength has always been in land forces - both the Kaiser and Hitler were extremely reluctant to risk their big ships in battle. In fact, in WWI, Admirals Ingenohl and Hipper were forbidden to take the fleets out of harbour without the express permission of the Kaiser, a course followed in 1940 by Hitler.

 

[BAYLOR]

It’s a sobering thought that even though the army, navy and airforces of the Allied Powers were fundamental to the defeat of the Nazis a relatively small team at Bletchley Park also played a significant part. No doubt the war would have dragged on for months and years without them.

The cracking of Enigma gave Montgomery the upper hand against Rommel in North Africa in what was the turning point of the war in Europe.

The Royal Navy also captured a German Uboat along with an Enigma machine, That certainly helped.

 

[BAYLOR]

It's a sobering thought that the average life expectancy of a Spitfire pilot in the Battle of Britain was just 4 weeks. It was more a case of 'when' than 'if'. Even more tragic when you consider that most of them would still have been very young.

Brave and good men . In doing what they did, they helped save the world from Hitler. We all owe them a debt we can never repay.

 

[paranoid marvin]

If the Kaiser, with his almost-parity in naval strength with Britain in 1914, considered an invasion wasn't an option, there was no chance that Hitler could have managed it with his far-inferior navy in 1940.
Historically, the German strength has always been in land forces - both the Kaiser and Hitler were extremely reluctant to risk their big ships in battle. In fact, in WWI, Admirals Ingenohl and Hipper were forbidden to take the fleets out of harbour without the express permission of the Kaiser, a course followed in 1940 by Hitler.

I agree. I think that the German navy was more of a deterrence to stop the RN sailing right up to their doorstep with impunity. Also as a 'status symbol' with some of the biggest ever battleships like Tirpitz and Bismarck, which is great publicity - until they get sunk.

If the Nazis had managed to build a substantial naval fleet, then WWII could have had a very different outcome. But it's far harder to conceal the building of a fleet of battleships/aircraft carriers/destroyers etc. than it is submarines and aircraft. Likely the RN would have seen the building of such a fleet as a direct threat, and likely acted much sooner in declaring war than they did.

 

[Foxbat]

I agree. I think that the German navy was more of a deterrence to stop the RN sailing right up to their doorstep with impunity. Also as a 'status symbol' with some of the biggest ever battleships like Tirpitz and Bismarck, which is great publicity - until they get sunk.

Which is precisely why the cruiser Deutschland was renamed Lutzow. Hitler realised that it would be a propaganda disaster to have a ship with such a name sunk by the enemy.

 

[BAYLOR]

I agree. I think that the German navy was more of a deterrence to stop the RN sailing right up to their doorstep with impunity. Also as a 'status symbol' with some of the biggest ever battleships like Tirpitz and Bismarck, which is great publicity - until they get sunk.

If the Nazis had managed to build a substantial naval fleet, then WWII could have had a very different outcome. But it's far harder to conceal the building of a fleet of battleships/aircraft carriers/destroyers etc. than it is submarines and aircraft. Likely the RN would have seen the building of such a fleet as a direct threat, and likely acted much sooner in declaring war than they did.

The Germans only built one aircraft Carrier, the Graf Zeppelin which never actually saw service .