Why Operation Sealion would always have failed

[Foxbat]

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

Here’s a wiki on the carrier. It explains (if accurate) why it was never completed. Personally, I’ve often wondered what kind of aircraft it would carry. Stukas would be the obvious choice for offensive missions if the landing gear is as sturdy as it looks. The Me 109 looks rather fragile to me as a fighter cover choice. According to the article, there was a need to design a dedicated fighter aircraft ( carrier take off and landing causes huge stresses on aircraft landing gear) with the 109 as a stopgap. Perhaps the Focke Wulf 190 would have been suitable if it had come along earlier - but it looks a bit large for a potential carrier fighter.

German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[paranoid marvin]

One of the aspects of the Nazi party was political infighting, which was largely encouraged by Hitler (as long as he didn't feel threatened personally). An aircraft carrier required the air force and navy to work together, which was always going to be a tough ask.

The thing is about an aircraft carrier is that it's a huge sitting duck, and the focus for all enemy activity; it requires copious amounts of protection which the German navy just couldn't provide. The only way that an aircraft carrier could be put into operation was if the Royal Navy was defeated first.

And at this stage of the war, there was no requirement for an aircraft carrier anyway. What the Germans really needed were decent medium-long range bombers, and fighter protection that could stay in the air over Britain for more than half an hour. But aircraft carriers are another 'status symbol' of a 'super-power' and so Hitler had to have one regardless.

 

[BAYLOR]

One of the aspects of the Nazi party was political infighting, which was largely encouraged by Hitler (as long as he didn't feel threatened personally). An aircraft carrier required the air force and navy to work together, which was always going to be a tough ask.

The thing is about an aircraft carrier is that it's a huge sitting duck, and the focus for all enemy activity; it requires copious amounts of protection which the German navy just couldn't provide. The only way that an aircraft carrier could be put into operation was if the Royal Navy was defeated first.

And at this stage of the war, there was no requirement for an aircraft carrier anyway. What the Germans really needed were decent medium-long range bombers, and fighter protection that could stay in the air over Britain for more than half an hour. But aircraft carriers are another 'status symbol' of a 'super-power' and so Hitler had to have one regardless.

General Walter Wever was in change of the Luftwaffe until 1936 was a proponent of a 4 engine long range bombers and strategic bombing. he managed to few prototypes build but on his death the 4 enginebommber was abandoned in favor 2 engine bomber which were cheaper and faster to produce. For the Luftwaffe this proved to be a fateful decision which would ultimately prove fate to Germany military , because the two engine bombers lacked the ranger and the heavy carrying capacity for them to ace their objectives. It one the contrubign facto. of their overall failure to knock the RAF and Births Aircraft production . In Russia , Stalin movie all his war production factories east of the Ural and well out the range of Germany bombers.

 

[paranoid marvin]

General Walter Wever was in change of the Luftwaffe until 1936 was a proponent of a 4 engine long range bombers and strategic bombing. he managed to few prototypes build but on his death the 4 enginebommber was abandoned in favor 2 engine bomber which were cheaper and faster to produce. For the Luftwaffe this proved to be a fateful decision which would ultimately prove fate to Germany military , because the two engine bombers lacked the ranger and the heavy carrying capacity for them to ace their objectives. It one the contrubign facto. of their overall failure to knock the RAF and Births Aircraft production . In Russia , Stalin movie all his war production factories east of the Ural and well out the range of Germany bombers.

I think part of the German's decision was that the aircraft would never need to travel too far in front of the advancing ground forces to warrant long-range operations. Out of necessity the RAF and later USAAF needed long range aircraft to get to their targets in Berlin.

It's just as well, because the Germans did quite enough damage to British cities and ports with their lighter, shorter ranged bombers. If they had had heavier, longer range aircraft equivalent to the B-17 or the Lancaster, the story could have turned out much differently. Able to carry heavier payloads over a longer distance, they could easily have reached all ports and cities around the UK, as well as effective against naval targets at sea, they would have been a major threat to the RN.

 

[reiver33]

If you want a ‘what the hell were you thinking?’ Read, try ‘Luftwaffe: Strategy for defeat’ by Williamson Murray

 

[BAYLOR]

If you want a ‘what the hell were you thinking?’ Read, try ‘Luftwaffe: Strategy for defeat’ by Williamson Murray

The Most Dangerous Enemy A History of the Battle of Britain by Stephen Bungay .

 

[BAYLOR]

I think part of the German's decision was that the aircraft would never need to travel too far in front of the advancing ground forces to warrant long-range operations. Out of necessity the RAF and later USAAF needed long range aircraft to get to their targets in Berlin.

It's just as well, because the Germans did quite enough damage to British cities and ports with their lighter, shorter ranged bombers. If they had had heavier, longer range aircraft equivalent to the B-17 or the Lancaster, the story could have turned out much differently. Able to carry heavier payloads over a longer distance, they could easily have reached all ports and cities around the UK, as well as effective against naval targets at sea, they would have been a major threat to the RN.

They would been able wear down the RAF , crippled aircraft production and knocked Britain out of the war . And for Hitler, with no war on two and possibly supplies oil from the Middle East, would been able to throw everything he had at the Russia . With long range bombers in his arsenal, its conceivable that he defeats Russia or at the very least cripples it the point wherein would no longer be a major threat to him . This would have been nightmare possibility of epic proportions.

 

[Foxbat]

I think that perhaps the answer to Germany’s lack of a strategic bomber was down to doctrine more than anything else. Germany is well known for its engineering prowess and I’m certain that with the correct industrial focus a strategic bomber force would not have been beyond them.

The Luftwaffe was moulded primarily into the arial arm of Blitzkrieg techniques and that whole philosophy was more about ground support than anything else. Even the strategic bombing that was used was carried out to enhance blitzkrieg techniques by forcing civilians from their homes through the use terror (also the reason why the Ju87 Stuka carried the Jericho Siren). The roads then clogged with refugees made it difficult for the opposing side to use those same roads for retreat or manoeuvre.

If the war doctrine adopted by the Nazis had not been blitzkrieg then perhaps more focus would have been placed on strategic bombing. Of course, if this had been the case and the early successes gained from Blitzkrieg had not been replicated by a different doctrine, an effective strategic bombing force would have been meaningless because the war would most likely have turned against Nazi Germany quicker than it did.

 

[paranoid marvin]

The other thing to consider is that Hitler didn't expect such a quick war in the West. The previous conflict had been a much more protracted affair, and by the time war in the West had been won, he would have had the time to properly prepare for war in the East. The fact that the Western conflict went so quickly, combined with purge of top commanders by Stalin, meant that Hitler was capable of attacking much earlier. Which would have worked if it had been over quickly, but a combination of factors showed that the Germans clearly weren't prepared for anything other than a rapid victory.

 

[BAYLOR]

The other thing to consider is that Hitler didn't expect such a quick war in the West. The previous conflict had been a much more protracted affair, and by the time war in the West had been won, he would have had the time to properly prepare for war in the East. The fact that the Western conflict went so quickly, combined with purge of top commanders by Stalin, meant that Hitler was capable of attacking much earlier. Which would have worked if it had been over quickly, but a combination of factors showed that the Germans clearly weren't prepared for anything other than a rapid victory.

When Hitler launched Barbarossa , he did so on a later time then he intended which was caused by hm being forced to sen his troops into Greece to bail out Mussolini. This delay put the Wehrmacht on a collision course with the Russian winter of which they were not prepared to deal with . The German solders were wearing summer uniforms and not winter gear and , their tanks and mechanized vehicles which ran on Diesel, froze in the cold . And worse , they were going into Russia with a Luftwaffe that came out of the Battle of Britain significantly weakened. Lots and lots of fatal mistakes and delays doomed Germany to defeat.

 

[BAYLOR]

Germany also lacked quality Iron ore deposits , which forced import ore from Sweden to make the steel build their weapons and vehicles and this not helpful to them economically and strategically . This is why they had get control of both Sweden and Norway . Another problem they had was oil production. Germany did have much in the way of oil and had import most of it. However , Germany did have coal and, the firm of I G Farbin had found a method of converting coal into oil and gasoline . Yes , it supplied some of their fuel needs but not nearly enough and, it was expensive and slow.

 

[Swank]

I got burned out on this sort of topic when I started thinking about the actual chances of a country with a population of 86 million and no significant natural resources "winning" a world war. Did people think the Germans were going to convert the populations of Poland, France and England into willing armies?

The whole thing is absurd.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I got burned out on this sort of topic when I started thinking about the actual chances of a country with a population of 86 million and no significant natural resources "winning" a world war. Did people think the Germans were going to convert the populations of Poland, France and England into willing armies?

The whole thing is absurd.

I think that the Germans initially expected the war to go something like WWI except without Russia and the US on the Allied side, and with Italy an active partner on theirs. They almost won WWI; in fact many people(including Hitler) believed that they would have won were it not for the armistice agreed upon by their superiors.

They actually did too well in getting to the French coast so quickly, with the vast majority of the British forces still intact. Either still in Britain, or returned after Dunkirk. If the British had been (as they were in WWI) drawn into transporting huge amounts of men and machinery onto mainland Europe - and then been defeated - they would have been more likely to surrender.

After over-running all of mainland Europe, there were many ways in which Germany could have won WWII, or at least limited it to a European conflict.

 

[Toby Frost]

I think the Nazis and Japanese greatly underestimated their opponents and overestimated their own men - after all, fascism pretty much teaches you to do that. Early victories, which were helped by being better-prepared for war, reinforced this view, and they expected their enemies to be terrified into submission or to just be fundamentally inferior fighters.

 

[Swank]

I think that the Germans initially expected the war to go something like WWI except without Russia and the US on the Allied side, and with Italy an active partner on theirs. They almost won WWI; in fact many people(including Hitler) believed that they would have won were it not for the armistice agreed upon by their superiors.

They actually did too well in getting to the French coast so quickly, with the vast majority of the British forces still intact. Either still in Britain, or returned after Dunkirk. If the British had been (as they were in WWI) drawn into transporting huge amounts of men and machinery onto mainland Europe - and then been defeated - they would have been more likely to surrender.

After over-running all of mainland Europe, there were many ways in which Germany could have won WWII, or at least limited it to a European conflict.

I don't know what "almost won" means. They didn't win and were so beat by the end that Versailles happened.

The simple fact is that it was never going to be an even fight, and the fight was always going to go to whoever got the US to come in on their side. Which happened in WWI and it was crazy to think it wasn't going to happen in WWII.

One can only assume that the Germans were gripped by some sort of 19th century delusions about how territory is held and empires built. They didn't even have the Marxist indoctrination thing that might help you ideologically hold a captive population over generations.

WWII would have always ended with a destroyed Germany, even if it had to happen entirely with trans-Atlantic bombing missions. The Germans never held enough resources within contiguous borders to fight a real world war - just one where the other world powers stayed out of it for convenience. Japan took the same view - make it a pain and hope the US remains isolationist, even though it wasn't in WWI.

And that's just taking the US into account, and ignoring all the other players.


I just think it is fun game to play - talking about WWII and German innovations as if there was ever a long term ability to capture and hold a significant portion of the world with an ideology centered on German-ness and a lack of state resources.

 

[Foxbat]

I think of all the stupid things Hitler did, declaring war on the USA on December 11th 1941 was the worst. Not because of the obvious industrial might that the USA brought to the fight but because of the uncertainty it would have brought to the allied cause if he had not declared war.

I’m sure a large proportion of Americans would have wanted to concentrate on defeating Japan and Roosevelt would have had a tough job persuading his country to declare war on Germany when they were already committed to fighting in the Pacific. Hitler let him off the hook.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I think of all the stupid things Hitler did, declaring war on the USA on December 11th 1941 was the worst. Not because of the obvious industrial might that the USA brought to the fight but because of the uncertainty it would have brought to the allied cause if he had not declared war.

I’m sure a large proportion of Americans would have wanted to concentrate on defeating Japan and Roosevelt would have had a tough job persuading his country to declare war on Germany when they were already committed to fighting in the Pacific. Hitler let him off the hook.

I'm sure the day that Hitler declared war on the US, Churchill lit the biggest cigar he could find , and opened a bottle of his very finest whiskey.

WWII had been raging for more than 2 years, and still the US had not declared war on Germany. This despite the exhortations of Churchill and the sinking of many ships and the loss of many American lives to the German U-Boats. It makes you wonder what it would have taken for the US to declare war, and I'm really not sure that the attack on Pearl Harbour by Japanese forces would have been the catalyst.

When you go into a war, the last thing you need is to start it on two fronts directly opposite each other, with both requiring considerable numbers of men and munitions. Obviously after Germany declared war, the US had little choice but to intervene before the prospect of a Russian and/or British defeat which would have made the task immeasurably more difficult.

I can think of only 3 reasons why Hitler would choose to declare war at this time.

1.He thought that a declaration of war against Germany was certain, and he wanted to get in there first. And that as Japan was the most immediate threat, the US would concentrate against them, allowing the German navy to wage open warfare against US ships in the Atlantic.

2.He thought that by declaring war he would cement his alliance with Japan, and gain their aid in a pincer movement from the East. He also probably assumed that with the Japanese on a war footing and the US having significant damage to their Pacific fleet that it would take many years before they could effectively attack the Japanese.

3. Hitler was delusional that he really could defeat the US, when in reality he could barely mount an effective attack. If he'd waited until the V3 or V5, or had time to develop long range bombers or (perish the though) atom bombs then it was possible, though still incredibly risky. Whilst on the other hand the US could supply hundreds of thousands of troops and millions of tonnes of equipment to bolster the war in Europe.

If on the other hand Hitler had publicly decried the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour and dismissed the pact with Japan (even if merely as a ruse) and perhaps offered military support to the US against the Japanese, it would have thrown things completely into disarray. I'm not sure that Roosevelt would have been able to sell his 'Europe First' plan to either his government or the people.

 

[mosaix]

I got burned out on this sort of topic when I started thinking about the actual chances of a country with a population of 86 million and no significant natural resources "winning" a world war. Did people think the Germans were going to convert the populations of Poland, France and England into willing armies?

The whole thing is absurd.

A proportion of the population of each of those countries, as well as others in Europe, were Nazi sympathisers. Probably not enough to turn into armies but certainly a significant number. Without their help administering the occupation of the European mainland would have been impossible.

 

[reiver33]

From reading Gehlen, Guderian and Manstein, and their interactions with Hitler, he was someone driven to be in charge of events, and prone to procrastination in the face of an enemy offensive. In terms of declaring war on the USA, I believe this was a result of Operation Typhoon (the attack on Moscow) having ground to a halt, despite his increasing strident exhortations, and a way of satisfying his ego driven pathology. Taking the initiation, in the face of all sound military, economic and political advice (not that he sought much), was his primary goal, and then justified on the basis the Americans were bound to attack eventually. Had he just sat on his hands, so to speak, the US public clamouring for action against the Japanese should have forced an orientation of industrial and military effort towards the Pacific, making major support for Britain and (especially) the USSR problematic.

 

[CupofJoe]

I'm sure the day that Hitler declared war on the US, Churchill lit the biggest cigar he could find , and opened a bottle of his very finest whiskey.

I remember someone saying Churchill did exactly on hearing the news of America entering the war.
There was a lot of rhetoric and propaganda for the general public [and Hitler was an uncertified loon] but I can't see that he had any significant intention of starting a world wide war. He wanted land [and prestige] in Europe.
The land he was willing to take from countries that couldn't or wouldn't stand up to Germany and had few allies [Czechoslovakia and Austria to start and then Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania].
Poland was supposed to be the same.
France was going to get it because of the Treaty of Versailles.
And he thought every one hated the Soviets.
The prestige would come from ruling from the Atlantic to the Urals.
No doubt with a lot of wishful thinking I think he was certain that after he had annexed France, Britain would quietly sue for peace if it could keep its external empire.
He had been given advice that the British Aristocracy would not support a war with Germany and would [peacefully] overthrow the elected government if the treaty with Poland was enforced. [And possible re-install Edward VIII as king]
He was also pretty sure that Spain would come in to the "limited" war on Germany's side, seize Gibraltar and effective close the Mediterranean Sea and the Suez Canal to the Royal Navy. That would probably have meant the fall of Malta and successful North African campaign for the Axis.
Now any raw material or personnel to or from the East would have to go via the Cape.
It isn't hard to imagine that Germany [and its allies] could have controlled the Med from Greece right the way around to Palestine and Syria. This could have given Turkey real cause to reconsider their fairly strict neutrality. If it does the Axis powers have railways from the oilfields of the middle east in to the centre of Europe.
And maybe a way to attack the Soviets from the south as well as the east much closer to all those lovely oil fields in the Caucuses.
None of this happened so we will never know [unless someone is hiding a dimensional jumping time machine from us]