[jim]

Good points timbo but I disagree. I have spent long hours looking into this one and I am certain that had the RAF failed I would be typing this in German. The only problem the German army had was how to get the heavy equipment over the channel. If they could do that then the war would be won. The Brits had little heavy equipment themselves and no effective anti tank guns. The German plan was very far reaching and included a para landing similar to Crete. part of the plan was to capture an airfield or clear an area in order to get air transport in and some fighter back up. Without the RAF the German high command was confident that a landing could be made ,held and supplied. keep in mind Goering claimed he would have over 1000 fighters and 800 bombers to cover the landings. (he had somewhat less when the RAF had done their bit). The plan was similar to the taxi rank system used by the allies after D Day. This system was used very effectively by the Henschell 129s against Russia armour although it could not be sustained . keep in mind that the whole of the North sea was covered by the Luftwaffe. the RN would have had to run the gauntlet of all that just to get near the landing zones. Part of the plan was for the Luftwaffe and U Boats to mine the approaches all down the coastline. The Uboats were then to lay in wait and sink any ship that tried to run the passage. If you do the arithmetic and see what the RN had available at the time, then look at what the Germans were ready to throw into the battle I think you will agree the RN would have had little chance. The turn around time for the Stukas and other planes was practised by the ground crews until they could boast 10 minute turn arounds. Sealion was a full and comprehensive plan that required all the German services to work together all at the same time. with what we know of German efficiency I dont think that would have been a problem. I take the point about the landing barges but keep in mind that they had a large number of powered craft and also the German destroyers and smaller surface ships (these were scattered all up the coastal ports to avoid the British bombers))were to be used to ferry men across.
This is a complex subject and it is difficult to go into the finer details in so small a space. it is my humble opinion that had the RAF been defeated as planned then the landings would have gone ahead. fortunately the plan was flawed from the start and the RAF was at no time in the battle anywhere near to defeat. As pointed out there were still Raf squadrons that had not engaged in the conflict even by the end of September. The German plan to draw down the RAF just didnt happen. the forces and infrastructure was there but scattered supposedly to be drawn together very quickly if Sealion was given the go ahead. Hitler was indeed luke warm about an invasion but had the RAF been defeated he would have been left with little option but to invade. Remember his speech, "They ask when I am coming". This topic is my favorite subject and I am enjoying posts, keep them coming and we will all learn a little more . The end result is that the story of the heroism of the Few will be passed onto the younger generation of chaps on the hanger.

Originally Posted by timbo

Wonderful thread Not sure how I missed it until now

Yes the RAF won the battle by making sure that the invasion never happened, but even if they had been defeted, I don't believe for a moment that it would have been sucessfull. This is no river crossing.

Even if the 11 group had been defeated in August/September, what about 12 group and the rest if the squadrons stationed up north that were never attacked?

I also think that the Germans plan to cross the Channel in Rine barges was increadably stupid. Most of these were unpowered and would have been towed. Anyone who has been over on that sea in a small boat will know how rough it can get on a calm day. These were not craft designed for that type of crossing. How fast would they have gone? 2/3 knots? that puts about a 10 hour crossing at the narrowest point. There is no way in hell that they could dash over at 20 knots+ which is what RO-RO ferries do. I have to say that I think our biggest defense would be that most of the barges would sink on the way.

The U-Boat peril would have been a thorn in the side of the RN surface fleet, and the Stuka's would have had a field day as they did in Greece/Crete but the RN had a v.large sub force, and also MTB's that could have put a huge dent in any re-supply/re-inforcement operation. Even if you get the toops over there, if you can't get adequate fuel/ammunition what are they going to do? Sit around for 6 months??

Also how were they going to land supplies to do the knockout dash to London? Any attempt to capture a port would have left it unusable for months as the facilities would have been blown.

The Germans just didn't have the infrastructure to do it and then support it.

[timbo]

But Jim a vast amount of the German destoyers and surface craft needed to protect the invasion had been recently destoyed in the Norwegan campain.

Yes I agree that the major units of the british fleet would have been hard pressed, but I think that would have forced the small craft and RN sub's into the picture and they could have devastated the invasion fleet with little or no comeback from the German navy. The Sub argument works both ways, and unless you have effective anti submarine measures favor the attacker.

The RN subs also could have laid mines in the path of the slow moving invasion fleet.

Once you get the panzers accross, how are you going to unload them? I read an artical on this somwhere and I seem to remember that they were going to blow off the barge's bow. There would have been no cranes or usable heavy unloading equipment available, and how would the have been kept sustained with fuel for the push? That's one less barge to be able to go back to France to bring reinforcements back to the UK.

Airborne forces work best when taking something in complete suprise. and need to be releived very fast. That supprise was lost as the whole of the UK thought they were comming. Look at the horrific losses that the Germans suffered in Crete, and that was against a force in much worse condition than the UK was in the summer of 1940. Yes Crete fell, but it cost the attacking force dearly.
The Germans viewed this as nothing more than a large river crossing . It wouldn't have been pretty, but I think they would have come unstuck. You can't build a pontoon bridge to relieve the bridgehead! The only times they managed to get out of Europe was to Africa, and to do that they needed frendly ports and facilities to unload at and build up their force.

[Folgore]

First, thanks for posting the article, parsig. Fascinating thread -- I don’t know why I’ve missed it until now.

I agree with bsmith’s observation in post #6 that the Joint Services Command Staff College historians are presenting a what-if scenario: If the Wehrmacht had attempted an invasion, here’s how the RN would’ve blown them out of the water. Whether you agree with their arguments or not is a moot point because, after all, it’s a hypothetical scenario.

Here’s the question: Did the Germans decide to abandon Operation Sea Lion because they felt the RAF continued to pose too great a threat, or because they felt their cross-Channel invasion had little hope of success for the reasons the JSCSC historians outline? That is, did the RAF or the RN stop the invasion from occurring?

Well, it’s a trick question: It assumes only one answer, when both are correct.

Implicit in the historians’ argument as laid out in the article (although it’s never explicitly stated therein) is the contention that OKW planners identified the same obstacles posed by the RN and ground forces that the historians enumerate, and abandoned their invasion plans based on their assessment that those obstacles posed too great a risk to a cross-Channel invasion. (The opposing viewpoint being that the OKW planners abandoned their invasion plans due the Luftwaffe’s failure to wrest control of the air from the RAF.)

But the decision to abandon Operation Sea Lion was a group decision, arrived at by many OKW officers (not to mention Hitler). Some of them felt the RAF posed the insurmountable obstacle, while for others, the RN and/or ground forces posed the greatest obstacles. (For some in the latter group-- mainly representing the OKH and the KM -- the Luftwaffe’s failure to eliminate the RAF also provided a convenient excuse to argue against the invasion without having to admit their own services weren’t up to the task.)

Many other OKW planners, I’m sure, saw all threats posed by the RAF, RN and ground forces and just threw up their hands at the whole idea. To put it in social sciences-speak, the German decision not to invade England was overdetermined; that is, there were more than enough reasons behind the decision.

So the RAF and the RN stopped the invasion from going forward by together convincing enough OKW planners to arrive at a consensus decision to abandon Operation Sea Lion. Again, for some the decision may have been driven primarily by the RAF while for others it may have been driven primarily by the RN and/or ground forces, but what matters is the joint consensus decision, which was driven by all factors.

To ask if one or another factor, in the absence of all other factors, would have stopped the planned invasion from moving forward -- say, would the RAF have convinced the OKW not to invade even if there were no RN -- is a moot hypothetical. An even more hypothetical question is whether or not the RAF or RN would have been able to actually stop an invasion. Of course, you’re free to argue any view you want to…

A few caveats: First this whole argument has nothing to do with the Battle of Britain -- that is, by definition, the air battle between the RAF and the Luftwaffe, and the RAF won. RAF! RAF! RAF!

Second, another argument that some of the posts in this thread have touched on -- an argument pertaining to the Battle of Britain -- is just how stretched/outnumbered the RAF was compared to the Luftwaffe. I’m not gonna go there. I’ve spent too much time on this already.

Frankly, I think that in writing the article, Brian James has simplified and sensationalized the JSCSC historians’ arguments. I’m sure they are, at least in part, just aiming to teach military professionals to think beyond Fighter Command when analyzing the Fall of 1940, and to consider all of the factors that saved England.

[mapleflag]

Dr. Gordon, as a naval historian would only be able to comment on the operation from a naval standpoint, I don't believe for a second the RN
would have come close to mounting a sustained battle against the Luftwaffe
and the Kriegsmarine simultaneously. Based on the good Doctor's logic, had the German's decided to invade from the north through Scotland, camouflaged as sheep then a shepherd and a couple of well-trained sheepdogs could have stalled the attack!http://www.telegraph.co.uk/;jsession...GSFFWAVCBQWIV0

[Gort]

British determination, guts and resolve defeated the Nazi juggernaut. Spits and Hurricanes merely expressed that spirit.

[mikeb1958]

What happened to all the different country flags from where each member was from? All I see is USA flags! Did we invade the whole world??? Looks like the BORG was from the USA!

[david cotton]

With the benefit on hind sight, I don’t think Sea Lion would have been a success. The first Allied landing in North Africa was the first real amphibious assault. Up till then everyone only has Gallipolis to go by.


The Allied forces in the North Africa found out just how hard it could be in 1942. German Paratroopers in the Mediterranean also found out how costly a combat jump could be. However, in 1940 these problems were not yet known.

The destruction of the Fighter Command would of given them the opportunity to try an invasion of England. Had the assault been thrown back , I suspect Germany would not of gone against Russia, having sustained damaging losses. I think they would of consolidated, isolated England, secured the Balkans and North Africa. Lets not forget how big a country Germany is, they were able to fight a total war with Russia for almost 4 years.


Fighter Command , had it been decimated, would not have been able to prevent German Aircraft marauding over England. More U boats could of isolated the supplies to England.


Without supplies, the North Africa Campaign would have been lost. Remember, England actually invaded Iran during the war, to secure the oil fields. With North Africa lost, Germany would have had those Iranian oil fields.


Isolated and without supplies, England would of struck a deal or been invaded. I think we would of struck a deal to secure the remains of the British Empire.

[djjeffhall]

David,
Hey there.

You make some good points, however German and Russia were going to have a war. Both sides new it and both sides were gearing up for it from day one.

Hitler knew that if he waited for Russia to strike, he would have been crushed. He invaded when he did as the Soviet Military was at it's lowest readiness level ever. Stalins purges decimated (In the literal and figuarative term.) the command staff and troops.

[david cotton]

Originally Posted by djjeffhall

David,
Hey there.

You make some good points, however German and Russia were going to have a war. Both sides new it and both sides were gearing up for it from day one.

Hitler knew that if he waited for Russia to strike, he would have been crushed. He invaded when he did as the Soviet Military was at it's lowest readiness level ever. Stalins purges decimated (In the literal and figuarative term.) the command staff and troops.

I agree that Russia and Germany were going to fight. However, if a German Invasion of England had been defeated, I don't think they would of taken on Russia in 1941. The defeat would probably of high lighted their own weaknesses to them and made them more cautious.

The taking of North Africa, would of given the German army a task that it could of accomplished in a weakened state. The result would of been control of the med, the oil fields of the middle east and the cutting of the Suize canal.

I do not think holding invading Russia by a year or 2 would of been bad for the Germans. Removal of the Western front would of been a bigger advantage.

[djjeffhall]

David,
Perhaps, and again, you made some good points.

However, I still think that logistics would have prevented Germany from getting further in North Africa than they did. (Or at least getting further in any meanful way. Rommel got where he was but couldn't hold it and manuever do to a lack of fuel, parts, etc. You have to have enough of an army to hold x point. Not just get one detrermined squad to x+.)

They never had the resources to project their navy (And therefore carry their army.) overseas. They would have needed the middle east oil to fuel their army over to the middle east to take it. A conundrum I don't think they could have overcome. (Kind of similiar ro the railways in Russia.)