Sealion 2.0

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Please.

[fsn]

I agree. Sealion 2.0 is hypothetical. You can argue as many "what if's" as you want, but surely the point of Mr BigBoss's game is to kick around a few ideas?

[Steve J]

Agreed. I've read all the posts and have taken on board all points of view, which are equally valid IMHO.

[Hertsblue]

But surely it all hinges on the German ability to achieve air superiority?

Interestingly, there was a program on the Battle of Britain on Yesterday yesterday (yes, you did read that correctly). Their research effectively debunked some of the hoarier myths surrounding the battle, e.g.

1) The Germans would have knocked out the RAF in southern England if they had continued to attack the British airfields. In fact, at the height of the German offensive only one airfield (Manston in Kent) was non-operational for more than twenty-four hours. As the British found out in the Falklands campaign, permanently knocking out airfields (even with much improved weapons) is next to impossible.

2) Both sides outrageously exaggerated enemy losses - which is why the Germans were convinced they were close to breaking through.

3) Both sides made the elementary mistake of assuming that the enemy's units were the same size as their own. However, a German staffeln was normally 12 aircraft strong, whereas a British squadron at full strength was 18 - 20 aircraft strong. The Germans were therefore underestimating British strength whilst the British, for their part, reckoned that the Germans had far more aircraft than they actually had.

4) The Germans were actually losing the war of attrition. The British aircraft industry was comfortably out-producing its German opponents - in fighters at any rate. There was never a shortage of aircraft. As one veteran said, "we woke up in the morning and there they were - as if by magic."

5) There was never a shortage of pilots either. If you examine RAF strength records (and they still exist) there were always more pilots than aircraft available.

6) The Germans left it too late. By the end of September, with no sign of the RAF being beaten, it was obvious even to Hitler that any invasion would have had to have been postponed.

Having said all that, let me endorse fsn's comment. It's a wargame, for Pete's sake, a work of fiction. Assume whatever you like, but do it! I for one will read the report with interest.       

[sebigboss79]

Welcome here fsn and no please do not add Centurions

The initial idea is indeed "how could it happen" and as a number of people smarter than me suggested it could. Most notably Winston S. Churchill and the quoted book by Norman Longmate.

There already has been a lively and healthy discussion on options, most notably freddy. What is not helpful is repetition of points that have been raised and discarded. E.g. the potential involvement of the Royal Navy. It is in my eyes not adding value to take facts out of context such as insisting on Royal Navy playing Kamikaze when the real plans called for a withdrawal of all heavy units to Canada. This point in particular was discussed by Longmate concluding that the Germans would be quite unhappy and impose harsher terms and that Britain would rather live under those than to hand the Germans any of his Majesty's ships.

Longmate finds it strange that many people adopt the "Napoleon could not do it" contemplation and that since the Germans are the bad guys they naturally have to loose. If such was the case then why was the Homeguard/LDV established? Why were so many defenses built throughout Britain? Why was the Bank of England's Gold reserves shipped to Canada? Why was the former King evacuated? Why the plans to evacuate the Governments in Exile and the British Government?

There is only one answer: Sealion was a possibility. Not a foregone conclusion!

The Sandhurst Wargame concluded the Germans are able to land and break out of the beachheads besides the RAF contesting the command of the air (a typical British understatement: Luftwaffe in said scenario does not much more than valiantly die). Moreover the Germans are beaten when the combined sea and air power of the Empire cuts them off and yet it takes prepared defenses as the GHQ line to end the invasion.

The question asked with this thread is: What if the Germans truly had established air dominance (THE prerequisite of Kriegsmarine, Luftwaffe and the Wehrmnacht).

The remaining question is the inability of the Germans to transport and supply an invasion.

Initially the mere idea of the Germans being able to assamble enough transportation has been ridiculed.
Then the transportation was there.

Secondly the quality of said transportation was ridiculed.
Sandhurst concluded it sufficient and able to ferry the invasion force to the landing areas. Besides RAF, interference by the RN AND the invasion force being detected quite early.

If such an illustre cadre including Galland conclude that the invasion itself is successful (which does not mean the campaign is) besides all odds against the Germans then who am I to dispute that?
I am the one, or rather one of the many, that still ask these "what if" questions. What if the Germans were not as thick as Sandhurst assumed? What if they did indeed wait to establish control of the air?

To me the invasion force is much like the Homeguard: Very much underestimated.
By September (initial S-day) the Homeguard had become an effective paramilitary force. Maybe not enough to do more than anger the Germans BUT definitely good enough to stall their advance. Let us not forget the Homeguard would fight pretty much a Guerilla war against the Germans which generally benefits the local force defending its own turf. Now if it is acknowledged that the Homeguard is indeed a factor then why can people not accept that Sealion IS possible, can succeed and indeed scared the crap out of Winston to such an extent that the orders he gave were given?

@Heartsblue: Please provide evidence of these figures concerning aircraft (link to the records you mentioned). These are the first to credit the British with a slight advantage in the air. My own research (war archives and historians such as Piecalciewicz) shows equality in production and with losses as they were the strength of each air force moved in scale. Which means no one was gaining anything with the exception the Luftwaffe had the means to hurt British infrarstructure while they were fighting. There was no such credible threat from Bomber Command at that time.

My current WiP conclusion is that while the Germans might (with air superiority as a prerequisite) actually occupy the majority of the British Island it would not accomplish them aything. For the current chain of events please refer to an earlier post of mine.

1) The Royal Navy would operate from Canadian waters and the Med.
2) With the King out of country and the PM sacrificing himself defending Downing Street there is no one that could and would surrender to the Germans. Heck even Mosley was more a patriot than Hitler's sockpuppet.
3) While the British Island is not a base for operations against Nazi Germany, NI will be a thorn in Adolf's side, the Americans WILL take Iceland sooner than they were and the role of de Valera in Ireland is somewhat doubtful as well.
4) A resistance movement beyond anything the French were staging would constantly make occupation an every day hell.
5) An Allied invasion (possibly later than 1944) would end the war in their favour. Even with the industrial potential of France and Great Britain, the Germans are outproduced 10 to 1 by the Americans.

[Squirrel]

What channel was that 'Yesterday' program on Hertsblue? I'd like to try and catch it as it appears to contradict the majority of accounts I've read on the balance of the Battle of Britain.

So far, all of my research, which is certainly far from complete, concurs with sebigboss'.

Cheers,

Kev

[sebigboss79]

What channel was that 'Yesterday' program on Hertsblue? I'd like to try and catch it as it appears to contradict the majority of accounts I've read on the balance of the Battle of Britain.

So far, all of my research, which is certainly far from complete, concurs with sebigboss'.

Cheers,

Kev

You are not by chance the Kevin from the alternative history forum  ?

Once you have obtained the original accounts, could/would you verify their sources and comment? Would save me some hassle.
Roland

[Hertsblue]

@Heartsblue: Please provide evidence of these figures concerning aircraft (link to the records you mentioned). These are the first to credit the British with a slight advantage in the air. My own research (war archives and historians such as Piecalciewicz) shows equality in production and with losses as they were the strength of each air force moved in scale. Which means no one was gaining anything with the exception the Luftwaffe had the means to hurt British infrarstructure while they were fighting. There was no such credible threat from Bomber Command at that time.

You might try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_of_Aircraft_Production Particularly the section headed "Beaverbrook"
According to Ministry records the British aircraft industry delivered 1,875 fighters between May and August 1940.
On this table http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_production_during_World_War_II Messerschmitt delivered 1,667 Bf 109s for the entire year. I discount the Bf 110 which was withdrawn early on as a liability.

@ Squirrel
"Yesterday" is the channel, Kev. (Freeview 19, Sky 537, Virgin 194). I don't know if they will repeat the programme anytime soon, I happened on it purely by chance.   

[sebigboss79]

You might try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_of_Aircraft_Production Particularly the section headed "Beaverbrook"
According to Ministry records the British aircraft industry delivered 1,875 fighters between May and August 1940.
On this table http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_production_during_World_War_II Messerschmitt delivered 1,667 Bf 109s for the entire year. I discount the Bf 110 which was withdrawn early on as a liability.

@ Squirrel
"Yesterday" is the channel, Kev. (Freeview 19, Sky 537, Virgin 194). I don't know if they will repeat the programme anytime soon, I happened on it purely by chance.   

Can you refer the original sources? Wikipedia is somewhat unreliable in research, no offence.
Are actual strengths also taken into account? (Luftwaffe > RAF) Does it take into account the Brits did not manufacture much more than those fighters while the Germans output in Bombers was also quite significant?

You should also look at the figures pre-France 1940 where Luftwaffe was significantly outnumbered but yet had air superiority all the time as the BF109 was the better fighter. How many of those 1,875 are Spitfires? The figures should tell that actually Hurricanes and Tempests made the bulk of fighters and 11th Group was particularly gifted with Spitfires. These would not be available to other groups.

Staying with wikipedia the Battle of Britain site states (in summary) the numbers were quite equal on both sides when one considers rates of losses and production figures. The problem with the Luftwaffe is that 3 Commanders ran 3 separate campaigns while Goring demanded something different every day. The whole campaign was a display of incompetence and yet it hurt the Brits!

[Squirrel]

You are not by chance the Kevin from the alternative history forum   ?

Not me, I'm not registered over there, though I occasionally look around.

Thanks Hertsblue, I'll keep an eye out for a rerun or 'catchup' on Sky. Interesting that it completely contradicts a documentary I watched a few days before Christmas ....

Cheers,

Kev

[sebigboss79]

Long time no post but ran into a chap serving in the RAF.

He basically stated: "Two more weeks and RAF would have folded."

Unfortunately we did not have the luxury to linger around but he had some good advice for me and we shall continue our conversation at a more convenient time.
The topic is not forgotten!

[freddy326]

Hi Sebigboss,

Long time no hear!

I think the comment of "Two more weeks and RAF would have folded." may have need to be explained a bit further if you can. I was under the impression that the RAF strategy was to withdraw to 12 Group if the airfields were knocked out?

Yes I do try to check the facts before I post them and avoid the rhetoric from either sides!!

@Leon strangely I thought this forum was being quite good natured! other sealion threads I've been in have descended into ranting long before this!

regards

Freddy

[sebigboss79]

Hi freddy and wb

Sadly the gent had to dash but I will get in touch with him. He quickly gave me some leads to the Imperial War Museum.

The "fact" comment was not meant to be offensive, more like: Whatever the facts are please share the sources as well. Yes the source may be wrong but that happens in a discussion.

Generally the forum is very friendly -unlike others- and especially being German I see a lot of people will frown at the mere notion of the idea that Sealion could have been anything but a desaster.

As I stated simply ask all participants to acknowledge how inedaquate and incompetent Sealion was planned. Something the Germans had not been doing up to then!
Secondly I would ask to contemplate the fact that besides asuming massive advantages for the British side the Sandhurst Wargame concluded the Germans would successfully land and move as close as the GHQ line.

Now the question we are asking here is: What if the Germans had been a bit more competent AND what if they had attempted the invasion on more favourable terms as the Sandhurst Wargame suggests.

Game On

[Steve J]

Now the question we are asking here is: What if the Germans had been a bit more competent AND what if they had attempted the invasion on more favourable terms as the Sandhurst Wargame suggests.

I found "Invasion!" by Kenneth Macksey to be a very good read and a very plausible 'what if?' scenario. At the back of the book he addresses many of the issues that both the Germans and British would have faced if an invasion was attempted. Alongside this I would add "Fighter" by Len Deighton that gives a very good overview of the Battle of Britain and again the issues faced by both sides.

[sebigboss79]

I found "Invasion!" by Kenneth Macksey to be a very good read and a very plausible 'what if?' scenario. At the back of the book he addresses many of the issues that both the Germans and British would have faced if an invasion was attempted. Alongside this I would add "Fighter" by Len Deighton that gives a very good overview of the Battle of Britain and again the issues faced by both sides.

I have read Sealion (Cox) and If Britain had fallen (Longmate), also good stuff.
And as to the previous post let me add that despite the suggested possibility of a fully successful Sealion there is no chance of a German Victory Parade at the end of the war. Eventually the Americans are drawn into open fighting and the combined powers will overcome any alliance the Germans could possibly forge.