Operation Sealion Megathread...

BlackDragon98

Freikorps Kommandant
Banned - Politics
Luftwaffe killed their own Jagdwaffe when they chose the Bf 109 and Bf 110.
There were better fighters available in the form of the He 100 and Fw 187 but stupid Nazi internal politics killed them both.

Also, a stronger focus on glider infantry would help the invasion plan.
You only need one or two soldiers trained to fly the glider while everyone else just sits and waits for the glider to land.
Heavier weapons (crew-served) and light vehicles can also be transported.
And gliders are typically made of wood, avoiding the use of metal which Nazi Germany was always short on.

Luftwaffe was too focused on paratroopers. Not enough attention and resources devoted into gliders.
 

Buba

A total creep
Luftwaffe killed their own Jagdwaffe when they chose the Bf 109 and Bf 110.
There were better fighters available in the form of the He 100 and Fw 187 but stupid Nazi internal politics killed them both.
Both planes are not much better than napkinwaffe - neither was debugged and developed to a stage allowing for full assessment of their combat merits.

More glider infantry? Better than paratroopers with those awful parachutes preventing jumping with weapons, I suppose. Even the tiny DFS230 would land armed men.
Still get wiped out by Home Guard with RN preventing reinforcement by sea.
 

BlackDragon98

Freikorps Kommandant
Banned - Politics
Both planes are not much better than napkinwaffe - neither was debugged and developed to a stage allowing for full assessment of their combat merits.
Both had their development stifled and stalled by stupid Nazi politics.
Bf 109 was chosen because Messerschmitt was more sympathetic to the Nazi Party than Heinkel.
Bf 110 was chosen because Ernst Udet (Goering's drunk stooge) replaced Wolfram von Richthofen (the Red Baron's cousin and a highly qualified individual with a PhD in aeronautical engineering) as chief of the development section of the Technischen Amt, the research and development arm of the RLM.
"In 1933 Richthofen joined the Luftwaffe, which was commanded by his former commanding officer at JG 1, in 1918, Hermann Göring. By 1934 he was in charge of developing and testing new aircraft in the Technisches Amt, or Technical Service, under the overall direction of Ernst Udet. Although Richthofen had known Göring, having served under him in the First World War in JG 1, the two did not get along. They both came from aristocratic backgrounds, but Richthofen was a Silesian from Lower Silesia, a driven commander, and a good and hard working staff officer who enjoyed the company of engineers and like-minded men, while Göring was a Bavarian and a playboy who enjoyed talking about the First World War and his time as an ace and particularly enjoyed the trappings of power. Göring preferred men like himself, and promoted them on that basis. He passed over the more highly qualified Richthofen in favour of Udet, a hard drinker and playboy, who like Göring had grown up in Bavaria, to head the Technisches Amt.[15]"

Had the Red Baron survived WW1 and Goering died instead, none of this atrocious shit would have come to pass.

More glider infantry? Better than paratroopers with those awful parachutes preventing jumping with weapons, I suppose. Even the tiny DFS230 would land armed men.
Still get wiped out by Home Guard with RN preventing reinforcement by sea.
Excuse me?
Do you really think that a bunch of old men with broomsticks stand a better chance against German glider infantry than Belgian regulars?
 

Buba

A total creep
Do you really think that a bunch of old men with broomsticks stand a better chance against German glider infantry than Belgian regulars?
Yes.
The "old men with broomsticks" are expecting exactly that sort of attack, unlike the Belgians, and the fit young men of the Luftwaffe are not being rescued by their buddies from the Heer. Both sides are armed with rifles, some machine guns and a few mortars. The old foggies have all the time in the world to contain them and wait for their own young men with artillery etc. to arrive.
 

BlackDragon98

Freikorps Kommandant
Banned - Politics
Yes.
The "old men with broomsticks" are expecting exactly that sort of attack, unlike the Belgians, and the fit young men of the Luftwaffe are not being rescued by their buddies from the Heer. Both sides are armed with rifles, some machine guns and a few mortars. The old foggies have all the time in the world to contain them and wait for their own young men with artillery etc. to arrive.
"Rifles were a particular problem, as domestic production of new Lee-Enfield rifles had ceased after the First World War; and in the summer of 1940 there were no more than 1.5 million serviceable frontline military rifles available in total. Contracts had been placed in the UK, Canada and the United States to build new factories for an updated Lee-Enfield model (designated Rifle No. 4), but in 1940, they were still a long way from volume production."

"The British Expeditionary Force had lost almost its entire stock of Bren Guns in the Dunkirk evacuation and the regular army initially fell back on prewar and American Lewis Guns as a stopgap"

Unless these are Quidditch broomsticks, I'd put my money on the Germans.
Lots of equipment was lost at Dunkirk, to the point that the UK was now short on basic military gear.
Some machine guns. . .
Which are currently used by the regular army because there are none left.

And mortars which have the accuracy of a potato cannon, like the ones me and friends made once.
The ammunition probably consists of potatoes, turnips, and carrots as well.
Give the Germans enough vegetables for a nice soup to celebrate their victory once London has fallen.

In fact, the optimal time for an invasion should have been during or right after Dunkirk, according to General Kurt Student, commander of the Fallschirmjagers.
 

Buba

A total creep
In fact, the optimal time for an invasion should have been during or right after Dunkirk, according to General Kurt Student, commander of the Fallschirmjagers.
Lovely example of own's Service (i.e. Luftwaffe) tunnel vision and zero understanding of logistics.
Kriegsmarine involved in Norway, most of the French Army intact and thus the Heer being rather busy ... yeah, excellent moment to invade the UK ...
 
Last edited:

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
Maybe, if you magically gave the germans a bunch of free naval torpedo bombers, this might be doable early in the war. But just getting to the beaches is only the first problem. You'd also have to maintain connection with those on the beachhead as well, then do it all over again with Ireland (make no mistake, if this happens, Ireland gets basically taken by the british as a last holdout).

Maybe the Germans can get license to build those sexy hunchback SM79's from Italy. Trade the rights to build one aircraft in exchange for a gallon of gas or something equally amenable.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Albert Kesserling belived that it would succed,if:
1.They attacked shortly after bombing english airfields and radar stations,when Luftwaffe was still not weakened yet.
2.They would use mines to block british fleet
3.They would use paratroopers
4.They would build more Siebel barges to transport troops and schield them/armed version could have 88mm AA gun/

According to him,Hitler never did so,becouse he always belived that England could be his friend.
Considering,that WW2 ended in England loosing their colonial empire which Hitler would let them have,he actually acted logically.
England fought entire war only to lost their empire and become USA vassal.Less stupid then Poland - we fought germans so USA could sold us to soviets - but still atupid.
 

PsihoKekec

Swashbuckling Accountant
1.They attacked shortly after bombing english airfields and radar stations,when Luftwaffe was still not weakened yet
And neither was RAF

2.They would use mines to block british fleet
And how were they supposed to achieve effective mine density in British home waters?

3.They would use paratroopers
Not enough transport capabilities to make a meaningful impact.

4.They would build more Siebel barges
I'd pay to watch Germans try to invade UK with a horde of Siebel barges, it would be hilarity for the ages.
 

BlackDragon98

Freikorps Kommandant
Banned - Politics
And neither was RAF
At the same time, production of aircraft in the UK hadn't ramped up yet.

Not enough transport capabilities to make a meaningful impact.
Heavy losses in the Dutch campaign were a factor.

I'd pay to watch Germans try to invade UK with a horde of Siebel barges, it would be hilarity for the ages.
The Siebel ferry came far too late.
Mass production started in September 1940, by which time OP Seelowe had already been cancelled.

IMO the main problem with Seelowe is that the Germans never properly prepared for it.
Hitler expected England to sue for peace once France fell.
But they didn't.

In fact, the entire German strategic plans for WW2 were mostly ad hoc and created on the spot.
The Wehrmacht completely unprepared for war in 1939.
It was Hitler who rushed Germany into war and into the jaws of defeat.
 

stevep

Well-known member
Albert Kesserling belived that it would succed,if:
1.They attacked shortly after bombing english airfields and radar stations,when Luftwaffe was still not weakened yet.
2.They would use mines to block british fleet
3.They would use paratroopers
4.They would build more Siebel barges to transport troops and schield them/armed version could have 88mm AA gun/

According to him,Hitler never did so,becouse he always belived that England could be his friend.
Considering,that WW2 ended in England loosing their colonial empire which Hitler would let them have,he actually acted logically.
England fought entire war only to lost their empire and become USA vassal.Less stupid then Poland - we fought germans so USA could sold us to soviets - but still atupid.

The empire was going to go anyway and much of it was an economic burden. A single state dominating, let alone ruling virtually all the continent was something Britain had to avoid. Even if it wasn't lead by a regime as bat-s**t insane as the Nazis. Britain could have done distinctly better in WWII with a few different decisions but was always going to have to fight to maintain its freedom. [Theoretically it could have gambled on some peace deal in 1940 and that the Nazi and Soviet empires destroy each other while Britain regrouped to knock out the Nazis at least but that would have been a hell of a gamble.

I would also disagree that an invasion in 1940 could have worked no matter how much preparation Germany put in after the fall of France and it couldn't have done much if anything before that date. The RAF would exist in at least some form to pose problems and the RN would be an insurmountable threat especially given the dire state of the KM and the lack of any real logistical abilities to cross the channel.

 

ATP

Well-known member
The empire was going to go anyway and much of it was an economic burden. A single state dominating, let alone ruling virtually all the continent was something Britain had to avoid. Even if it wasn't lead by a regime as bat-s**t insane as the Nazis. Britain could have done distinctly better in WWII with a few different decisions but was always going to have to fight to maintain its freedom. [Theoretically it could have gambled on some peace deal in 1940 and that the Nazi and Soviet empires destroy each other while Britain regrouped to knock out the Nazis at least but that would have been a hell of a gamble.

I would also disagree that an invasion in 1940 could have worked no matter how much preparation Germany put in after the fall of France and it couldn't have done much if anything before that date. The RAF would exist in at least some form to pose problems and the RN would be an insurmountable threat especially given the dire state of the KM and the lack of any real logistical abilities to cross the channel.


1.Empire must go after WW2,becouse England helped create world with 2 superpowers.Without big war we would live in world with stronger germany and Japan,and weaker soviets and USA.In that world,England could maintain its Empire.
They basically committed suicide when they start fighting germans,exactly just like we/Poland/.
But we were smaller,so we payed more.

2.I do not knew id invasion could succed or no - i only state,that Kesserling belived so.He could be right or no.
 

stevep

Well-known member
1.Empire must go after WW2,becouse England helped create world with 2 superpowers.Without big war we would live in world with stronger germany and Japan,and weaker soviets and USA.In that world,England could maintain its Empire.
They basically committed suicide when they start fighting germans,exactly just like we/Poland/.
But we were smaller,so we payed more.

Once Hitler gained power, unless he was knocked out quickly there was always going to be war. If that had happened the empire was still going to go. Simple social and political change. If there had been no war then the loss of empire would have been a bit later and there is the danger it might have been far bloodier.

If Poland had submitted to Hitler's initial demands then more would have quickly followed, especially if the western powers hadn't made clear they would stand by their guarantee of Polish western borders. Hitler wouldn't have tolerated a Polish state plus he would have wanted the territory for an attack on the Soviets. Once the allies failed to stand up to Hitler early enough to stop him quickly there was going to be war and after the Munich Agreement Poland was very likely to be under Nazi occupation. Unfortunately by that stage, barring very dramatic changes it was facing at least one brutal if not murderous occupation.:cry:

2.I do not knew id invasion could succed or no - i only state,that Kesserling belived so.He could be right or no.

Well we will never know for certain but all the evidence is that such an attack, at least without a POD long before the fall of France, would fail. There's the possibility that some landings by parachutists might have triggered a collapse of British moral and Churchill's overthrown by someone who would make peace with Germany but I think that was very unlikely and without ASB intervention that's the only way I can think of for a successful 1940 Sealion.

Steve
 

BlackDragon98

Freikorps Kommandant
Banned - Politics
No need for any overthrowing. Churchill would had happily done a peace treaty with Germany in 1940 if given palatable terms.
Such a event would be highly unlikely, unless the US remains strictly neutral and the UK position is highly untenable (only 10k-20k men were successfully evacuated at Dunkirk and other evacuations from France are equal failures)
Otherwise Churchill will demand the withdrawal of German troops from Scandinavia and France, essentially restoring status quo, something Hitler would never accept.

And even if such an event were to occur, it would actually work against Germany, because Stalin is now aware that the Germans are no longer distracted.
Barbarossa will be a harder fight than OTL, or Stalin decides to preemptively invade to forestall such an event (Stalin invading might actually be better for Germany, given German performance in the winter of 1941-1942 against Soviet offensives)
 

stevep

Well-known member
No need for any overthrowing. Churchill would had happily done a peace treaty with Germany in 1940 if given palatable terms.

I would agree with Blackdragon98, Hitler wouldn't have allowed any rival power, even if he was trying to persuade himself that a lasting alliance or peace would be viable. Britain's interest has long recognised that a single large nation dominating the continent was incompatible with British independence as a state and most politicians realised this. As Palmerston famously said Britain has no permanent allies but instead permanent interests.

Actually checking up the full quote is somewhat different i.e. "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow. " However still basically the same as the usual abbreviated version.

As such Britain at the very least would need some neutralisation of the Channel Ports of France and Belgium as an hostile force based there would be a continual threat to our freedom and I can't see Hitler agreeing to that.
 

BlackDragon98

Freikorps Kommandant
Banned - Politics
I would agree with Blackdragon98, Hitler wouldn't have allowed any rival power, even if he was trying to persuade himself that a lasting alliance or peace would be viable. Britain's interest has long recognised that a single large nation dominating the continent was incompatible with British independence as a state and most politicians realised this. As Palmerston famously said Britain has no permanent allies but instead permanent interests.

Actually checking up the full quote is somewhat different i.e. "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow. " However still basically the same as the usual abbreviated version.

As such Britain at the very least would need some neutralisation of the Channel Ports of France and Belgium as an hostile force based there would be a continual threat to our freedom and I can't see Hitler agreeing to that.
The best situation for Germany after the Surrender of France is to go on the defensive in Western Europe while letting their U-boats attack convoys.
The RAF will try to bomb France and Germany, but without effective escort fighters they will be picked off and destroyed by Luftwaffe fighter aircraft and flak, guided by radar. (Battle of Heligoland Bight as an example).
Any civilian casualties in France will be blamed on the UK, driving the two further apart and hindering the creation of the Free French.
As well, this would encourage Vichy France to officially join the Axis, especially if Mers-El Kabir still occurs ITTL.
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
Maybe Sea Lion would be feasible if you switch places between Italy and Japan (handwaving all of the crazy insanity that would imply environmentally and historically etc) and instead of Italy being Germany's primary European partner, it's actually Japan that enters the war in June of 1940 on Germany's side. :p

:sneaky:
 

BlackDragon98

Freikorps Kommandant
Banned - Politics
Maybe Sea Lion would be feasible if you switch places between Italy and Japan (handwaving all of the crazy insanity that would imply environmentally and historically etc) and instead of Italy being Germany's primary European partner, it's actually Japan that enters the war in June of 1940 on Germany's side. :p

:sneaky:
Which causes USA to promptly declare war on Japan and Germany.
If Nazi Germany wants to even survive WW2, they have to keep USA neutral.
Otherwise it's only a matter of time before "splat".
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top