Jump to content


Operation SeaLion


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
280 replies to this topic

rainsilent #41 Posted 26 June 2014 - 07:29 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 4252 battles
  • 2,967
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013

There are still a lot of errors in the people being adamant that the English would have held fast. A good part of it is emotional nationalist pride and the rest is not knowing squat and assuming. I will only go through some of the errors. There were no Mosquitos during the Battle of Britain. Courage and fighting tenacity will only go so far when under equipped. See what happened to Poland. The Germans would not have been fighting on 3 fronts had they invaded England. At the time they hadn't invaded the Soviet Union. It would have been a one front fight. Finally the biggest stumbling blocks in Norway came from the Fleet Air Arm and the geography, not any standing army against them.

 

In the end death pod is a lot more correct than those saying otherwise. Had mistakes not been made England would have been successfully invaded and occupied. Thankfully Hitler was a massive idiot. That was the whole purpose of the op. To ask what if the Germans invaded would they have occupied. The only correct answer to the op's question is yes if. If you don't like the truth too bad. Either accept that you can be wrong at times and learn or go back in time and snuff out Hitler before he took over so you never have to worry about it.


http://forum-console.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/25926-package-fixes-and-suggestions/

My list of suggested package changes. Matthew J35u5 has one as well. I suggest you take a look at his too and make your own suggestions in either.


Dennis420b #42 Posted 26 June 2014 - 07:39 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013
First assessment without reading other responses. The Royal Navy would not have been as big as a factor than is predicted. The Luftwaffe harassed ships in the Channel all the time often with no retaliation from the RAF, and the British fleet was huge but largely old. Many still had not been fully updated as far as AA armament was concerned making many ships not capable to operate anywhere near German based planes. The fleet was essentially the UKs high card and they were reluctant to play it for fear of it being squandered in the narrow channel. The RAF was incapable of maintaining air superiority over the channel so any effort to crush the German invasion by sea would be without proper air cover. Even if the initial invasion were to fail the toll on the RN and RAF would be enormous, and the invasion would still be effective at neutralizing the British trump card.

General Sir Alan Brooke was responsible for Bitians southern defenses and he had made several reports detailing the unprepared state of the defenses. Here is one of his assessments:

"The main Impression I had was that the Command had a long way to go to be put on a war footing... The more I see of conditions at home, the more bewildered I am as to what has been going on in this country since the war started. It is now ten months, and yet the shortage of trained men and equipment is appalling... There are masses of men in uniform, but they are mostly untrained: why, I cannot think after ten months of war. The ghastly part of it is that I feel certain that we can only have a few more weeks before the boche attacks"

After Dunkirk the British army at home consisted of 26 divisions, 12 of which were recently raised and were either not fully trained or equipped. The 13 divisions of the BEF that escaped were without heavy equipment (artillery and AT guns) and only brought back 25 of the 600 tanks sent to France. Also the placement of the defenses were completely off and misplaced. 3rd division was assigned to defend 30 miles of coast near Brighton, while General Brookes Southern Command had only 3 divisions (2 were territorial) to defend between Sussex and Wales. Brooke would latter replace Ironside as C and C of Home forces and Dill replaced Brooke at Southern Command, and they both worked hard to shore up the defenses, but had the time table of Sea Lion gone on as planned then the British land forces would have been woefully unprepared for even a semi organized invasion.

Much can also be said about the Kriegsmarine and its weakness. But Raeder was a problem solver and in the winter of 39/40 he had started to prepare for the eventual invasion of England presenting his proposal to Hitler on May 21 1940. Hitler of course would not respond to the proposal until  July 16th 1940 (a full month since the fall of France), when Hitler issued Directive No.16 (preparation for operation sea lion). The Invasion consisted of 41 divisions, 6 armored, 3 motorized infantry divisions and 2 airborne divisions, all fully equipped and trained. This would latter be down graded to 27 divisions, 6 landing in the initial day of the invasion. Already tiny the German Navy had also suffered losses in the Norwegian campaign, and many of its surviving capital ships were still being repaired from that engagement. Only the Luftwaffe could provide protection/support for any invasion, hence the need for the planned phased attack by the Luftwaffe. First the destruction of the RAF, then eliminating any Royal Navy attempts at stopping the  invasion, and the support of ground forces once the invasion got under way. A daunting task that would require nearly all the air assests the Axis could muster. Raeder had assembled transport for an invasion force and yes it would have been a joke considering the standards of amphibious landings latter in the war, but the problem is that the British land forces were less prepared for invasion than the German navy was for an invasion.

IMHO given the circumstances the Germans should have proceeded with Sea Lion on its original time table.

Edit: But both sides would have suffered tremendous losses regardless of the outcome making many of the latter war decisions/outcomes different.

Edited by Dennis420b, 26 June 2014 - 07:44 PM.


Dennis420b #43 Posted 26 June 2014 - 07:46 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostTheMEagle, on 21 June 2014 - 07:32 PM, said:

Considering that the Germans wouldn't have had the same benefit of a deception/espionage campaign as Overlord did, the still somewhat-secret of the radar defenses, and the oil slick fire traps, there's a good chance that Sea Lion wouldn't have gotten a beachhead. The Commonwealth found out what happens when you try to land on a properly defended beach.


German preparations for receiving an invasion were far more advanced than those of the British in the summer/fall of 1940.



Dennis420b #44 Posted 26 June 2014 - 07:47 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostUK SPARTAN 1075, on 21 June 2014 - 06:59 PM, said:

Who knows but I dont think they would of succeeded all I know if foreign troops ever set foot im my country I would fight to my last round then fix bayonets and do what ever it took to win and I know the second world war soldiers would of done that 


Many countries had that attitude and still succumbed. Its a nice sentiment, but not one based on any kind of reality. 



Dennis420b #45 Posted 26 June 2014 - 07:52 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostUK SPARTAN 1075, on 22 June 2014 - 05:14 AM, said:

They tried weaking the raf and the germens got smashed  the germans had more planes more pilots and the raf smashed them hard thats why operation sea lion never happened


Again nice sentiment that the RAF pilot was superior, but in actuality it was a strategic failure by the Germans to switch to reprisal raids from targeting the RAF that ended in the RAF victory. It is largely accepted that the RAF was near defeat before this. Not to take away from the effort of the RAF, as their performance against overwhelming odds was spectacular.



Dennis420b #46 Posted 26 June 2014 - 07:56 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostMegaB0B0, on 23 June 2014 - 12:34 AM, said:

Germany don't have enough ships to transport troops even they managed initial landing with amour mechanise forces, they simply don't have enough even they manage all French ships. The same apply to the fail British raid. 

RN has too many big guns can deal with German ships at far distance.

their only possible hope is defeat fighter command and destroy costal areas then, put gigantic mine lines to prevent Royal Navy to get close to landing zones then use river boats to ferry people across. 


Actually the RAF rarely ventured over the channel in those days. Any RN ship coming within range of the Luftwaffe would be subject to bombing long before they were in range of the beachheads. Could the RAF sacrifice planes to defend the fleet given that it was already being bleed white defending the mainland?


Edited by Dennis420b, 26 June 2014 - 07:56 PM.


Dennis420b #47 Posted 26 June 2014 - 08:04 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostUK SPARTAN 1075, on 25 June 2014 - 02:11 AM, said:

Germany wouldn't of won   you got to take into account how many troops and equipment they would of lost before they even got here then the resupply its goin to be difficult to resupply them the british army still had enough equipment and troops to fight and personaly if a officer in the British army says it was goin to disaster im goin to take his word the military tend to know more about this stuff than a civilian dont underestimate the british army we are and always have been a good military we stood against nazi Germany for a good many years without help 


You fail to take in account the losses already suffered by the British. Germany had huge reserves of trained and equipped men. The Home Guard would have fared worse than the Volkssturm did in 45. England would have to sacrifice its fleet in efforts to stop the invasion, and in doing so would have exposed their trump card and the future of continuing the war in any fashion to essentially a gamble.



SixthSubset765 #48 Posted 26 June 2014 - 08:04 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 35143 battles
  • 218
  • Member since:
    05-03-2014
Forgive me, but I think the Germans never had any plans to build seaborne (amphibious) assault craft.  In the Pacific, the US had specifically designed amphibious assault craft and these differed from the assault craft designed for the Normandy invasion, if I am not mistaken (haven't delved into this arena for decades).  Kinda neat to find this discussion.  While the Germans certainly had impressive tanks at the time of Sea Lion vice the Allies, I don't know how they would have gotten these tanks across in any reasonable time and useful numbers.  For those military/ex-military, think logistics.  How to get enough equipment, besides manpower in a reasonable time to be useful is always a military headache.  Also think supplies (i.e., ammo, food, water, etc.).  Besides, I think the Germans had to deal with the planning for the Eastern Front.  Another thought, brought up in these discussions, the German Navy was not up to the level of Brits (to say the least), much less US and Japan (who weren't on this side of the pond battle).

Dennis420b #49 Posted 26 June 2014 - 08:15 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostMR M4G0083R 35, on 26 June 2014 - 08:40 AM, said:

from the atrocious spelling I can tell you wrote this in a highly emotional state.  you are, however 100% right sir.  Even if RAF ops had become very spotty on day 15, The British army, navy and civilian population would certainly have had the heart and fortitude to see the few German gains become a footnote in the history of an eventually successful defense of the Home Isles.  


A nice sentiment held by many in the occupied land under the NAZI flag. In the end it is just that, a sentiment. The British Army at home at that time would have a hard time fighting an insect invasion, let alone the Wehrmacht. The RN was huge as needed by such a far flung empire with large areas of responsibility, but they are largely an antiquated Navy that would be hard pressed to repeal the Luftwaffe without the RAF devoting huge assets to defending the fleet near the invasion area. Even if the RN is able to repeal the invasion, what kind of losses would they have incurred? And how then could they proceed? How would these losses have influenced the war in the Mediterranean or the battle of the Atlantic? Look at operation Pedestal for a small glimpse of what could have been expected.



Dennis420b #50 Posted 26 June 2014 - 08:18 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostSixthSubset765, on 26 June 2014 - 03:04 PM, said:

Forgive me, but I think the Germans never had any plans to build seaborne (amphibious) assault craft.  In the Pacific, the US had specifically designed amphibious assault craft and these differed from the assault craft designed for the Normandy invasion, if I am not mistaken (haven't delved into this arena for decades).  Kinda neat to find this discussion.  While the Germans certainly had impressive tanks at the time of Sea Lion vice the Allies, I don't know how they would have gotten these tanks across in any reasonable time and useful numbers.  For those military/ex-military, think logistics.  How to get enough equipment, besides manpower in a reasonable time to be useful is always a military headache.  Also think supplies (i.e., ammo, food, water, etc.).  Besides, I think the Germans had to deal with the planning for the Eastern Front.  Another thought, brought up in these discussions, the German Navy was not up to the level of Brits (to say the least), much less US and Japan (who weren't on this side of the pond battle).


All of that was dealt with in Raeders study and preparation. True it would not have been as organized and efficient as the American Amphibious landings in the Pacific, but the resistance the British put up as a defense would not be near as intense either.



UK SPARTAN 1075 #51 Posted 26 June 2014 - 08:18 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 6371 battles
  • 731
  • Member since:
    01-26-2014

View Postrainsilent, on 26 June2014 - 08:29 PM, said:

There are still a lot of errors in the people being adamant that the English would have held fast. A good part of it is emotional nationalist pride and the rest is not knowing squat and assuming. I will only go through some of the errors. There were no Mosquitos during the Battle of Britain. Courage and fighting tenacity will only go so far when under equipped. See what happened to Poland. The Germans would not have been fighting on 3 fronts had they invaded England. At the time they hadn't invaded the Soviet Union. It would have been a one front fight. Finally the biggest stumbling blocks in Norway came from the Fleet Air Arm and the geography, not any standing army against them.

 

In the end death pod is a lot more correct than those saying otherwise. Had mistakes not been made England would have been successfully invaded and occupied. Thankfully Hitler was a massive idiot. That was the whole purpose of the op. To ask what if the Germans invaded would they have occupied. The only correct answer to the op's question is yes if. If you don't like the truth too bad. Either accept that you can be wrong at times and learn or go back in time and snuff out Hitler before he took over so you never have to worry about it.

The army don't need great equipment cause they make do with what they got from the 2nd ww to to day I tell you something now equipment dont make a good soldier its the training that counts not fancy equipment the germen had all the equipment in the world news flash they lost  all the british soldier needs is boots and a rifle and the fierce will to fight thats what the british infantry soldier is famous for the british army is the best trained army in the world they alwYs have been always will be ive been a British soldier for 11 years im tell you now equipment dont win wars it the soldier that wins them and it comes down to who wants it more I tell you now if foreign troops ever step foot in this country they would lose now or in the past obviously you have no clue on how hard the logistics sides of it would of been let a lone a load of brit soldiers waiting with a rifle but you no what thats all they would of bloody needed and yer my national pride is strong what of it



Dennis420b #52 Posted 26 June 2014 - 08:28 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostSecretSquirrel0, on 26 June 2014 - 09:59 AM, said:

From this scenario the German army would be fighting on 3 fronts. They could not hold on to 2 at the time out stretching their supply line. You would also have to take into account that the US and others would have come to Briton’s aid a lot quicker. I don’t think the German army could continue to supply the army in Briton and on the other 2 fronts successfully, if the German army was to succeed (and a big if) in taking Briton it would have to be in Blitzkrieg fashion (meaning 2-3 weeks).

3 fronts? I dont see that. I count 1 active if the invasion goes as scheduled. Germany's commitment to North Africa had not materialized yet (and even when it did it did not amount to much) neither had the Balkan front or the Eastern Front. The US in 1940 is a joke outside of its Navy. It would still require more time than the UK could offer to come to the rescue. Without the British Isles where would the Americans stage their invasion from? Also we have to consider the very real possibility that Franco in Spain might jump in and invest in a siege of Gibraltar that would have further complicated allied operations if invasion were successful, or the RN took huge losses repealing it. Next Malta would fall, and no doubt without the isles producing the needed supplies of war, how long could the British hold out in North Africa and the Middle East? She would essentially have to be supported by the Commonwealth nations at that point. I am almost certain that they would have sought Armistice before Sea Lion was complete if they were unable to prevent it by sea.



UK SPARTAN 1075 #53 Posted 26 June 2014 - 08:31 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 6371 battles
  • 731
  • Member since:
    01-26-2014

View PostDennis420b, on 26 June 2014 - 09:15 PM, said:


A nice sentiment held by many in the occupied land under the NAZI flag. In the end it is just that, a sentiment. The British Army at home at that time would have a hard time fighting an insect invasion, let alone the Wehrmacht. The RN was huge as needed by such a far flung empire with large areas of responsibility, but they are largely an antiquated Navy that would be hard pressed to repeal the Luftwaffe without the RAF devoting huge assets to defending the fleet near the invasion area. Even if the RN is able to repeal the invasion, what kind of losses would they have incurred? And how then could they proceed? How would these losses have influenced the war in the Mediterranean or the battle of the Atlantic? Look at operation Pedestal for a small glimpse of what could have been expected.

What a load of sh it insect invasion disrespectful thats what you are oh and at the time this might of happen where were the Americans that's right no were to ne seen sitting back in America drinking coffee you lot didnt come and help did you and you wouldn't of even entered war if it wasnt for peal harbour



Dennis420b #54 Posted 26 June 2014 - 08:36 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostUK SPARTAN 1075, on 26 June 2014 - 03:18 PM, said:

The army don't need great equipment cause they make do with what they got from the 2nd ww to to day I tell you something now equipment dont make a good soldier its the training that counts not fancy equipment the germen had all the equipment in the world news flash they lost  all the british soldier needs is boots and a rifle and the fierce will to fight thats what the british infantry soldier is famous for the british army is the best trained army in the world they alwYs have been always will be its clear to me you dont have a clue what the h ell you are on about just what you read in books ive been a British soldier for 11 years im tell you now equipment dont win fu cking wars it the soldier that wins them and it comes down to who wants it more I tell you now if foreign troops ever step foot in this country they would lose now or in the past obviously you have no clue on how hard the logistics sides of it would of been let a lone a load of brit soldiers waiting with a rifle but you no what thats all they would of bloody needed and yer my national pride is strong what of it


Your patriotism blinds you. I applaud your pride, but it has made you ignorant to the situation being discussed. Most of the BEF was still unorganized and without equipment. And yes equipment is needed despite your absurd claims. As far as the British solider being the best (at least in the context of this time period) again your pride blinds you to the reality. I no longer feel it neccessary to reply to your comments simply because you obviously insert pride where knowledge should be. Its not your fault, its a well honed system of instilling nationalism into soldiers/citizens minds. All nations do it. My country are masters of it. I live with 300+ million idiots who still think that the US is the best country in the world and always will be because of divine right. How stupid is that? At any rate you need to read more. Try reading history from different perspectives. It helps understand something better when you look at it from multiple sides rather than just the one.



UK SPARTAN 1075 #55 Posted 26 June 2014 - 08:39 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 6371 battles
  • 731
  • Member since:
    01-26-2014

View Postrainsilent, on 26 June 2014 - 08:29 PM, said:

There are still a lot of errors in the people being adamant that the English would have held fast. A good part of it is emotional nationalist pride and the rest is not knowing squat and assuming. I will only go through some of the errors. There were no Mosquitos during the Battle of Britain. Courage and fighting tenacity will only go so far when under equipped. See what happened to Poland. The Germans would not have been fighting on 3 fronts had they invaded England. At the time they hadn't invaded the Soviet Union. It would have been a one front fight. Finally the biggest stumbling blocks in Norway came from the Fleet Air Arm and the geography, not any standing army against them.

 

In the end death pod is a lot more correct than those saying otherwise. Had mistakes not been made England would have been successfully invaded and occupied. Thankfully Hitler was a massive idiot. That was the whole purpose of the op. To ask what if the Germans invaded would they have occupied. The only correct answer to the op's question is yes if. If you don't like the truth too bad. Either accept that you can be wrong at times and learn or go back in time and snuff out Hitler before he took over so you never have to worry about it.

It dont relly matter what you say cause you can sit there and keep saying if but the raf did beat german air force thats facted



Dennis420b #56 Posted 26 June 2014 - 08:45 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostUK SPARTAN 1075, on 26 June 2014 - 03:31 PM, said:

What a load of sh it insect invasion disrespectful thats what you are oh and at the time this might of happen where were the Americans that's right no were to ne seen sitting back in America drinking coffee you lot didnt come and help did you and you wouldn't of even entered war if it wasnt for peal harbour


Now you assume I have the same nationalistic pride as you suffer from. Hardly. I am a pragmatist. But I will play devils advocate:

Why should America come and rescue France and the UK when the problem should have been handled in 1936, 1938, or early in 1939? The UKs limp wristed handeling of the Reoccupation of the Rhineland & the annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia were met by British cowardice. In fact if we see history as a "where were you when we needed you" affair, most of the death and destruction can be laid directly at the UKs feet, as during those late 30s the Allies had more than enough forces to crush Germany with little fanfare. The UK should have handled their business and not expected the Americans to come to their rescue.. again. lol. Are the Brits a little scarred of the Germans? Do you need someone to hold your hands when ever those barbarians are rattling their sabers?

Now in no way do I actually believe any of what I have said, I simply wanted to point out that your, ... "logic" lets call it, is flawed, again with nationalism in place of actual knowledge (a position held by many good Nazis of the day).



Dennis420b #57 Posted 26 June 2014 - 08:46 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostUK SPARTAN 1075, on 26 June 2014 - 03:39 PM, said:

It dont relly matter what you say cause you can sit there and keep saying if but the raf did beat german air force thats facted


Yes, "Facted".



UK SPARTAN 1075 #58 Posted 26 June 2014 - 08:48 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 6371 battles
  • 731
  • Member since:
    01-26-2014

View PostDennis420b, on 26 June 2014 - 09:36 PM, said:


Your patriotism blinds you. I applaud your pride, but it has made you ignorant to the situation being discussed. Most of the BEF was still unorganized and without equipment. And yes equipment is needed despite your absurd claims. As far as the British solider being the best (at least in the context of this time period) again your pride blinds you to the reality. I no longer feel it neccessary to reply to your comments simply because you obviously insert pride where knowledge should be. Its not your fault, its a well honed system of instilling nationalism into soldiers/citizens minds. All nations do it. My country are masters of it. I live with 300+ million idiots who still think that the US is the best country in the world and always will be because of divine right. How stupid is that? At any rate you need to read more. Try reading history from different perspectives. It helps understand something better when you look at it from multiple sides rather than just the one.

If you say so British army trained to operate with minimal kit cause we always train for worst case scenario How easy do you people think 

it is to transport tanks men fuel weapons ammo and all other tons of kit its quite obvious that you all read to much books I dont think any body on here realise how hard that is in peace time let alone at war time



Dennis420b #59 Posted 26 June 2014 - 08:48 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013
Look you seem like a good kid, you just need to learn more. History as taught is often marred by the winners of wars inserting nonsense as justification. That unfortunately seems to be what you bought hook, line and sinker.

UK SPARTAN 1075 #60 Posted 26 June 2014 - 08:52 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 6371 battles
  • 731
  • Member since:
    01-26-2014

View PostDennis420b, on 26 June 2014 - 09:45 PM, said:


Now you assume I have the same nationalistic pride as you suffer from. Hardly. I am a pragmatist. But I will play devils advocate:

Why should America come and rescue France and the UK when the problem should have been handled in 1936, 1938, or early in 1939? The UKs limp wristed handeling of the Reoccupation of the Rhineland & the annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia were met by British cowardice. In fact if we see history as a "where were you when we needed you" affair, most of the death and destruction can be laid directly at the UKs feet, as during those late 30s the Allies had more than enough forces to crush Germany with little fanfare. The UK should have handled their business and not expected the Americans to come to their rescue.. again. lol. Are the Brits a little scarred of the Germans? Do you need someone to hold your hands when ever those barbarians are rattling their sabers?

Now in no way do I actually believe any of what I have said, I simply wanted to point out that your, ... "logic" lets call it, is flawed, again with nationalism in place of actual knowledge (a position held by many good Nazis of the day).

British cowardice boy I cant say what I want to say on here cause I would get my self in trouble think of that  as you will






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users