PDA

View Full Version : Operation Sealion



Man of Stoat
08-24-2005, 10:21 AM
Interesting thread here: http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=21592.html

Basically it summarises some Kriegspiel after the war to estimate what would have happened, and the Germans would have got ashore then had their supply lines cut to pieces. Also contains information on the British defence plans. Enjoy!

Hosenfield
08-24-2005, 06:23 PM
i've seen some speculation about Sealion, how it may not work, etc. But it doesn't account for the fact that the British army/airforce was at her infancy while the germans were at the height of their power.

I'm not one to judge, but Dieppe raid could be like Sealion. But who knows for sure?

festamus
08-24-2005, 06:41 PM
i've seen some speculation about Sealion, how it may not work, etc. But it doesn't account for the fact that the British army/airforce was at her infancy while the germans were at the height of their power.

In essence, only if the Germans are very lucky does this matter - the British Army and the Royal Air Force are supporting roles only; the Royal Navy would have ****ed the rather ad-hoc invasion fleet on all but the worst rolls of the die. Add to that the fact German plans for Sealion were woefully poor...

drummerboy
08-24-2005, 08:58 PM
I believe Hitler's impatience and Goering's eagerness to destroy the RAF would be major contributing factors to Sea Lion's failure. The main goal was to clear the decks for Babarossa. This is clear as after the Battle of Britain, the Germans completely abandoned the invasion England.
But history is history...........

BDL
08-25-2005, 01:32 AM
I've written somewhere else on here about this-

In my opinion, if the invasion fleet had left the French ports, Winston would have thrown the whole Home and Reserve Fleets into the fight - he wouldn't have worried about losses of the heavy ships, because the German's would have had their navy wiped out, there's no way they could have fought them off. The Luftwaffe didn't have a bomb heavy enough to penetrate the deck armour of the battleships or aircraft carriers, so even if the Germans had air superiority, it wouldn't have mattered.

South African Military
08-25-2005, 01:42 AM
I've written somewhere else on here about this-

In my opinion, if the invasion fleet had left the French ports, Winston would have thrown the whole Home and Reserve Fleets into the fight - he wouldn't have worried about losses of the heavy ships, because the German's would have had their navy wiped out, there's no way they could have fought them off. The Luftwaffe didn't have a bomb heavy enough to penetrate the deck armour of the battleships or aircraft carriers, so even if the Germans had air superiority, it wouldn't have mattered.

The above basically sums it up. Operation Sealion will never work because the German Navy was too weak. It couldnt even muster an aircraft carrier by the end of the war! And if the Kriegsmarine ever got to really build up, Hitler wanted huge ships of enourmous tonnage, that would be extremely vulnerable and practically useless.

Cheshire Yeomanry
09-19-2005, 10:10 AM
The two threads below have a mine of info in them

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=20620
http://www.feldgrau.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=14949

IronFist
11-22-2005, 12:44 AM
Basing the strength of the entire german navy on the fact that it "couldn't" build an aircraft carrier is rediculous. They never had any interest or intension or ever building one. The was a bold americanized comment.

BDL
11-22-2005, 01:00 AM
Basing the strength of the entire german navy on the fact that it "couldn't" build an aircraft carrier is rediculous. They never had any interest or intension or ever building one. The was a bold americanized comment.

They did - they developed carrier Bf-109s and Ju-87s ready for it, they just never got round to building it.

Firefly
11-22-2005, 02:42 AM
Basing the strength of the entire german navy on the fact that it "couldn't" build an aircraft carrier is rediculous. They never had any interest or intension or ever building one. The was a bold americanized comment.

It was called the Graph Zepplin:

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/aj.cashmore/germany/carriers/grafzeppelin/pictures.html

Twitch1
11-22-2005, 02:24 PM
Had the Germans come ashore on the isle in any substantial number Britain would have been doomed.

BDL
11-22-2005, 03:13 PM
Had the Germans come ashore on the isle in any substantial number Britain would have been doomed.

Not neccessarily - how would they have supplied the invading armies?

pdf27
11-22-2005, 05:45 PM
Basing the strength of the entire german navy on the fact that it "couldn't" build an aircraft carrier is rediculous. They never had any interest or intension or ever building one. The was a bold americanized comment.

It was called the Graph Zepplin:

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/aj.cashmore/germany/carriers/grafzeppelin/pictures.html
The Peter Strasser was also laid down at the same time as the GZ, but never launched.
Incidentally, I'm far from convinced the Germans could do very much with aircraft carriers before defeating the UK - there is just too little searoom, and the RN was just too powerful for them to sortie at will.

Topor
11-22-2005, 07:20 PM
The idea that the Luftwaffe was at the peak of efficiency, whilst the RAF was only in its infancy is incorrect: The Luftwaffe had suffered considerable losses in the previous months, particularly amongst experienced aircrew, whilst the RAF had been gaining in both experience & equipment.
The bombing of barges at French Ports would have been pursued with much greater vigour IF the threat had been deemed imminent.
Some papers are available with reference to the disposition of our offensive air power during this period & the Kriegsmarine was seen as a greater threat than the transports.

Twitch1
11-24-2005, 10:24 AM
If the Germans gained a foothold in Britain it means they would have had control of some coastal airfields so supplies and more troops would have been easily brought in. A sizeable number of Ju 52s existed since the type had been in service since 1934. GB was actually ringed with U-boats so that in reality she was just weeks away from complete isolation.

Once the Luftwaffe had planes based on the island the 109's range problem would have been history and bomber escort sorties would have insured full coverage to and from targets. The 109s would have had ample fuel to stay and play with the interceptors.

And if we're not talking an isolated group of German paratroopers here, most certainly the seizing of a port would have been top priority. So between the Ju 52s and Kriegesmarine transports, Jerry would have poured ashore and the yanks would have needed to expidite development of the trans-Atlantic bombers like the B-32.

Firefly
11-24-2005, 10:49 AM
Ah we love the what if's on this site.

Its a big what if though, the Invasion of the UK. You have to balance out what the germans were actually capable of doing with what the British were actually capable of doing. But you have to keep in mind that you have to use the forces available at the time and not at a later time, hence no Torpedo carrying Axis aircraft, no bombs that can penetrate UK warships etc.....

?
Jerry would have poured ashore and the yanks would have needed to expidite development of the trans-Atlantic bombers like the B-32.


Then of course you have to think about when the B-36 was actually conceptualised and what experience of building long range bombers had to happen before this arrived.

Its a bit like saying, what if the Wright Brothers skipped the little flyer and just made a 747 instead

BDL
11-24-2005, 12:04 PM
If the Germans gained a foothold in Britain it means they would have had control of some coastal airfields so supplies and more troops would have been easily brought in. A sizeable number of Ju 52s existed since the type had been in service since 1934. GB was actually ringed with U-boats so that in reality she was just weeks away from complete isolation.

Once the Luftwaffe had planes based on the island the 109's range problem would have been history and bomber escort sorties would have insured full coverage to and from targets. The 109s would have had ample fuel to stay and play with the interceptors.

And if we're not talking an isolated group of German paratroopers here, most certainly the seizing of a port would have been top priority. So between the Ju 52s and Kriegesmarine transports, Jerry would have poured ashore and the yanks would have needed to expidite development of the trans-Atlantic bombers like the B-32.

They couldn't keep the Sixth Army supplied in Stalingrad with air transport, what makes you think they could have done any better supplying the UK?

As for supply via the sea - against the country with the most powerful navy in the world? Their transports would have been slaughtered.

pdf27
11-24-2005, 04:23 PM
If the Germans gained a foothold in Britain it means they would have had control of some coastal airfields so supplies and more troops would have been easily brought in. A sizeable number of Ju 52s existed since the type had been in service since 1934.
Have you ever done the numbers on the actual airlift capability of a Ju-52? I've seen what appears to be a highly plausible set done from what they actually carried in practice, and it averages out at something over 1 tonne per day per aircraft. Making what I suspect is a somewhat generous assumption that they could scrape together 250 serviceable aircraft per day and that they had ample fuel at the far end (see below for how likely I think that is) you're looking at 300 tonnes per day of supplies arriving at a few discrete points on the bridgehead. They would then have to be manpacked (the Germans had no plausible plans for landing motorized transport beyond a handful of tanks or any horses until the invasion was well underway) to wherever they were needed. 300 tonnes is IIRC about the amount needed to keep a single leg infantry division going, although I would be glad to be corrected if we have any logistics guys on the forum.


GB was actually ringed with U-boats so that in reality she was just weeks away from complete isolation.
And yet despite the complete lack of an invasion they didn't work. There just weren't enough in 1940, and what boats there were were simply not advanced enough. It wasn't really until the Oberon class level of technology/SSNs that this became feasible.


Once the Luftwaffe had planes based on the island the 109's range problem would have been history and bomber escort sorties would have insured full coverage to and from targets. The 109s would have had ample fuel to stay and play with the interceptors.
Assuming you can get fuel somehow. What fuel you did capture from the RAF (and remember that fuel burns very nicely when a match is applied) would be the wrong octane rating and will also quite probably have several kilos of sugar, sand and ground glass per tankful. Chances are you'd have to fly in your fuel, which in itself limits your airlift capacity even more and will pretty much soak up all your remaining capacity with the fuel, munitions and spares you need.
Furthermore, the chances are that the airfields would be within range of British artillery for at least some of the time. That will NOT make them any more habitable.


And if we're not talking an isolated group of German paratroopers here, most certainly the seizing of a port would have been top priority. So between the Ju 52s and Kriegesmarine transports, Jerry would have poured ashore and the yanks would have needed to expidite development of the trans-Atlantic bombers like the B-32.
Ummm... WHAT port? The only substantial ports between the Wash and the Lizard at the time were London and Southampton/Portsmouth. Portsmouth is pretty much the home of the RN, so any seabourne attack would be massacred while London is the communications nexus for England. Any landings would find themselves rapidly outnumbered, and in any case taking a city of 8 million which is pretty heavily garrisoned isn't likely to happen by coup de main.
Incidentally, you're thinking of the B-36 not the B-32. It would probably have become available at around the same time as nuclear weapons, meaning Germany would either get nuked on a Japan scale or IMHO more likely get a terminal dose of instant sunshine in around 1947 and effectively become extinct as a culture. A gentleman by the name of Stuart Slade has written an excellent alternate history series based on exactly this premise.

Iron Yeoman
11-25-2005, 03:50 AM
Furthermore, The channel is especailly choppy so the invaision barges would have had an interesting time trying to cross the channel. Also all of Britain's coastline was covered in barbed wire, landmines and a strange device made from an oil barrel that when detonated covered the whole beach is burning petrol. Plus Britain had already organised a resistance movement of 70,000 called the auxunits (or auxiliary units) whom were well armed and trained and ready to cause absolute havoc in the invader's rear areas. The Germans would not have had a fun time.

Twitch1
11-25-2005, 11:43 AM
Well the initial concept of the thread seemed to be if the Germans got ashore and got a foothold.... Hence extrapolating from there they would have endeavored to accomplish the aforementioned goals. Could they? is the ripe question. Not likely, but it is never smart to completely discount your enemy's capability. As we view things knowing what we know 65 years hence it is an unfair advantage that clouds us with prejudice. It wasn't so much that the Germans could have done it but that they didn't bother to try.

The long-range bomber program was based on- "January of 1940, the Army issued a set of formal requirements for the "superbomber", calling for a speed of 400 mph, a range of 5333 miles, and a bomb load of 2000 pounds delivered at the halfway-point at that range."

The B-29 and B-32 were the direct results of those specifications. In 1941 the requirement was "...the Army Air Corps drew up requirements for an intercontinental bomber. Something that could fly from the U.S. to Germany, drop its bombs and return."

Initial contingency plans that routed bombers from Gander Newfoundland to Russia were within both planes' range perameters. Russia Shuttle missions were carried out from other starting points during the war. This was a viable possibility.

That's where the B-36 came in. The US already had plenty of big bomber experience with the B-17 and the giant XB-19 so a true intercontinental bomber was a logical next step that actually occurred anyway. In the impetus of war the B-36 probably would have reached fruition earlier. As it was the B-36 program was put on the back burner with little attention due to attention to the amped up emphasis on B-29 and B-32 production. At any rate the B-36 was no impossiblity as someone thought. Certainly any American bombing campaign commencing on the west side of the Atlantic wouldn't have been started before like 1944 thus lengthing the war a lot.

As far as Ju 52s in Russia vs England its an apple an oranges thing. The severity of the climate, distances and treacherous conditions in Russia bear no resemblence to Spring time over the Channel. There actually were, by the way, 571 Ju 52s available in Western Europe in May 1940.

Discounting the aircraft's capabilities is dangerous in that in May 1941 the Luftwaffe's greatest airborne assault and involved the landing of 22,750 men and their supplies on Crete. Of these, 10,000 were parachuted in from 493 Ju 52s used.

And simply to talk up the big Brit coastal defenses is empty bragadocia since far tougher stuff shielded the Continent and the Allies landed anyway.

Between June and December 1940 U-boats sent three million tons of shipping to the bottom. Only an average of 16 U-boats were on patrol at any given time and they inflicted this damage. In the Med 105 subs operated. By the end of 1941 before the yank influx U-boats were 250 strong. This was an ample amount to deal with any RN surface activities if it had been necessary to support an invasion. Would the Germans have gotten beat up? Sure, but if they were motivated they cerftainly wouldn't have given up once any foothold in Britain was gained.

During the years of 1940-41 the German war machine grew immensely before the drain in the East began. It was in late 1941 Churchill was most concerned of the U-boat threat during which time the isle was in peril of collapsing.

As for seizing a port I would expect the Germans not to assault Southhampton but something lesser such as Dover, Brighton, Hasings or something else small once a sizeable force had come in by air or chute. And there are lots of sceanrios for fuel procurement with transfer from larger aircraft for one method. Wouldn't be easy but feasible in the esoteric sense.

It's easy to poo-poo the notion of a concerted landing but if the Germans were so soft why did they roll over so many enemies and fight doggedly even after the tide turned against them? Man to man they were the equal or superior to any fighting force in existence at the time.

Yeah it didn't happen and "probably" wouldn't have but events in history have a way of being open to multiple courses before one is decided upon and fate is set in irreversable motion.

There's tons of interesting possibilities. What if Washington hadn't crossed the Delaware? What if Germany had developed long range bombers? What if Custer had brought his Gatling gun? :? :D

Firefly
11-25-2005, 12:04 PM
Have to agree that you argue your case well, kudos to you. I guess we will never know though for sure.

Bladensburg
11-25-2005, 01:28 PM
The thing is that the Germans never had to mount an amphibious landing against a concerted defence and they probably couldn't because they didn't have the ships.
The British coastal defences may have been weak compared with the Atlantic Wall but then the British knew that what they had to sink was large, slow barges, barely supported by Capital ships because the RN would slaughter them. The Atlantic Wall on the other hand, was designed to repel capital ships but wasn't prepared to be swarmed by smaller, faster landing craft.

A word about German Parachutists, they only really worked reliably when they had surprise on their side and were rapidly supported, there would have been no surprise in 1940 in England - the place was paranoid.

Firefly
11-25-2005, 03:32 PM
Was there a German plan? If so we can use this as a basis for our hypothesis.

Oh and was there a British plan too?

Topor
11-25-2005, 07:22 PM
A couple of points:

The figure of 3 million tons for shipping sunk is for the whole of 1940 from ALL means. We lost 7 MILLION TONS in 1942 & survived.

The German Fallschirmjager were decimated in the Crete landings & only prevailed due to serious tactical errors by the defence. They were never again used tactically.

IMO, Sealion was never a serious option & was more likely an ateempt by Hitler to make us sue for peace, in order for his troops to be freed up for Barbarossa.

Twitch1
11-26-2005, 10:21 AM
Hitler was so stange in that his personal meddling in things certainly helped the Allies. Attempting to make the Me 262 a bomber when it was the best interceptor in the world. Stifling masssive production of the STG 44 which could have made the Wehrmacht the best armed in the conflict. Rolling up to Britain's door and not going in and many other quirks where his will screwed things up for Germany and helped the Allies, thank goodness.

If he had wanted to invade England in 1940-41 before and commitment to the Eastern front occured he would have found a way. It's as simple as that. When he had his fingers in things subordinates were forced to do his bidding no matter how outlandish something was. If he'd have demanded a flying tank they would have done their damnest to make one.

It's all just a fanciful "what-if" that we can concoct over any other event in the war that could have played out differently. If we stretch this further, let's say the Germans attempted a landing and had massive losses due to the fact thet Hitler demanded success or death of all involved. If German forces were hugely decimated perhaps the war and Hitler's strategy would have been greatly altered. Perhaps HE would have sued for peace and never messed with the Russians. He'd been assassinated and that was that. Myriad alternatives. :D

pdf27
11-27-2005, 04:19 PM
As for seizing a port I would expect the Germans not to assault Southhampton but something lesser such as Dover, Brighton, Hasings or something else small once a sizeable force had come in by air or chute.
Err... have you ever been to any of these "ports"? In 1940 Dover was the only one of these with anything resembling port facilities, and even then was limited to a small number of passenger/rail ferries. It's a small area of flat land at the base of some cliffs, with the port being an area of sea sheltered behind a (postwar) manmade breakwater. Brighton (very near where I live) has a steep, pebbly beach and at one end has a small (postwar) breakwater built for yachts. Both it and Hastings may have had some form of harbour for fishing boats however, although I think this is unlikely as most of the boats would have been small enough to run up the beach.
Incidentally, if you're not taking London or Southampton, you're limited to river barges for your sea transport. They're pretty much incapable of crossing the Channel from September-October until about March due to the sea conditions. If you don't have a proper port by then, your army will starve.

2nd of foot
11-29-2005, 05:43 PM
To put the problem in perspective it would be useful to look at a map.

http://www.ioccg.org/gallery/meris/europe/EngChannelsm.jpg


The problems of the harbours on the south coast are well explained in this wikipedia entry for Cinque ports.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinque_Ports

Dover probably the biggest is very difficult to get out of due to the cliffs which are a fortress. Other port had the attention of Palmerston, when the French looked like coming across for a visit in 1950 ish.

You should also take into consideration that a lot of the small harbours are covered by the Goodwin sands, a grave yard of many a ship.

http://www.whitecliffscountry.org.uk/heritage/graphics/goodwins.gif

Monty's Double
12-06-2005, 08:09 AM
To anyone who entertains the briefest notion that Sealion was in any way viable, I suggest you dig out your copy of Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships and check the numbers of destroyers in the Royal Navy and Kriegsmarine. Notice how the British entries tend to be half a column long, whereas the German ones are each usually an inch or so (for a laugh, look at the US section - the Fletcher Class takes up two entire pages, written in text the size of an ant's winky). Then notice how half of the German ones sort of ceased to exist one afternoon in April that year, when they got into an arguement with the Warpite.

I don't think the heavy forces would have been commited (though "Death Ride of the Queen Elizabeth" would have been a great movie) even after a landing - there were plenty of DDs and cruisers of all flavours to do the job. Crikey, a few coastal patrol vessels or armed trawlers could have probably done the job welll enough.

Twitch1
12-06-2005, 12:29 PM
I don't believe Sea Lion AS IT WAS cobbled up is worthy of jack either. The point stands that if a serious desire was in Hitler's soul there would have been a completely different real plan developed. I'm not alluding to any expert knowledge of some stategy other than the fact that without American assistance ringed by 250 subs Britain was in dire straights and a concerted invasion without the distraction of Russia would have ultimately proved successful. If Britain was Hitler's only priority a serious, not half-baked plan would have been conceived.

We have the advantage of looking back 65 years hence and knowing the outcome. In 1940 no one was certain of ANYTHING.

Topor
12-06-2005, 01:16 PM
ANY thought of invasion was scuppered when the Luftwaffe failed in its attempt to destroy the RAF (a condition set in stone by the Kriegsmarine).
Without the removal of the RAF, the German naval losses would have been tremendous.

pdf27
12-06-2005, 06:50 PM
I don't believe Sea Lion AS IT WAS cobbled up is worthy of jack either. The point stands that if a serious desire was in Hitler's soul there would have been a completely different real plan developed.
Wrong. The Germans simply didn't have any alternative airlift or sealift assets, so whether they really did want to invade or not is irrelevant - the plan they formulated was the best they could do with the assets and knowledge available. It would also rapidly have turned into a bloody shambles.

Monty's Double
12-07-2005, 03:08 AM
I suppose any counterfactual needs to find the "point of departure". My belief is that you'd have to go back to around 1937 to give the German forces time to develop the equipment and methods for large scale amphibious operations. If that happened then it's also likely that the strategy of appeasement would have been called into question (nobody could fool themselves that Hilter was just sorting out his "back door" and that the Empire could tootle along regardeless).

A far more successful strategy would have been massive investment in U-boats to strangle the British Isles, forcing them to come to terms. If Germany had been careful not to upset the US too much this might have worked, but then you have the Japanese spoiling it all, so the end result is likely the same.

I get the impression that most people view the Commonwealth forces of 1940 as pretty hopeless, but it just isn't true. We Brits have never really been that fond of our Army (it mutinied, after all) so they've always got the smelly end of the stick. Even so, fighting on home soil, with decent medium artillery and a handy light AT gun and heavy machine gun, it's difficult to see them being rolled over. The RAF's Fighter Command was one of the most professional and well-run military oraginisations in Europe, far less weighed down with the ego and hubris of the Luftwaffe, and with the RADAR network as the ace in the hole. The Royal Navy was a little more mixed, with a slightly ossified top layer, but the one thing we could always rely on were aggressive and skilful destroyer captains - handy in an invasion n'est-ce pas?

pdf27
12-07-2005, 05:25 AM
The Royal Navy was a little more mixed, with a slightly ossified top layer, but the one thing we could always rely on were aggressive and skilful destroyer captains - handy in an invasion n'est-ce pas?
Ossified maybe, but the Admiralty were still better than everyone else bar possibly the US Navy (who were not themselves a whole lot better - see for instance their delaying the implementation of convoys and refusing to learn from RN experience to date).

Firefly
12-07-2005, 05:50 AM
I think even most people in the UK would think that the British Army was not very good in 1940.

I'm not sure I disagree with them either, 1940-41 was not a very good time for the British army at all.

But fighting on home soil would have been a diffrent prospect, as there was nowhere else to run I suppose.

pdf27
12-07-2005, 07:14 AM
But fighting on home soil would have been a diffrent prospect, as there was nowhere else to run I suppose.
They would also be fighting to their strengths for a change - continuous lines, good logistics and a nearby industrial base. The Germans would also most likely be unable to fight to their strengths due to very poor logistics and lack of armour.

Monty's Double
12-07-2005, 07:20 AM
Agreed pdf, it's all relative I suppose. I suspect most people have no concept of quite how big the gap between the navies was. I reckon the Kreigsmarine had 14 destroyers in May 1940, of which 10 or 11 were operational (they'd already lost half that number while they were "winning"). The RN had what, fifty destroyers in home waters? And our hopelessly under-funded Fleet Air Arm still managed to be the first naval air force to sink a major surface warship.

Twitch1
12-07-2005, 11:02 AM
Monty- exactly what I meant. If in the mid-1930s Germany had the foresight to comprehensively develop equipment and tactics for an invasion there is no telling what would have happened. I never was assessing what else the Jerrys could have done in late 1940-early 1941 with what they actually had. The whole point of "what if" scenarios is to contemplate what it would have taken for a certain event to be altered enough for a different outcome. Their 250 U-boats would have made a vast difference in RN surface plans. With that many subs concentrated in the area I would imaging more than a few RN surface ships might have gone down.

Look it simply boils down to "could the Germans have done it with what they had?" Of course not. "Could they have done it with on an alternate course of circumstances?"

Great, if everyone wants to ignore alternate courses of history fine. Then there's nothing much to talk about. "December 7th. Pearl Harbor attack. Yep, it happened." Why not "what might have happened if...?" The whole idea is WHAT would it have taken to for this or that to have happened in history. Saying something "that could never happen" is just the kind of thing that kept guys like Hitler up nights figuring ways to make those things happen.

The problem with peering backwards into the past is that we know the answers and it prejudices our perceptions. How could it not? We know what's going to happen when we read history! After the BoB NOBODY on the Isle knew what the hell was coming next and the susequent cost of bolstering defenses and diverting manpower, not knowing where to expect the next attack subtracted from Britain's dwindling strength.

When the tide had turned and Rommel tried to upgrade Hitler's defenses of Fortress Europe it was the same story in reverse. If anyone in September 1940 sat in England and said, "don't worry about the Germans. They can't invade," they'd have been branded as looney.

Firefly
12-07-2005, 12:53 PM
I absolutely agree with that last paragraph. People back then were genuinely worried about an invasion. There is hardly a beach in the UK that didnt have some sort of defence put on it. Even as far North as Nairn. Also after Dunkirk the Army was seriously weakened and demoralised.

I dont mind the what ifs at all. The Germans best bet to get the Brits to sue for peace was at Dunkirk. What if the Army hadnt gotten away. I think there would have been serious considerations about reaching terms then.

pdf27
12-07-2005, 02:08 PM
Monty- exactly what I meant. If in the mid-1930s Germany had the foresight to comprehensively develop equipment and tactics for an invasion there is no telling what would have happened. I never was assessing what else the Jerrys could have done in late 1940-early 1941 with what they actually had.
Well, that cuts both ways. The U-boats and amphibious shipping would have come at some cost, almost certainly to the surface fleet (and note that the U-boats were the most severely restricted of all the Kriegsmarine by treaty - early rearmament would have most likely brought a much more severe response from France and the UK, one Germany could not at the time have resisted). If there is no surface fleet, the escort requirements for the convoys are greatly reduced and hence the forces available to attack the invasion are greatly increased. However, the presence of amphibious shipping makes a proper assault possible - something that was never true with Sea Lion.
The second area is the Marines/Paratroopers. These require the best and most motivated available troops to succeed - the very troops that went to the Panzers in @. Strip out the Panzer equipment partially to equip the marines (and probably to some extent the landing craft too - at least some components will need the same industrial base, for example diesel engines) and you have a further problem. It's an open question how much further you can strip them out without failing in the Battle of France - and so the invasion becoming moot anyway.
Finally, the Luftwaffe. In @ it was constructed almost purely as a tactical air force, to give close support and air interdiction for the Heer. Given funding and industrial capabilities, the size is pretty much fixed and the aircraft size/payload and even to an extent type is fixed. Hence, to provide longer ranged aircraft, a lot of transports and anti shipping strike you're going to have to strip out the tactical arm of the Luftwaffe. Again, this will weaken the striking power of the Panzer arm - I have no idea if this would be enough to prevent success in the Battle of France, but that is the risk you're taking.

Twitch1
12-07-2005, 05:35 PM
I'm sorry guys if I stirred you all up. :oops: If nobody cares to look at any alternate realities other than "the allies win" I won't bring it up any more.
http://skins.hotbar.com/skins/mailskins/em/110103/110103_no_problem_prv.gif

pdf27
12-07-2005, 06:26 PM
I'm sorry guys if I stirred you all up. :oops: If nobody cares to look at any alternate realities other than "the allies win" I won't bring it up any more.
Feel free to keep bringing them up - they're an interesting intellectual exercise. The problem is that it is very, very hard to come up with a plausible scenario where the allies don't win. Fundamentally, Germany cannot win if the United States enters the war - and to come up with a scenario where the US does not enter the war you have to have a point of departure from current history in 1914 at the latest IMHO.
Once the UK was involved in WW1, the level of transatlantic trade is going to suck the US in on the Entente side. Once it enters the war on the Entente side, it isn't going to switch sides in the next war, nor is it going to return fully to it's initial isolationist policy. Hence, to plausibly keep the US out of WW1 you have to keep the UK out of WW1.
The reason the US cannot lose is industrial - it has massively more industrial base than any other country on earth in 1940, and virtually all of the engineers who truly understand mass production. It also has a very, very large population of military age and the cash to arm and equip them. The United States had IIRC a little over half the world's war making potential in 1940, while Germany had something like 15% from memory (marginally more than the UK and Russia individually, rather less than their combined total). This explains why Germany was defeated so thoroughly, and why pretty much no matter what they do it will be defeated. In fact, the better they do earlier in the war the worse things are. If they do eventually take all of Europe, they put themselves in the frame to be destroyed by US nuclear weapons in 1947 or so.

Monty's Double
12-08-2005, 02:45 AM
Yup, what he said.

I blame the Ems telegram.

IronFist
12-08-2005, 05:07 PM
hmmm Germany and idea of airlifting supplies into invading armies???...does anyone else recall stalingrad. Especially with the RAF present at all times and them not having air superiorty, that would have never worked.

Lemuel
12-08-2005, 07:31 PM
I'm sorry guys if I stirred you all up. :oops: If nobody cares to look at any alternate realities other than "the allies win" I won't bring it up any more.
http://skins.hotbar.com/skins/mailskins/em/110103/110103_no_problem_prv.gif

alternative realities are great, it can help us better appreciate the actions taken by both parties and experience a glimpse of what people were fighting for..

eg: Operation Sea Lion was ultimately the reason for the Luftwaffe's attack on the RAF, and again the threat of Operation Sea Lion was motivation for the RAF to do its best. Every RAF pilot up in the air wouldve known that it was up to them to stop the invasion of their homeland

In fact I'm willing to bet that the main reason Operation Sea Lion never took place was because of Hitler's blunder when he ordered the Luftwaffe to switch targets from RAF airfields to English Cities. If he had kept attacking the RAF on the ground eventually they would've run out of aircraft and pilots to fly them. With no RAF, Operation Sea Lion could've gone ahead and may or may not have been succesfull

Monty's Double
12-09-2005, 07:35 AM
In fact I'm willing to bet that the main reason Operation Sea Lion never took place was because of Hitler's blunder when he ordered the Luftwaffe to switch targets from RAF airfields to English Cities. If he had kept attacking the RAF on the ground eventually they would've run out of aircraft and pilots to fly them. With no RAF, Operation Sea Lion could've gone ahead and may or may not have been succesfull

Well, sort of, but you have to remember how close the Luftwaffe was to the edge as well. The table below shows the daily losses - during that crucial period when 11 Group was almost knocked out of the fight, German losses were still round about double the British ones.

http://www.brooksart.com/BoBloss.html

Let's say that they stick with the airfields, and that by the end of August 11 Group is in tatters - the sector stations are almost all destroyed and most squadrons can only raise a few pilots and aircraft - opposition to the Luftwaffe is patchy and weak. Right, what next? Assuming Sea Lion gets the green light (and let's assume a little more work has gone into assembling barges and tugs, and that the Kriegsmarine big 'uns do a diversionary sally that keeps the RN's heavy units out of the Channel), the Luftwaffe has to quickly switch to preparing the invasion zone, including diversionary raids to stop the Brits identifying the invasion site.

When you look at how quickly the RAF bases recovered, that 2 week slot is crucial. Every day, fighters were pouring off the production lines - the UK hit war production far quicker than Germany whose peak wasn't until 1944, which was too late. Even novice pilots would have been able to hamper the invasion to some degree. And once the invasion force lands, what do you think the RAF will do with all those fighters in 10 Group and 12 Group that have so far only played a peripheral role? Even a half-hearted defence is going to seriously weaken the German invasion, and threaten supply lines.

BlitzKrieg, in order to succeed, needs the following:
Air superiority/supremacy
Lots of tanks and transport
Space to manoeuvre
Dependable Supply Lines

The Wermacht also depended on a certain amount of at least tacit support from the populace - remember they were welcomed as liberators in many parts of Eastern Europe, and the French were very disenchanted with their government; for some the price of occupation was worth paying. It's hard to see them getting any of the above in Kent in September 1940.

Looking at the evidence, it's clear that Sea Lion as we know it was a bluff to persuade the UK to come to terms. Without Churchill it had a decent chance of succeeding, and that would have freed up the Wermacht to hit Russia in April/May. That, to me, is a far more likely counterfactual. The other alternative is that Hilter decides he has to knock Britain out of the war first, and invades in 1941 - though again, every month that passes plays to the UK side, since they are producing aircraft and (crap) tanks, while German industry is still knocking out coffee pots and transistor radios for the civs in Berlin. I'll take an A13 over a Siemens teasmaid any time, mate.

Lemuel
12-09-2005, 08:15 AM
Well, sort of, but you have to remember how close the Luftwaffe was to the edge as well. The table below shows the daily losses - during that crucial period when 11 Group was almost knocked out of the fight, German losses were still round about double the British ones.

http://www.brooksart.com/BoBloss.html

Do those statistics include RAF planes lost on the ground? Remember that for every day that the Luftwaffe bombed RAF Airfields the RAF wasn't just losing planes in the air but ALSO planes on the ground along with the facilities needed to mantain and supply them.

I am certain that if the Luftwaffe kept targetting the RAF on the ground they would've eventually have defeated them. Luckily Hitler's ego got in the way and at the expense of the City of London, the RAF was given the breathing space it needed

With the British army having been already defeated in France and a large amount of its vehicles and heavy equipment rusting away on the beaches of Dunkirk the British wouldve put a desperate fight on their home soil but would be on the back foot.

In my mind the Royal Navy would've been the main obstacle to Operation Sea Lion had the Luftwaffe continued to target the RAF instead of switching to London.

pdf27
12-09-2005, 11:30 AM
Do those statistics include RAF planes lost on the ground? Remember that for every day that the Luftwaffe bombed RAF Airfields the RAF wasn't just losing planes in the air but ALSO planes on the ground along with the facilities needed to mantain and supply them.
The relevant statistic is the number of planes kept in immediate reserve (i.e. factory fresh aircraft just waiting to be delivered to a pilot who could use them). Throughout the BoB, this always had aircraft in it which were released as soon as they were required. While maintenence facilities were hit (to the extent that Manston was abandoned) it didn't really affect availability. The limiting factor was always pilots.


I am certain that if the Luftwaffe kept targetting the RAF on the ground they would've eventually have defeated them. Luckily Hitler's ego got in the way and at the expense of the City of London, the RAF was given the breathing space it needed
You're suffering from a major logical fallacy here. You're assuming that the RAF would have done exactly what the Luftwaffe wanted them to do and connived in their own destruction. This wouldn't have happened - the RAF was staffed by some pretty ruthless professionals. What they would have done (and their are documented plans supporting this) is simply withdrawn North of London until the invasion happened, in which case they would have surged forward again rapidly.
Since little needed to be moved except the aircraft themselves (spares, tooling, etc. could be borrowed while they were in the North) this would take little time and would leave the Germans with little to hit. If they had really wanted to hit anything, it would have meant unescorted raids tracked all the way in - and hence very bad losses.


With the British army having been already defeated in France and a large amount of its vehicles and heavy equipment rusting away on the beaches of Dunkirk the British wouldve put a desperate fight on their home soil but would be on the back foot.
Why? ALL the German vehicles, artillery (bar a few mortars) and heavy armour would be parked in France as they simply lacked the ability to get it across the channel. Incidentally, the majority of units were fully reequipped within a very short period of time - I can think of at least one unit armed with 3.7"(?) AA guns that left it's guns at Dunkirk and were most disappointed to find shiny new ones waiting for them the minute they got back (meaning no leave!).
You're also fundamentally misreading the national character if you think that the defeat in France led to those evacuated being defeatist in nature.


In my mind the Royal Navy would've been the main obstacle to Operation Sea Lion had the Luftwaffe continued to target the RAF instead of switching to London.
The RN always were the fundamental obstacle - in the sense that unless they did something incredibly stupid (along the lines of scuttle the entire fleet in Scapa Floe as a joke) any invasion by sea will be destroyed, the majority of it before it hit the beaches. IIRC throughout summer 1940 there were around 50 destroyers kept at very short notice to steam within 2 hours steaming of the planned invasion beaches, along with around a dozen cruisers. Given that most of the German barges needed 24 hours to make the crossing and would sink by themselves in moderately bad weather (the wake from a large ship would be more than enough) it's virtually inconceivable that the Germans could ever get ashore in any force.

Oh, and did you read the rest of the thread? Most of your arguaments have been gone over in far greater depth already and generally thoroughly discredited.

Firefly
12-09-2005, 11:56 AM
Well, sort of, but you have to remember how close the Luftwaffe was to the edge as well. The table below shows the daily losses - during that crucial period when 11 Group was almost knocked out of the fight, German losses were still round about double the British ones.

http://www.brooksart.com/BoBloss.html

Do those statistics include RAF planes lost on the ground? Remember that for every day that the Luftwaffe bombed RAF Airfields the RAF wasn't just losing planes in the air but ALSO planes on the ground along with the facilities needed to mantain and supply them.

I am certain that if the Luftwaffe kept targetting the RAF on the ground they would've eventually have defeated them. Luckily Hitler's ego got in the way and at the expense of the City of London, the RAF was given the breathing space it needed

With the British army having been already defeated in France and a large amount of its vehicles and heavy equipment rusting away on the beaches of Dunkirk the British wouldve put a desperate fight on their home soil but would be on the back foot.

In my mind the Royal Navy would've been the main obstacle to Operation Sea Lion had the Luftwaffe continued to target the RAF instead of switching to London.

Hi mate, good stuff, as PDF says some of it has been gone over before. If you read this:

http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1266&start=15

You will find that I posted a good few links on the strength of Fighter Command during the BoB.

Although that I would agree that a lot of the British troops had to be somewhat deflated after Dunkirk I'm convinced that fighting on home soil would have provided a spur to them.

Lemuel
12-09-2005, 04:42 PM
The relevant statistic is the number of planes kept in immediate reserve (i.e. factory fresh aircraft just waiting to be delivered to a pilot who could use them). Throughout the BoB, this always had aircraft in it which were released as soon as they were required. While maintenence facilities were hit (to the extent that Manston was abandoned) it didn't really affect availability. The limiting factor was always pilots.

Sir Keith Park's greatest fear was that more of his squadrons would be caught on the ground by the Luftwaffe, until the switch to London this was exactly what the Luftwaffe were attempting to do. Planes on the ground don't shoot back. I understand that this actually only happened a small number of times but had the Luftwaffe continued to attack RAF airfields it would've proved very costly.

It is more out of curiousity that I would like to see a figure that shows the number of RAF aircraft lost on the ground as well as in the air. I know it is tradition to think of a plane only being a kill if it shot down from the air but when it comes down to it, a plane is a plane.


You're also fundamentally misreading the national character if you think that the defeat in France led to those evacuated being defeatist in nature.

Did I say that at all? What I actually said was that "they wouldve put a desperate fight" I NEVER once suggested that the British were being defeatist by nature, I was just reminding you that the British Army had just lost a lot of their equipment and a large number of their trained army in France.


Oh, and did you read the rest of the thread? Most of your arguaments have been gone over in far greater depth already and generally thoroughly discredited.

Yes I had read the rest of the thread but posted what I did as my opinion in response to Monty's Double post. I am very sorry to have somehow caused you grief pdf and will endevaour to not have an opinion in the future if it only means you will flame me accusing me of not reading threads and misquoting me eg: claiming I thought the British people were defeatist in nature

Firefly
12-09-2005, 06:07 PM
Nope, continue what your doing Lemuel. It is good debate. PDF is also a good debater and thats what we like here.

No flames, just points and counterpoints, as long as anyone can clearly and susinctly put their points of view over there is no problem.

After all this is a bit of a what if. Which has been good I may add.

Firefly
03-30-2006, 05:58 AM
I have just read a very well written piece on Op SEALION here:

http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/althist/seal1.htm

He seems to have a good grasp of the pertinent elements that have all been touched on above.

Nickdfresh
09-28-2008, 02:41 PM
I'm reopening this thread...

I've read some on this at other forums. And I've heard speculation that Operation Sealion planning was nothing more than a half-assed bluff and no invasion would have taken place remotely within the timetable after the Fall of France...

So, was Sealion a ruse, or did the Germans have any actual hope of landing in Britain?

redcoat
09-28-2008, 03:16 PM
Do those statistics include RAF planes lost on the ground? Remember that for every day that the Luftwaffe bombed RAF Airfields the RAF wasn't just losing planes in the air but ALSO planes on the ground along with the facilities needed to mantain and supply them.

RAF Fighter Command lost a total of 20 serviceable fighters on the ground during the whole of the Battle Of Britain

pdf27
09-28-2008, 04:09 PM
You mentioned the Aquatic Mammal. A Jihad on your arse!

redcoat
09-28-2008, 05:05 PM
So, was Sealion a ruse, or did the Germans have any actual hope of landing in Britain?
It wasn't a ruse, and it had a zero chance of success

aly j
09-28-2008, 11:53 PM
Had the Germans come ashore on the isle in any substantial number Britain would have been doomed.

Germany did manage too get a shore on british soil[ british isle or something]
U can see an english police officer standing next too German Officers and German Soilders,and the germans even took down the british flag and put the nazi flag up. I saw it with my own eyes. History channel and ww2 book.
It was all down too the royal air force,if they fail then britan was doomed:D

pdf27
09-29-2008, 01:45 AM
U can see an english police officer standing next too German Officers and German Soilders,and the germans even took down the british flag and put the nazi flag up. I saw it with my own eyes. History channel and ww2 book.
That was in the Channel Islands, which are technically part of the Dutchy of Normandy. They are the last bit of France owned by William the Conqueror prior to 1066 still owned by the British Crown, and as they are about 5 miles off the coast of France were considered indefensible.
The Germans fortified them heavily and used large garrisons - which the Allies promptly ignored when they invaded France and later Germany. Indeed, Channel Islanders still celebrate VE day as Liberation Day...


It was all down too the royal air force,if they fail then britan was doomed:D
Not quite - the Luftwaffe were incapable of effectively attacking moving ships in 1940. They wouldn't have been capable of stopping the RN from attacking the invasion fleet, and considering it was largely made of river barges they would most likely have slaughtered it.

aly j
09-29-2008, 04:59 AM
That was in the Channel Islands, which are technically part of the Dutchy of Normandy. They are the last bit of France owned by William the Conqueror prior to 1066 still owned by the British Crown, and as they are about 5 miles off the coast of France were considered indefensible.
The Germans fortified them heavily and used large garrisons - which the Allies promptly ignored when they invaded France and later Germany. Indeed, Channel Islanders still celebrate VE day as Liberation Day...


Not quite - the Luftwaffe were incapable of effectively attacking moving ships in 1940. They wouldn't have been capable of stopping the RN from attacking the invasion fleet, and considering it was largely made of river barges they would most likely have slaughtered it.

Sorry but it was british soil ,but it wast join up to britain. Thats the only british soil the germans ever step foot on. Dont forget britain had an Empire back in those days:D I dont think youre wrong at, all its what i learnt and i dont what to go against a mod,i respect mods,please dont jump down my throat.:)

pdf27
09-29-2008, 06:44 AM
Sorry but it was british soil ,but it wast join up to britain.
Ummm.... sort of. The Channel Islanders are subjects of the British Crown (as indeed are Australians, come to think of it), but not part of the United Kingdom. They are self-governing in all matters except defence, citizenship, and diplomatic representation. As such they aren't actually British soil as they are specifically Crown possesions.

aly j
09-29-2008, 06:49 AM
Ummm.... sort of. The Channel Islanders are subjects of the British Crown (as indeed are Australians, come to think of it), but not part of the United Kingdom. They are self-governing in all matters except defence, citizenship, and diplomatic representation. As such they aren't actually British soil as they are specifically Crown possesions.

YES are you saying im right?OH im god im right ,im going to chuck a party:mrgreen:

pdf27
09-29-2008, 02:12 PM
You're sort of right - I was trying to explain it more precisely. I wouldn't call them British (quite), but it's closer to the truth than any other plausible nationality. They are certainly entitled to British Passports, but special ones that don't give them the special rights to live anywhere in the EU that someone from the mainland UK would get.
The closest similar situation is probably the Isle of Man...

navyson
09-29-2008, 02:41 PM
What eventually happened to the German garrisons on the channel islands? Anyone know? I wouldn't think that they would "rot on the vine" as the Japanese did on different islands in the PTO.

pdf27
09-29-2008, 02:54 PM
They surrendered in the Summer of 1945, at the same time as the rest of the German forces.

navyson
09-29-2008, 03:00 PM
They surrendered in the Summer of 1945, at the same time as the rest of the German forces.
Thanks! Who knows what they had to endure on the islands, but sounds like they were kind of lucky to miss out on a lot of fighting and hardship. Especially considering they were still on the islands at the time of surrender.

redcoat
09-29-2008, 04:09 PM
You're sort of right - I was trying to explain it more precisely. I wouldn't call them British (quite), but it's closer to the truth than any other plausible nationality. They are certainly entitled to British Passports, but special ones that don't give them the special rights to live anywhere in the EU that someone from the mainland UK would get.
The closest similar situation is probably the Isle of Man...
It is rather a complicated subject because while they are subjects of the British crown and can therefore be classed as 'British' because of this, they cannot be classed as British because of where they live as the Channel Islands are not considered to belong to the British Isles, in geographical terms they are considered to be part of the land mass that makes up France.

flamethrowerguy
09-29-2008, 04:10 PM
Thanks! Who knows what they had to endure on the islands, but sounds like they were kind of lucky to miss out on a lot of fighting and hardship. Especially considering they were still on the islands at the time of surrender.

I once read the personal story of a german soldier who was based on Jersey (the biggest and most populous channel island). You would rarely find better places for a german soldier to be in WW2. They had a good live there and weren't seriously attacked. The official statement of the allied had been that they just didn't want to linger with an unimportant island. But there were supposed political and public law reasons for -as pdf mentioned- the channel islands were not part of the UK but "crown dependency".

flamethrowerguy
09-29-2008, 04:26 PM
BTW, this s hould be one of the scenes aly was writing about:

Nickdfresh
09-29-2008, 09:08 PM
It wasn't a ruse, and it had a zero chance of success


I agree totally. I think the only Germans getting to England in sizable numbers enough to overwhelm the British would have been the ones washing up on shore...

navyson
09-29-2008, 09:13 PM
I once read the personal story of a german soldier who was based on Jersey (the biggest and most populous channel island). You would rarely find better places for a german soldier to be in WW2. They had a good live there and weren't seriously attacked. The official statement of the allied had been that they just didn't want to linger with an unimportant island. But there were supposed political and public law reasons for -as pdf mentioned- the channel islands were not part of the UK but "crown dependency".
Thank you too, flame! That was an interesting bit of information.

aly j
09-29-2008, 11:07 PM
In essence, only if the Germans are very lucky does this matter - the British Army and the Royal Air Force are supporting roles only; the Royal Navy would have ****ed the rather ad-hoc invasion fleet on all but the worst rolls of the die. Add to that the fact German plans for Sealion were woefully poor...

Operation Sealion was f-cked up cause of Hitler.
He may be good at speeches but with prepairing operations he should of listen to his much smarter Generals.:)

redcoat
09-30-2008, 08:02 AM
Operation Sealion was f-cked up cause of Hitler.
He may be good at speeches but with prepairing operations he should of listen to his much smarter Generals.:)
He did. That's why it never took place.
According to Colonel-General Halder, the chief German Army planner for Operation Sealion, the operation would be like "putting the troops through a sausage machine" * ;)


* he stated this when he found out the logistical capabilities (or lack of) of the German naval forces :lol:

ps; At the start of the planning the German army was thinking in terms of 40 divisions in the first wave, by the time of the final plan this had been reduced to 11 divisions (9 infantry, 2 Airborne and a small number of tanks) landing over a period of 10 days.

Churchill
09-30-2008, 03:16 PM
Wow, with only those forces, it would have been a sausage machine.

pdf27
09-30-2008, 05:13 PM
It gets worse. That logistical plan relied on having to use most of the barges multiple times. Given how bad the weather can get in the channel and the resistance they could expect from the RN, this is an incredibly optimistic assumption!

Churchill
09-30-2008, 07:00 PM
Those barges would have been lucky to make it across once, and they wanted to send them out some more times? They should have used their "fleet" to try and divert some attention from the barges, even then it wouldn't have been much, because the RN would have massacred the German "fleet".

aly j
09-30-2008, 07:21 PM
He did. That's why it never took place.
According to Colonel-General Halder, the chief German Army planner for Operation Sealion, the operation would be like "putting the troops through a sausage machine" * ;)


* he stated this when he found out the logistical capabilities (or lack of) of the German naval forces :lol:

ps; At the start of the planning the German army was thinking in terms of 40 divisions in the first wave, by the time of the final plan this had been reduced to 11 divisions (9 infantry, 2 Airborne and a small number of tanks) landing over a period of 10 days.
The only time Hitler listen.
Yes hitler really wanted too do this.
I dont think he even cared about hes own troops at all:)

ww11freak34
09-30-2008, 07:43 PM
they wanted to invade england put they never invaded if they would have the allies would lose the war

ww11freak34
09-30-2008, 07:43 PM
i wouldnt want to be in england when it would happen

aly j
09-30-2008, 08:20 PM
they wanted to invade england put they never invaded if they would have the allies would lose the war

I bet youre one of the younger ones on here, i can tell by youre typing,
I dont think Germany had the resoucers and equitment to get too England.
It was a death sentence really.The only reason it was easy for the Germans to invade the other countries is that they were join up to them, and those countries had much weaker army than Germany.
England on the other hand, had a big army and the royal air/force and an Even bigger navy than the Germans did.
If the Germans knock out the English navey and the Royal/air force, then they could of enterd England.
Cheers

Churchill
09-30-2008, 09:01 PM
I bet youre one of the younger ones on here, i can tell by youre typing.

Well... You were like that too... And you should put apostrophes... Just saying... :mrgreen:

aly j
09-30-2008, 09:14 PM
Well... You were like that too... And you should put apostrophes... Just saying... :mrgreen:

Yeah thats how i knew.
he sounded the same as me.
I didt really need you telling me.just saying .Haha just playing with you
Sir Winston Churchill.;)

navyson
10-01-2008, 07:18 AM
I bet youre one of the younger ones on here, i can tell by youre typing,
I dont think Germany had the resoucers and equitment to get too England.
It was a death sentence really.The only reason it was easy for the Germans to invade the other countries is that they were join up to them, and those countries had much weaker army than Germany.
England on the other hand, had a big army and the royal air/force and an Even bigger navy than the Germans did.
If the Germans knock out the English navey and the Royal/air force, then they could of enterd England.
Cheers
Hi aly j! Off Topic I know, but wanted to let you know that this is much easier reading than the text speak. Much improved and appreciated!:)

aly j
10-01-2008, 07:38 AM
Hi aly j! Off Topic I know, but wanted to let you know that this is much easier reading than the text speak. Much improved and appreciated!:)

Hey,you notice.

Im doing my best with my typing, its you guys im learning from. Thanks cheers:D

boxerrick41
10-01-2008, 12:37 PM
i think the only way they could have conquered britain was to kill them all, i dont think any of them would surrender on their own soil. if you ever met a british soldier , you would learn that fast. God Bless the UK

herman2
10-01-2008, 12:57 PM
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

Sir Winston Churchill, 1942


....and God Save the Queen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Long Live England!

aly j
10-02-2008, 09:45 AM
i think the only way they could have conquered britain was to kill them all, i dont think any of them would surrender on their own soil. if you ever met a british soldier , you would learn that fast. God Bless the UK

I totally agree with you on this.

Nickdfresh
09-02-2016, 01:10 PM
Bump! More info for the current discussion in the Dunkirk Halt! thread (http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php/15147-Why-did-Guderian-stop-at-Dunkirk/page5)...

Deriboy
11-22-2017, 11:27 AM
Operation Sealion never materialized due to the incorrect picture of British forces and air and sea capability passed on to the Nazi High Command. Hitler was too nervous to actually move on Britian because of this inflated summary of resistance.

Deriboy
11-27-2017, 01:29 PM
Operation Sealion did not happen because of Hitler's failure to commit. He had, been overly concerned with false intelligent reports regarding the strength of the British military.

JR*
04-04-2018, 11:29 AM
Hello, FTG. True about Jersey. Never really attacked by the Allies, too small and flat for armed resistance to emerge, generally civil relations between German Occupation forces and locals and local government and so on. This in spite of some problems imposed on all concerned by general German policy - for example, the continental developments that resulted in the expulsion from the Channel Islands of non-CI born residents to Germany as a "reprisal" for matters having nothing to do with the Islands. Also, following D-Day, the food shortage on Jersey became particularly acute for the isolated German garrison, who did not have access (at least directly) to Red Cross food parcels when these eventually arrived. Yours with best regards, JR.