StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Could Hitler have won the Big One by launching Sealion, conquering England, and showing the same willingness to expend blood and treasure against the British Isles as he did in his ill gotten "crusade" against Bolshevism and then turning east?

Keep in mind:
1. How does Nazi Germany deal with the RN?
2. Does the US intervene?
3. At what point is Sealion launched? Straight after France falls, or after more substantial Air and Naval preperation to both prosecute and support the assault force?
4. Chemical Weapons. Who pulls the trigger first, and who is better prepared?
5. Just how much do the people of Britain endure before they would be forced to call it quits (Militarily, and also in terms of reprisals against citizens for very likely partisan activities)

Discuss.

Ill answer a few of these.

1. After they dealt with the RAF and RN are ducks on a pond.
2. Probably would have
3. Say best time is right before they switch from bombing military to civilian targets in the blitz, or better yet had they kept up with attacking military for another 2 weeks and thus wiped the floor with the RAF then launching.
4. British pull it first, after the first V2 churchill was about the order the gasing of berlin, he also had no problem gasing iraqis, he had no objections to using gas whenever against an invading army.
5. Would endue quite a bit, them brits (and expecially scots) have spirit.

Falkenhayn wrote:
Keep in mind:
1. How does Nazi Germany deal with the RN?

They can't

2. Does the US intervene?

No

3. At what point is Sealion launched?

Never. After the fall of France the shipping and needed bases are not ready. By the time they are, British ground defenses are far too strong. And air supremacy can never be achieved anyway.

4. Chemical Weapons. Who pulls the trigger first, and who is better prepared?

Many British forces dont have masks, but neither would use chemical weapons.

5. Just how much do the people of Britain endure before they would be forced to call it quits (Militarily, and also in terms of reprisals against citizens for very likely partisan activities)

Never an issue. Germany could not defeat Britain by invasion. Eventually their air force will be ground down in a futile struggle and then Russia starts looking threatening, as it is, and Hitler turns east as historical. The longer he waits the better for the Allies.

Im told the brits would have used chems on the beaches - but, the navy was, I think, too strong for hitler.

Sealion is a joke and is in no way a feasable working plan, the transport vessels were refitter river barges and it was estimated that the wash from RN ships could sink them.

As for US intervention, I doubt it Hitler (genius that he was ) had to declare upon you even after Pearl.

Sealion was a disaster waiting to happen.

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

I actually laughed out loud when I read this the first time. It's not meant to be comedy.

Sea Skimmer wrote: Never an issue. Germany could not defeat Britain by invasion. Eventually their air force will be ground down in a futile struggle and then Russia starts looking threatening, as it is, and Hitler turns east as historical. The longer he waits the better for the Allies.

-Stalin was scared shitless of Germany. He knew he was the most hated man in Russia and that an invading German army would capitalize on ethnic divisions to tear the USSR apart. Do you know anything about Barberossa? Stalin knew the exact date, size, and objectives of the attack a month in advance, but did nothing. German troops passed Soviet Trains packed with supplies destined for German industry under Molotov-Ribbentrop for days after the invasion. He went as far as to forbid the construction of border defenses when he knew their were 3 million + German troops on his border, because he thought it would be a pravocation, a pretext for the Nazi Invasion. And the Wehrmacht had been marching through Russia for a week before he even acknowledged the invasion.
Britain had been the most vehemently anti communist country in Europe, but the Red Army, still realing from the Purges, is going to rush headlong against the greatest standing military in Europe, who they have succesfully bribed to leave them alone for the time being, to rescue one of their greatest opponents. If anything, they step up their shipments of goods and not so quietly root Hitler on.

Don't overquote~Olrik

RedImperator wrote:Sealion was a disaster waiting to happen.

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

I actually laughed out loud when I read this the first time. It's not meant to be comedy.

Which is why I allowed for Germany to put off Operation Sealion until ther were ready.

Falkenhayn wrote:

RedImperator wrote:Sealion was a disaster waiting to happen.

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

I actually laughed out loud when I read this the first time. It's not meant to be comedy.

Which is why I allowed for Germany to put off Operation Sealion until ther were ready.

Which just gives the UK more and more time to prepare, whilst over in the East the Russians continue instituting reforms.

Two important things here, firstly Hitler can't get rid of the Royal Navy, he has no ships, and no aquatic transports to boot. And in order to build the transports, assuming now the Royal Navy is magically wiped off the playing field, he would have to divert factories and men from the eastern front to this invasion, which he simply could not afford to do en masse. And the plan to use Rhine river barges would never have worked because, again assuming there are no ships in the royal navy that could make a wake, the barges go (I'm trying to remember this now, so I might not be exact) three knots, while the current in the channel is four knots. And the barges would not have been able to carry anything heavier then a light unloaded truck. Meaning supplies would have to be para-dropped which is anything less then accurate.

Sea Skimmer wrote: They can't

*slaps skimmer with a decaying halibut*

Do I have to remind you of the four cruisers sunk in less than two weeks
in the Mediterranean by Luftflotte IV's Ju-87s?

Falkenhayn wrote:

RedImperator wrote:Sealion was a disaster waiting to happen.

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

I actually laughed out loud when I read this the first time. It's not meant to be comedy.

Which is why I allowed for Germany to put off Operation Sealion until ther were ready.

That will be about 1960, assuming space aliens come and wipe out the Soviet Union for them. The longer the British have, the worse things get for the Germans, and if they don't get going by December 1941, they're going to face the U.S. Navy in the Channel and the U.S. Army will be supply men, equipment, and aircraft to the British in the event of an invasion.

TheDarkling wrote:

Falkenhayn wrote:

RedImperator wrote:Sealion was a disaster waiting to happen.

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

I actually laughed out loud when I read this the first time. It's not meant to be comedy.

Which is why I allowed for Germany to put off Operation Sealion until ther were ready.

Which just gives the UK more and more time to prepare, whilst over in the East the Russians continue instituting reforms.

And staying out of a war they really don't want to fight. And the UK still has to support the Empire fighting the Japanese.

RedImperator wrote: if they don't get going by December 1941, they're going to face the U.S. Navy in the Channel and the U.S. Army will be supply men, equipment, and aircraft to the British in the event of an invasion.

That's only if Hitler in his megalomania, declares war on the US.

Straha wrote:Two important things here, firstly Hitler can't get rid of the Royal Navy, he has no ships, and no aquatic transports to boot. And in order to build the transports, assuming now the Royal Navy is magically wiped off the playing field, he would have to divert factories and men from the eastern front to this invasion, which he simply could not afford to do en masse. And the plan to use Rhine river barges would never have worked because, again assuming there are no ships in the royal navy that could make a wake, the barges go (I'm trying to remember this now, so I might not be exact) three knots, while the current in the channel is four knots. And the barges would not have been able to carry anything heavier then a light unloaded truck. Meaning supplies would have to be para-dropped which is anything less then accurate.

Straha buddy, Sealion happens before Germany Invades russia in this set of parameters. Even so, you and others bring up good points on the competancy and preparedness of the German Army and Navy.

Could those circumstances ever be rectified in the timeframe allowed or reasonably circumvented with resources at hand?

MKSheppard wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote: They can't

*slaps skimmer with a decaying halibut*

Do I have to remind you of the four cruisers sunk in less than two weeks
in the Mediterranean by Luftflotte IV's Ju-87s?

Hallelejuah! There is still hope!

Falkenhayn wrote:And staying out of a war they really don't want to fight. And the UK still has to support the Empire fighting the Japanese.

The Home Fleet is more than sufficient to keep the Germans on their side of the Channel. The British are outproducing the Germans in fighter production. The British can deploy hundreds of obsolete artillery pieces manned by fat old reservists and still achieve success against German troops on open beaches with no heavy equipment. With nothing heavier than mortars and grenades for artillery, the Germans are going to have trouble against fortifications that would have been obsolete in the previous war. If the Luftwaffe does drive the RAF out of its southern bases, all it will do is pull back to the Midlands and wait for the invasion, out of range of the Germans. London might get pasted, but Britian's industiral heartland is untouched and the RAF will be well in range of the invasion beaches, and RAF bomber command will have thousands of Rhine barges moving that can be sunk by the wake of a passing ship moving at 3 knots in a confined area upon which to drop bombs. Germany simply doesn't have the shipbuilding capability at all to build anything better in any numbers. Pearl Harbor happens in 1941, and even if Hitler doesn't declare war, Roosevelt will have plenty of excuses *not least of which the outright shooting war between American destroyers and German U-boats in the Atlantic at the time) to go to war against Germany or at least directly support Britain with men and material. In the meantime, the Russians are arming themselves. Uncle Joe is coming in 1942, and there's nothing anyone can do about it save invade preemptively and hope things go better than they did in real life.

In short: Sealion was another one of Hitler's wank-fests, nothing more. In order to make it feisable, you have to give Germany so many advantages (including outright knowledge of the future) and handicap Britian so drastically you say the Germans would cross the Channel on the backs of flying pigs, and not really affect the realism of the scenario.

I believe this sums up Germany's situation best and from the inside:

"Meanwhile,the units that had remained behind in France were busy with the preparations for Operation Sea-lion. Even from the very beginning this operation was never taken very seriously. In my own opinion the lack of a sufficiently strong air force and of adequate shipping--not to mention the escape of the British Expeditionary Force from Dunkirk--made it a comletely hopeless undertaking. Those two weaknesses--air power and shipping--are surely the best possible proof that Germany had neither intended nor made any preparation for a war aganist the Western Powers. When in Septemember the autumn storms set in, Operation Sea-lion, which was already dead, was finally buried.
Sea-lion had one result for the tank troops, in that it led to experiments with underwater tanks, for which purpose Panzers III and IV were adapted. Those vehicles were made ready for operational employment at the tank gunnery school at Putlos, in Holstein, by the 10th of August. They were to be used in Russia during the crossing of the Bug in 1941."
- Generaloberest Heinz Guderian, Page 138, Panzer Leader

On other notes the US would not intervene for lackng a casuis belli and due to severe isolationalism. But the logistics of Sea-lion were impossible even if a beachead could be formed at Folkestore/Dover. The best chances for Sea-lion were foward planning. If plans and resources had begun to be allocated at latest by 1936 it may of had a small, but possible chance. War was never planned to go West and the Regime had too improvise.

MKSheppard wrote:

RedImperator wrote: if they don't get going by December 1941, they're going to face the U.S. Navy in the Channel and the U.S. Army will be supply men, equipment, and aircraft to the British in the event of an invasion.

That's only if Hitler in his megalomania, declares war on the US.

There's a shooting war in the Atlantic already. You don't think Roosevelt might not leverage that plus the fact Germany and Japan are allies into sending some kind of material support to Britian beyond Lend-Lease, if not an outright declared war? At the very least, the United States wouldn't sit back on its ass and watch the Germans overrun England, not when all it would take to stop them are a few crusiers in the Channel.

The Luftwaffe can engage the RN or they can engage the RAF - they don't have the resources to do both. Sure, they might sink some ships, but those bombers are coming in and even with their huge CEP they'll still wreck the LZ.

RedImperator wrote: There's a shooting war in the Atlantic already. You don't think Roosevelt might not leverage that plus the fact Germany and Japan are allies into sending some kind of material support to Britian beyond Lend-Lease, if not an outright declared war?

Lets see, we had a very large and vocal isolationist faction in the US. We
went to war in 1917, lost 100,000 men on the battlefield, spent billions of
dollars, and got...nothing but an european war 20 years later....no way
could Roosevelt had gotten Congress to declare war on Germany because
American ships were being shot at in a war zone...

I mean fuck, if you want to sail munitions to the Brits, hey, that's
what the money they're paying you for is for...

RedImperator wrote:

MKSheppard wrote:

RedImperator wrote: if they don't get going by December 1941, they're going to face the U.S. Navy in the Channel and the U.S. Army will be supply men, equipment, and aircraft to the British in the event of an invasion.

That's only if Hitler in his megalomania, declares war on the US.

There's a shooting war in the Atlantic already. You don't think Roosevelt might not leverage that plus the fact Germany and Japan are allies into sending some kind of material support to Britian beyond Lend-Lease, if not an outright declared war? At the very least, the United States wouldn't sit back on its ass and watch the Germans overrun England, not when all it would take to stop them are a few crusiers in the Channel.

And yet Lindberg was the sponsor of 1/3 of the nation that wer vehement isolationists the only reason Lend-Lease passed were the gurantee that Britain would pay back her loans. Supporting a democracy is one thing but sending troops and sailors to die when the US isn't at risk is another to them.

MKSheppard wrote:

RedImperator wrote: There's a shooting war in the Atlantic already. You don't think Roosevelt might not leverage that plus the fact Germany and Japan are allies into sending some kind of material support to Britian beyond Lend-Lease, if not an outright declared war?

Lets see, we had a very large and vocal isolationist faction in the US. We
went to war in 1917, lost 100,000 men on the battlefield, spent billions of
dollars, and got...nothing but an european war 20 years later....no way
could Roosevelt had gotten Congress to declare war on Germany because
American ships were being shot at in a war zone...

I mean fuck, if you want to sail munitions to the Brits, hey, that's
what the money they're paying you for is for...

We're already at war with the Japanese. There's not a single thing that can stop Roosevelt from using his power as commander-in-chief to send ships, planes, and troops to England. Remember, we're not trying to actually BEAT Germany here, just prevent an invasion of England from succeding. If Germany invades before December 7, Roosevelt probably can't do anything except watch, but if the Germans wait until any later than that, there WILL be Americans on the ground to help contest the invasion and the American Atlantic Fleet, stripped though it is to bolster the efforts in the Pacific, will be reinforcing the Home Fleet.

Captain Lennox wrote:

RedImperator wrote:

MKSheppard wrote: That's only if Hitler in his megalomania, declares war on the US.

There's a shooting war in the Atlantic already. You don't think Roosevelt might not leverage that plus the fact Germany and Japan are allies into sending some kind of material support to Britian beyond Lend-Lease, if not an outright declared war? At the very least, the United States wouldn't sit back on its ass and watch the Germans overrun England, not when all it would take to stop them are a few crusiers in the Channel.

And yet Lindberg was the sponsor of 1/3 of the nation that wer vehement isolationists the only reason Lend-Lease passed were the gurantee that Britain would pay back her loans. Supporting a democracy is one thing but sending troops and sailors to die when the US isn't at risk is another to them.

You're laboring under the delusion that Roosevelt, with one declaration of war already under his belt, would bother listening to the isolationists. He's commander-in-chief, and it's his perogative to send American armed forces anywhere he pleases. He's can't invade Europe or North Africa, but absolutely nobody can stop him from sending soldiers to England or at the very least ordering the Atlantic Fleet to patrol the English Channel. He probably WOULD do that just to get the Germans to attack the U.S. Navy in international waters and a causus belli.

And if Sealion succedes and England is conquered (which, lacking our hindsight, the military leaders of the time thought that was a ver real possibility), how could England have paid back its loans? The United States will not under any circumstances accept German occupation of England because it will not accept a hostile power contesting the Atlantic. You're overestimating the strength of the isolationists and underestimating the audacity--and popular mandate--of Roosevelt.

RedImperator wrote:

MKSheppard wrote:

RedImperator wrote: There's a shooting war in the Atlantic already. You don't think Roosevelt might not leverage that plus the fact Germany and Japan are allies into sending some kind of material support to Britian beyond Lend-Lease, if not an outright declared war?

Lets see, we had a very large and vocal isolationist faction in the US. We
went to war in 1917, lost 100,000 men on the battlefield, spent billions of
dollars, and got...nothing but an european war 20 years later....no way
could Roosevelt had gotten Congress to declare war on Germany because
American ships were being shot at in a war zone...

I mean fuck, if you want to sail munitions to the Brits, hey, that's
what the money they're paying you for is for...

We're already at war with the Japanese. There's not a single thing that can stop Roosevelt from using his power as commander-in-chief to send ships, planes, and troops to England. Remember, we're not trying to actually BEAT Germany here, just prevent an invasion of England from succeding. If Germany invades before December 7, Roosevelt probably can't do anything except watch, but if the Germans wait until any later than that, there WILL be Americans on the ground to help contest the invasion and the American Atlantic Fleet, stripped though it is to bolster the efforts in the Pacific, will be reinforcing the Home Fleet.

The invasion must come before September when the seas are still good. And in 1942 it's a suicide run...