Operation: Sealion

However, this assuming the US doesn’t join in the war until the end of 1941, the British would of had 2 years of standing alone against the British.

The US were already helping the British even before they entered the war in the form of lend-lease, destroyers for bases, and convoy protection.

The British couldn’t take any Offensive action against the Germans.

At that point in the war, the British had to stay defensive…

This cuts Britiain off from most outside aid (Canada is still there, but would that of been enough?). In addition, it decreases the amount of manpower flowing into Britain from the Commonwealth.

The original plan called for only 166,000 Germans, the Britiain defense units probably could of held that number off.

Germany would of bought itself a lot of time. It would have time to develope it’s Nuclear program, Airforce (Jet Engines), Tank design, and yes, it’s Navy.

Then the invasion would have to be placed on hold from its original date of 1940…

Even if Britain hadn’t fallen to invasion, the war would of dragged on for many, many years. Almost all of Southern Britain would of been utterly destroyed by bombing.

The Germans had already loss huge numbers of bombers to the RAF, they couldn’t keep it up much longer.

TG, I think you misunderstand me. I said that Germany would of been able to defeat Britain in the long run. No way in hell could they of attacked in 1940 and won.

I doubt that the Germans could have defeated England by invasion for one reason: the Royal Navy would have smashed up any invasion fleet the germans could have mustered for the attack. The Germans didn’t have anywhere near enough naval power to sustain an invasion. If the Germans had simply fought a war of attrition they may have been able to starve the British into submission with their U-Boats but this is doubltful too. Most of the new developments in ASW during the war were British in origin so the Brits would have gotten very good at hunting down U-Boats and would probably been able to keep the sea lanes open on their own. America was also providing destroyers to the Brits to help in this area. The Luftwaffe simply wasn’t a match for the RAF as was proven during the Battle Of Britain. The Germans would have probably done lots of damage to southern England but they would have taken huge losses in doing it and we all know that there was no way in hell the Brits would ever just quit.

@Yanny:

TG, I think you misunderstand me.

No, if there was not any misunderstanding then it is on your part,

@Yanny’s:

Germany was starving the British to death. They were running low on spare parts, oil, and above all, manpower, in 1940-41. Britain would of been forced to surrender long before any German invasion would of come about.

Here you explicitly say that the “British would surrender before the German invasion [Sealion] would come about.” Since Operation Sealion was originally planned for August 1940 (though postponed on the 21st and the 27th), one would assume you meant that the British would have to surrender before October 1940. Judging from common history, it is obvious that they didn’t.

I said that Germany would of been able to defeat Britain in the long run. No way in hell could they of attacked in 1940 and won.

Then you have to disregard Sealion as a whole…
This would be the equivalent to saying, the Western Allies would be successful in the defeat of Germany instead of D-Day leading up to this. Here we disregard possible “what-if’s” - if the Germans had known of Normandy as the location, how the weather was on June 6th, nightly paratrooper activity, or the strength of the Germans at Omaha. There is no doubt that the Allies would win, but would D-Day (as we know it) be a success?

@Strong:

do you think germany could have taken over Britain if they had tried to bomb out the RAF more instead of going after london, and then followed w/ an invasion from the sea?

It is possible, though I try not to fall too much into these “what-ifs.” :)

My point is TG, the British would of been forced to cave in due to Axis pressure around the world. Had there now been a war in Russia, Germany probably would of been able to take and hold Egypt, and the entire Med. Sea. This would of cut India off significantly from British supply, meaning India would be much weaker, and the Japaneese might of been able to take India. Had they done that, I believe the British would of suffered a moral blow which they could not recover from. India was the pride of the British Empire.

I think the problem was that the Germans were trying to do too much in the Battle of Britain. The Germans could have easily gained air superiority over southern England. What I would have done was concentrate fighters and bombers along the Southern coast taking out radar installations, AA gun emplacements, ports, and anyhting that moved. And if the RAF wanted to come out and play, then so be it. In conjunction with aircraft, the U-boats should be taking out all shipping and if there were any captial ships around, hit 'em with torpedoes and bombs. But all the above mentioned is if the Germans wanted to invade England and plus the Germans needed decent trasnsport ships. But once the Germans started bombing civilian targets, it was all over. It was too premature to try and bomb England into submission; the U-boat campaign never got a chance to wreak havoc enough for the bombing attacks to pay full dividend. They needed to decide whether to invade England or to bring the English populace to its knees, not both. Trying both was too much of a burden on Germany.

I agree with Yanny, that if Germany had concentrated more on Britian, building more bombs, fighters, bombers, U-Boats, and concentrating on starving out Britian, Germany could have starved out Britian before the U.S. ramped up it’s aid.

@TG:

Doubtful, this was when Britain lacked the proper countermeasures to stand up against German Wolfpacks. By Late 1941, the Royal Navy had already set up strategies to counteract this (though Sealion was set for 1940, it is doubtful they could pull it off in time). Also, US had taken steps to insure that the British lifeline would remain open.

@Blitzkrieg:

If the Germans had simply fought a war of attrition they may have been able to starve the British into submission with their U-Boats but this is doubltful too. Most of the new developments in ASW during the war were British in origin so the Brits would have gotten very good at hunting down U-Boats and would probably been able to keep the sea lanes open on their own.

Well, the ASDIC was countered by the wolfpacks, the convoys got beatne by them….
until:
the brits conquered an ENigma machine…
that was the decisive thing…

The German’s had about 3 months after the Fall of France to invade England. The British home army was no where prepared for an invasion. German feelings were that the Royal Navy and the RAF would destroy the invasion fleet before the troops hit English soil. The RAF was already destroying half of all possible barges and ships that the German’s were planning to use for an invasion. If the initial targets of the Battle for Britain (radar and lookout stations and airfields) were maintained instead of terror bombing London, the Kriegsmarine may have had the time (and air cover) to POSSIBLY arrange an attack on the UK mainland by Summer '41. It was already too late. Germany had lost the Battle for Britain in the air, Hitler had his greedy eyes on Russia, the Navy was still skeptical (and losing ships), Goering was making promises he couldn’t keep (air superiority).

Well, the real problem was when the Germans switched from bombing the British airfields to terror bombing. If they had continued to attack the Airfields, they would of utterly destroyed the RAF in just a few more weeks.

I don’t have the numbers or sources, but I believe England was out-producing Germany in fighters at the time.

Had there now been a war in Russia, Germany probably would of been able to take and hold Egypt, and the entire Med. Sea.

I assume you meant “NOT” instead of “NOW.” And I agree, Uk would’ve lost the war without Russia or USA. However, the questions, “Would Sealion be Successful” did not take this in account [The Red Army entering the War]. Also, it is impossible to determine the amount of help US would’ve gave to UK if Geramny did not attack USSR first. Already, Hitler was infuriated with the violation of US neutrality during 1941.

In conjunction with aircraft, the U-boats should be taking out all shipping and if there were any captial ships around, hit 'em with torpedoes and bombs.

If memory serves me correct, U-Boats did not preform very well against Capital Ships or escort ships. Also the Luftwaffe lacked proper bombers for such an engagement.

Well, the ASDIC was countered by the wolfpacks, the convoys got beatne by them….
until:
the brits conquered an ENigma machine…
that was the decisive thing…

The Enigma machine was a great tool to be used by the British… but it wasn’t as important as people have made it out to be. :-?
Also the concept of wolfpacks was greatly extravagated. The overwhelming majority of U-Boat encounters were ship-to-ship. At most you might see U-Baots travel in pairs, though huge full scale attacks with wolfpacks were rare.

I don’t have the numbers or sources, but I believe England was out-producing Germany in fighters at the time.

The question is not so much production rates but number of available pilots. That is your answer.

TG is somewhat right. The RCAF was deploying in the British isles while hte RCN was hunting u-boats and sending convoys. A cosntant supply could have helepd the British. Don’t forget that the British spitfires were better than almost every German plane available and the British invention of radar proved very useful in thwarting the Luftwaffe. The Kriegsmarine was inferior to the Royal Navy throughout the war.

The main issue I have with the Me-109 is the fact that due to it’s limited fuel capacity, it’s ability to project power over England was very limited. Also Germany lacked the proper bombers… using the Stuka as a bomber was not very effective…

@EmuGod:

TG is somewhat right. The RCAF was deploying in the British isles while hte RCN was hunting u-boats and sending convoys. A cosntant supply could have helepd the British. Don’t forget that the British spitfires were better than almost every German plane available and the British invention of radar proved very useful in thwarting the Luftwaffe. The Kriegsmarine was inferior to the Royal Navy throughout the war.

Good point. The British included the Commonwealth which by extension included a growing industrialized nation across the ocean. By the end of the Second World War the Royal Canadian Air Force had become the world’s third most powerful air force. Over 100 Canadian pilots flew on fighter operations during the Battle of Britain. Another 200 fought with the RAF’s Bomber and Coastal Commands. Joining the British and Canadians, were pilots from Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, from Czechoslovakia, France and Poland, and from the United States.
The British Commonwealth Air Training Plan (BCATP) was the RCAF’s paramount undertaking on the home front in World War II. Without substantial numbers of available, trained aircrew and groundcrew, the Allies could not have wielded the massive air power they did in the successful struggle to defeat the enemy.
The BCATP’s purpose was to produce a large, steady output of aircrew for the war in Europe. The Plan trained 131,553 aircrew for the Commonwealth and Allied Air Forces. Of these, 72,835 were RCAF pilots, navigators, air bombers, air gunners, flight engineers and wireless operator/air gunners. This airfield (Mount Hope) served at one time as an Elementary Flying Training School.
The BCATP was largely a Canadian training program, much of it run out of my home province of Manitoba.
http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/RollofHonour/TrainingCourses/BCATP_index.html
I believe that this program might well have provided a steady supply of pilots as the Commonwealth provided aircraft (Canadian factories provided aircraft to both its own air force as well as the UK’s, as well they provided for the American war effort as well).

correct, main reason why Britian RAF was able to hold out so long as it was, was not from the Spitfire, but from a steady stream of pilots - many coming from the commonwealth and the conquered nations.

Moses is right about the pilot thing. DUring the battle of Britian Britian was losing pilots fast, if Germany had continued attacking airfields the RAF would have been crippled.

@TG:

Also Germany lacked the proper bombers… using the Stuka as a bomber was not very effective…

I don’t think they used a lot of Sutkas in the Battle over Britain. AFAIR the main bomber used by the germans was the He111, but even that can be considered being a “light” and underarmed bomber compared to the flying fortresses and the like the allied used in the germans sky later in the war.