Jump to content
Wednesday, July 12, 2017
  • Welcome to the forum!

    Welcome to the War History Online Community Forum, please register or login to start commenting.

Ron Walker

Would Operation Sealion have succeeded?

Tell us what you think!  

48 members have voted

  1. 1. Would Operation Sealion have succeeded?

    • Yes
      17
    • No
      32


Recommended Posts

I chose to vote “Yes,” even though the success of an amphibious invasion would be highly suspect. Britain might have been nearly demoralized by that point, but it’s a far cry from a readiness to capitulate. Defeating an army in the field is simply not the same as conquering a nation on its own soil (see also: Japan 1945, and Russia - twice). 

Still, Britain might have been forced to negotiate, at a minimum, had Hitler been more patient. The Wolf Packs were highly successful to that point in the war, and were slowly starving the country of precious war materiel. Make no mistake, by the end of 1940, the UK was on the ropes.

Hitler being Hitler, however, was really the fatal flaw for the Germans. That’s not to say that the defeat of the Nazis was predestined; and, certainly, no one would have known just how utterly bankrupt were his skills as a Commander in Chief. Moreover, a bit more luck on his part, and a few more critical errors among the Allies, and History’s turn might have been far different.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/12/2017 at 11:34 PM, Ron Walker said:

Remind us... how many aircraft carriers did Hitler have in his arsenal? How many torpedo bombers, with highly trained crews? Looks to me as if you're confusing Imperial Japan with Hitler's Germany. Elsewise, Prince of Wales and Repulse are largely irrelevancies: They were sunk by an enemy with a highly developed naval aviation facility. Germany simply didn't have one.

I am well aware of what I'm talking about thank you.

The discussion was based on would the RAF have lost should the Luftwaffe have carried on targeting our airfields and would it be a forgone conclusion that a subsequent invasion would have succeeded.

I suggested probably yes on both points.

My point about the Royal Navy facing difficulties from the air - and my reference to The Prince of Wales and Repulse - is because quite simply aircraft sink heavy naval units. Hence the end of the battleship era.

You don't need aircraft carriers due to the close proximity of England and France but what you do need is the Stuka.

Without the RAF there to shoot them down I would expect them to sink our surface ships just like they did during the Battle of Crete.

At Crete, Stuka's sunk the cruiser HMS Gloucester, the destroyers HMS Juno, Greyhound, Kashmir, Kelly and Hereward along with crippling the cruiser HMS Fiji and damaging HMS Warspite.

The second world war is littered with vessels Stuka's have sunk with conventional bombs.

Another example is Hans Rudel in his Stuka where he sunk the Russian battleship Marat, along with a cruiser and a destroyer - with his unit also crippling the battleship October Revolution, and sinking 2 further destroyers and a submarine.

These are all with bombs - nothing to do with torpedo bombers.

Their crews were very experienced and top notch at that stage of the war - and those produced later, like Rudel, were also extremely successful.

Germany very much did have the capabilities to sink our naval units by air and we very much would not in my opinion have been able to stop them because the RAF would not have been available to shoot them down had the Luftwaffe continued to target our airfields.

I hope this explains things for you.

Edited by Edward, The Black Prince
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Brits always forget was that Britain WAS successfully invaded after 1066, by the Dutch under William III in 1688. Euphemistically referred to as the Glorious Revolution, it was in fact a full scale naval invasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alistair2am said:

What Brits always forget was that Britain WAS successfully invaded after 1066, by the Dutch under William III in 1688. Euphemistically referred to as the Glorious Revolution, it was in fact a full scale naval invasion.

Except that the arrival of Dutch William was welcomed and abetted by the English people: hence the term "Glorious Revolution".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Edward, The Black Prince said:

I am well aware of what I'm talking about thank you.

The discussion was based on would the RAF have lost should the Luftwaffe have carried on targeting our airfields and would it be a forgone conclusion that a subsequent invasion would have succeeded.

I suggested probably yes on both points.

My point about the Royal Navy facing difficulties from the air - and my reference to The Prince of Wales and Repulse - is because quite simply aircraft sink heavy naval units. Hence the end of the battleship era.

You don't need aircraft carriers due to the close proximity of England and France but what you do need is the Stuka.

Without the RAF there to shoot them down I would expect them to sink our surface ships just like they did during the Battle of Crete.

At Crete, Stuka's sunk the cruiser HMS Gloucester, the destroyers HMS Juno, Greyhound, Kashmir, Kelly and Hereward along with crippling the cruiser HMS Fiji and damaging HMS Warspite.

The second world war is littered with vessels Stuka's have sunk with conventional bombs.

Another example is Hans Rudel in his Stuka where he sunk the Russian battleship Marat, along with a cruiser and a destroyer - with his unit also crippling the battleship October Revolution, and sinking 2 further destroyers and a submarine.

These are all with bombs - nothing to do with torpedo bombers.

Their crews were very experienced and top notch at that stage of the war - and those produced later, like Rudel, were also extremely successful.

Germany very much did have the capabilities to sink our naval units by air and we very much would not in my opinion have been able to stop them because the RAF would not have been available to shoot them down had the Luftwaffe continued to target our airfields.

I hope this explains things for you.

The Ju87b "Stuka" was entirely ineffectual in the presence of determined fighter opposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

royal navy losses would have been severe against unopposed air attacks without questions. but all they had to do was destroy most of the landing force and the ability to resupply thr forces that got ashore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Autumn weather in the Channel combined with the chosen river barges would have turned the resupply effort into a catastrophe even without the Royal Navy. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎18‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 5:30 PM, Alistair2am said:

What Brits always forget was that Britain WAS successfully invaded after 1066, by the Dutch under William III in 1688. Euphemistically referred to as the Glorious Revolution, it was in fact a full scale naval invasion.

You know all of us do you?

No we don't.

We've been invaded many many times but I'm guessing you know that.

Edited by Edward, The Black Prince

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎18‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 7:56 PM, Philip Whitehouse said:

The Ju87b "Stuka" was entirely ineffectual in the presence of determined fighter opposition.

Hi Philip.

Can you read the rest of my post please.

My response was based on the idea that the RAF would have lost if the Luftwaffe continued to bomb our airfields - and thus there would not be fighter resistance to stop Stuka's.

Its all nonsense really as in reality they didn't keep bombing the airfields!

Edited by Edward, The Black Prince
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Edward, The Black Prince said:

This is why I don't usually get involved in discussing the 'what if's' because they're not reality!

I always like to explore other avenues, small changes, and see how they would change history.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2017 at 9:47 AM, Joris said:

I think it would have failed, the Germans had no invasion fleet to support the invasion and the barges they were going to use could only lead to catastrophe. That would have suited me just fine!

I agree and "In the UK around six million men were mobilised, and of those just over 700,000 were killed. That's around 11.5%. In fact, as a British soldier you were more likely to die during the Crimean War (1853-56) than in WW1."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Stephen N Russell
      Wkipediaied  the Ploesti Raid & one thing stands  out:
      No Intel from any if partisan units to the Allies on German AA defenses etc.
      or did I miss  something.
      Or was area under total Nazi control & no gueriila efforts in area during raid.
       
       
    • By Nameless556
      The reasons they lost the war:
       
      1 They did not just take out Britain after the blitz of France, Belgium etc.  
      Yes I am  aware it would still be very difficult for the Nazis to do this.
       
      2 Invade Russia without enough materials, Tanks, Guns, men.
       
      If they had also gotten Japan to invade Siberia.
      Waited  to gather oil from Romania,
      Not halt the Strumgewer program
      and just more men.
       
      Have Japan wait to get the united States in the war.
      If Japan would have waited they could very well had a better chance of winning the war.
       
       
      Less Submarines more cruisers.  If the Nazis had built more cruisers, battleships.  
       
      They could have put more of a strain on the British war effort. 
       

      Better anti aircraft guns. 
       
      If this was done the Nazi war effort would have been much less effective.  
    • By Stephen N Russell
      Just read on WH about an average German who knew  of the Nazi atrocities being done.
      & feel for those Germans when they knew of the Jews being sent East & concentration camps being erected to send them  to the Death camps.
      & if any Germans living in Poland after 1939 noticed the ash from cremation of the Jews in the said Death Camps??
      Opens up a whole  new  yarn to German knowledge  of Nazi crimes.
      To run Poland etc they had to have employees run said cities etc thus average Germans in Poland would know about death camps, or how could use explain ash??
      Am I right or was Poland under total Military control& No civilian Germans came to aid running  of Govt.??
       
       
    • By Stephen N Russell
      What if the US did fund Long range bombers & we had these in WW2:
      B29
      B30 Connie bomber
      B19
      B32.
      & YB49.
      What would  outcome belike for Pacific area alone asideETO.
      B17s would be be delegated to Lifeboat service to save crews & Maritime patrol  over convoys inbound to UK.
      What If if funding & tech issues No problem.
      Imagine 10 squadrons of B19s bombing Japan with its bomb load  alone.
      Or B19s raiding Japan from Alaska vs Doolittle Raid by B25.
      Ideas, comments.
       
       
       
       
    • By Adam R
      Hitler at first underestimated Stalin describing his government as "nothing more than an international criminal ring". But when the war in the East turned, Hitler realised he had an equally formidable and ruthless opponent, "he (Stalin) is a hell of a fellow, in his own way" said Hitler (quote from Albert Speer's memoirs). 
      Hitler and Stalin were responsible for millions of deaths, wars, invasions, war crimes and atrocities.
      Who do you think was worse amongst these twentieth century despots? 


×