Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2016 21:08:42 GMT
What if German forces had successfully landed on the coast of Kent in 1940? Would they have conquered the whole island or would they have become bogged down in a destructive guerilla war?
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Nov 10, 2016 22:28:54 GMT
The scenario has been wargamed by the (British Army) Staff College. It assumed that the Germans have sufficient air power to cover a Channel crossing - as otherwise they wouldn't have even tried - but that the RAF is still in existence.
The conclusion was that the Germans could have got substantial forces ashore (basically their first wave, as planned under Sealion) but that since the RN massively outnumbered the German fleet and the RAF would be able to interdict with increasing effectiveness the further the Germans got inland (due to the invaders moving further way from the Luftwaffe's airbases and lack of secure airstrips in the bridgehead) they would be unable to reinforce and re-supply. Attempts to do so would probably have led to massive losses in the Channel as the second wave (travelling in commandeered barges towed by tugs, according to the German plans) got cut to pieces by RN destroyers and fast torpedo boats. (The RN would have taken heavy casualties from Luftwaffe air support, but not enough to stop them.) Blitzkrieg would not have applied as the Germans would have been unable to land many tanks in the initial wave (and did not plan to.) They would have been further hampered by the lack of harbour facilities in their planned landing zone. The only commercial docks in their planned landing zone were mined and rigged with explosives ready for demolition at the press of a plunger on receipt of a phone call well before the Germans were ready to go.
Lacking reinforcements ands re-supply, the German infantry could have been held well south of London by larger British forces. A static war of the sort the British had planned for would result and eventually the Germans would have been compelled to surrender from starvation and lack of ammunition. The total prisoner haul would have been comparable to Stalingrad.
Somewhere on the interwangle there's quite a good summary of the differences between the German position in 1940 and that of the Allies before Overlord - off the top of my head, these were:
- total air superiority for the Allies in 1944, not achieved at all by the Luftwaffe in 1940 therefore implausible to argue for anything better than local superiority for Sealion
- total naval superiority for the Allies, significantly inferior naval power for the Germans in 1940
- specialised landing craft, "Mulberry" pre-fabricated harbours and amphibious tanks developed for Overlord, Sealion reliant on using Rhine river barges etc.
- Even after combing out all qualified personnel from the German army, the Germans had not found enough qualified crew for the barges. They would have had to supplement the navy and ex-boatmen in the army with completely unqualified army personnel to sail the barges.
- Above all, Eisenhower had years of preparation, training and planning, and the Allies had successfully conducted major amphibious operations* in Sicily and Italy before Overlord. The German army had no training for amphibious operations, little record of success (they lost more ships invading Norway than they sank) and only a couple of months to plan an invasion before winter seas made it impossible. They had no off-the-shelf plans available as the possibility of invading Britain had not seemed a possibility before the fall of France.
The really interesting question is whether Hitler could have survived in the face of a calamity on this scale and, assuming that he did, whether Churchill would have accepted a favourable peace offer from Hitler (and what its terms might have been.)
* This reminds me. Sir Bertram Ramsay commanded the naval operations for the Dunkirk evacuation, the Normandy landings, and for the invasion of Sicily (largest amphibious operation before Overlord.) An astonishing record; yet how many can name him today? Far fewer than, say, Montgomery or Nelson. One of the greatest naval commanders this country has ever produced yet largely forgotten. He would have commanded the naval defence of the straits of Dover in 1940.
|
|
johnr
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 1,944 
|
Post by johnr on Nov 11, 2016 11:07:39 GMT
A successful Sealion is the scenario which introduced the term "Alien Space Bat", as in "the only way Sealion could have been successful is if Alien Space Bats had intervened".
|
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Nov 13, 2016 8:50:23 GMT
What if German forces had successfully landed on the coast of Kent in 1940? Would they have conquered the whole island or would they have become bogged down in a destructive guerilla war? I always recommend that people read this piece before getting into discussion about Amphibious Sea Mammals. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 13, 2016 15:09:16 GMT
I have long been convinced that Sealion was a bluff, that along with the Battle of Britain, was primarily aimed at convincing Britain to sue for peace.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2016 15:25:01 GMT
I have long been convinced that Sealion was a bluff, that along with the Battle of Britain, was primarily aimed at convincing Britain to sue for peace. The Battle of Britain wasn't a bluff, that was an integral part of the plan. Why waste valuable men and resources if you didn't seriously intend to carry out the plan to the full? |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 13, 2016 16:02:12 GMT
I have long been convinced that Sealion was a bluff, that along with the Battle of Britain, was primarily aimed at convincing Britain to sue for peace. The Battle of Britain wasn't a bluff, that was an integral part of the plan. Why waste valuable men and resources if you didn't seriously intend to carry out the plan to the full? The Battle of Britain itself wasn't a bluff, but I think its primary aim was to convince Britain to sue for peace rather than to pave way for an invasion. Obviously the threat of an invasion was a necessary part of this plan. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,893
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 13, 2016 16:18:08 GMT
The Battle of Britain wasn't a bluff, that was an integral part of the plan. Why waste valuable men and resources if you didn't seriously intend to carry out the plan to the full? The Battle of Britain itself wasn't a bluff, but I think its primary aim was to convince Britain to sue for peace rather than to pave way for an invasion. Obviously the threat of an invasion was a necessary part of this plan. The massive Axis error in that battle was to change away from crippling RADAR stations and Fighter Command bases as the sole objective. If they could have denied us regular ubiquitous RADAR scanning and eliminated most fighter defence, they could have moved onto bombing docks, ships and warehouses with much lighter losses, and consequent massive damage to our supplies. Starving us would have been the way of getting us out of the war early. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2016 16:36:14 GMT
The Battle of Britain itself wasn't a bluff, but I think its primary aim was to convince Britain to sue for peace rather than to pave way for an invasion. Obviously the threat of an invasion was a necessary part of this plan. The massive Axis error in that battle was to change away from crippling RADAR stations and Fighter Command bases as the sole objective. If they could have denied us regular ubiquitous RADAR scanning and eliminated most fighter defence, they could have moved onto bombing docks, ships and warehouses with much lighter losses, and consequent massive damage to our supplies. Starving us would have been the way of getting us out of the war early. I think they would have been able to do that anyway had the Battle of the Atlantic turned their way in 1941 when shipping losses were beginning to mount and the Americans had not yet entered the war. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Nov 13, 2016 18:19:38 GMT
What if German forces had successfully landed on the coast of Kent in 1940? Would they have conquered the whole island or would they have become bogged down in a destructive guerilla war? I always recommend that people read this piece before getting into discussion about Amphibious Sea Mammals. That's very good. And funny. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Nov 13, 2016 18:49:21 GMT
I always recommend that people read this piece before getting into discussion about Amphibious Sea Mammals. Yes, that is the thing I was thinking of. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Nov 13, 2016 18:57:37 GMT
I have long been convinced that Sealion was a bluff, that along with the Battle of Britain, was primarily aimed at convincing Britain to sue for peace. Possibly, though it is hard to tell with Hitler, he didn't have much of a grip on what was militarily possible and he obviously started to believe he was a military genius after the Fall of France. But it is interesting that Britain very nearly did sue for peace, or at least Halifax wanted to and would have had considerable support from the Conservative back benches; and even Churchill thought a successful invasion was possible or even probable. It was only a year or so ago that it struck me that: ...is not just great rhetoric, it is a fairly bald statement of what the strategy would have been. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2016 20:55:52 GMT
I have long been convinced that Sealion was a bluff, that along with the Battle of Britain, was primarily aimed at convincing Britain to sue for peace. Possibly, though it is hard to tell with Hitler, he didn't have much of a grip on what was militarily possible and he obviously started to believe he was a military genius after the Fall of France. But it is interesting that Britain very nearly did sue for peace, or at least Halifax wanted to and would have had considerable support from the Conservative back benches; and even Churchill thought a successful invasion was possible or even probable. It was only a year or so ago that it struck me that: ...is not just great rhetoric, it is a fairly bald statement of what the strategy would have been. Which brings me back to my original question, because even had Sealion been successful the prospect of the German Army getting bogged down in bloody urban warfare in London I think would have been quite high (as happened in Stalingrad). |
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,842
|
Post by Crimson King on Nov 14, 2016 21:32:16 GMT
My reading is that they wouldn't even get that far
|
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,893
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 16, 2016 13:15:42 GMT
Also we would have set the sea on fire and flooded large areas behind the landing grounds and mined everywhere back towards London. The losses would have been enormous. Many Kent people were recruited into a special services defence unit and would melted into a network of blockhouses and strong points, permitting the enemy to pass through and then disrupted and destroyed the follow up supplies columns.
|
|
johnr
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 1,944
|
Post by johnr on Nov 16, 2016 15:18:11 GMT
Also we would have set the sea on fire and flooded large areas behind the landing grounds and mined everywhere back towards London. The losses would have been enormous. Many Kent people were recruited into a special services defence unit and would melted into a network of blockhouses and strong points, permitting the enemy to pass through and then disrupted and destroyed the follow up supplies columns. Not sure that there would have been "resupply columns". The plan was to land 9 Divisions of the Wehrmacht. Even assuming that most of them make it ashore, their transports will be attacked on the way back. Resupply was predicated on Dover being captured intact as a working Port. Any danger of capture and it would have been destroyed by the RN. Best I can forsee is that they end up with an isolated beachhead or two, facing superior numerical forces (and not just with numbers, the initial German landings were not to have any tanks) with re-supply across the beach being problematic and patchy. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,893
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 16, 2016 15:23:28 GMT
They could never have landed 9-Divisions. The losses would have been exceptional. And they would need immediate and constant re-supply. Dover, Folkestone and Romney marsh would not have enough for a couple of days. This would have presented us with massive difficulties but the outcome would have been complete victory and probably a no prisoner defence?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 21:52:48 GMT
Worth a watch this, I wasn't previously aware of it.
|
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,589
|
Post by cibwr on Nov 28, 2016 10:15:55 GMT
Worth a watch this, I wasn't previously aware of it. I have this on DVD..... its quite thought provoking including the interviews with real fascists...profoundly disturbing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2016 12:28:29 GMT
Worth a watch this, I wasn't previously aware of it. I have this on DVD..... its quite thought provoking including the interviews with real fascists...profoundly disturbing. Yes totally agree it left a lot of thoughts in my mind about the nature of collaboration on the population. Would the majority of the population have acted in a similar way to the French? Thankfully Churchill had the presence of mind to lock up Moseley and his Fascist sympathisers. The example of the Channel islands springs to mind. They didn't cope with occupation without difficulty. We had a very narrow escape in 1940. |
|
