"Operation Sea Lion a-go-go" Topic

This is something that I don't know much about. As it never happened I haven't really spent much time studying it. My understanding is that after Hitler lost a lot of planes in the Battle of Britain he would have had a tough time maintaining aerial superiority over the channel and casualties in an amphibious invasion of England would have been catastrophic due to that and the fact that the navy would have largely held them off. The island, being an island, was defensible as long as you had a strong enough navy, and eventually airforce, to defend it.

Is that basically true?

Add to that a complete lack of German amphibious doctrine and technology and you are part of the way there…

Not too mention a lack of airborne troops as the Fallschirmjager of 7th Flieger Div. were in a shambles after operations in the West as was the transport fleet.

Crossing the channel in converted barges with aircraft engines strapped to them aint gonna work… The Germans saw the Channel crossing the same as an assault river crossing… Sadly the English Channel is a dangerous piece of water.

I dont believe Hitler was ever really serious about SeaLion… They didnt have the resources to do it even with air supremacy, which they would never have attained anyway, even if they hadnt changed tactic.

Pictors, if the Germans had been ready(a big if here, by the way) and could have invaded in July, there were hardly any anti-tank guns, armor, or artillery in England. I've read in books where the British were lucky to have six tanks available in some beach sectors that stretched for more than 20 miles! The biggest challenge was protecting the barges and transports getting across the Channel, then keeping everything supplied, all the while trying to secure an adequate port to bring in the heavier stuff. A tall order indeed!

GMT makes a great game on this called Britain Stands Alone which offers a choice of invasion months. The game is pretty complex, but does a good job of showing the air and naval campaigns centered around the Channel. If the Germans can get some panzer units into England it's pretty much over, but the Royal Navy makes things pretty treacherous, especially if they break through to the invasion zones.

Don't forget that the Brits also had the Dad's Army!

But crossing the channel intact would have been the tricky bit for the Germans.

Griefbringer

Actually, I don't think it is a huge stretch to figure that it was possible for the Germans to win air superiority. They came darn close.

After that, you need to beg, borrow and steal anything that floats, and build barges like crazy (they had lots under construction actually).

And temporarily having total domination of the Channel, I can see German's storming ashore on English soil, and making rather a mess of the countryside.

The REAL issue is, after you "give" them the air superiority they need, and enough craft to make the initial landings … the Royal Navy will make darn sure the Hun run out of supplies within the week.

The Germans just couldn't keep enough boats crossing 24x7 to keep up with the demands. The Brits are quite keen on their "Not since 1066 has England been successfully invaded" (and rightly so). I suspect that the courage shown by anyone who could fly a plane during the "Battle of Britain" would be found on every ship afloat in the Royal Navy.

So the Germans have maybe a week to try and capture London and grab the government heads of state and try to bully them into some sort of "deal". The speculation was they wanted the Brits to simply say "We will remain neutral" and the Germans would promise to leave and not come back.

Like the British would ever agree to something like that. Chamberlain perhaps, but Winny C? Not just never, but never, ever!

I recently read where sometime in the early 1950's (IIRC) a top ex-German general met up with a top British General at Sandhurt and played this out as a wargame, using the original Sealion plans (and assumptions) and the actual British OOB for that period. The Germans made it ashore, caused bloody heck for about a week, then when the fuel finally ran out, it became Dunkirk in reverse, and the Germans were trying to get as many soldiers off the Isle before they fired off their last bullets.

Steve

I recently read where sometime in the early 1950's (IIRC) a top ex-German general met up with a top British General at Sandhurt and played this out as a wargame, using the original Sealion plans (and assumptions) and the actual British OOB for that period. The Germans made it ashore, caused bloody heck for about a week, then when the fuel finally ran out, it became Dunkirk in reverse, and the Germans were trying to get as many soldiers off the Isle before they fired off their last bullets.

Are you thinking of the game involving (amongst others) Adolf Galland in the early 1970s that formed the basis for the fictional part of Richard Cox's Operation Sea Lion book??

Cheers,

Martin

With air superiorty the Germans would have held the Royal Navy at bay without a lot if troubl. Just look at the evacuaation from Crete.Britsh Navl losses were relatively heavy from Stukas operating from Greece. Calais is a much more restricted body of water than those around Crete,and a much shorter flying time, 2-3 sorties per day per plane would have made RN activities into the channel precarious at best. U boats would finish off the cripples.

Resupply would have beeen the problem.

REsupply would have been the problem.

Churchill was the backbone of British resistance, there were many others who would have made peace.

The eagle has landed had a good solution!

If Britain had fallen then there would have been no D Day and no liberation of Europe.

Every German General from WW! onwards knew Germany could not fight a war on two fronts, if Hitler wanted his
European empire he should have finished Britain off!

"The Brits are quite keen on their "Not since 1066 has England been successfully invaded" (and rightly so)."

We Brits are very mistaken if that is what we claim. Britain has been invaded, even successfully a number of times since 1066.

For one thing it was under constant invasion during the civil war of Mathilda and Stephen, of course there one might wonder who was invading whom.

Then it was invaded again by the French in 1215.

There were raids by the French often during the hundred years war, but that hardly counts as invasions.

The Scots successfully invaded in 1638 and again successfully 2 more times in the next 8 years.

But then there was another huge invasion in 1688 when the Dutch not only invaded, but overthrew the existing government and placed their own candidate on the throne as King. That is a pretty big one to leave out.

The point being that, in europe, waterways are not barriers to invasions, but highways for them. It is mountains that are the difficult things to invade.

That being said, with a successful navy, which Britain seemed to have, they were able to stop invasion from Napoleonic and revolutionary France as well as this invasion from Germany.

If this:

" there were hardly any anti-tank guns, armor, or artillery in England. I've read in books where the British were lucky to have six tanks available in some beach sectors that stretched for more than 20 miles! "

is true, and I'm not doubting it. Then it would seem that the presence or even existence of the royal navy and air force is what kept the Germans from invading successfully more so than any deterrent on land.

If there'd been a bridge to England, then the Brits would've been in trouble.

As it was, air superiority wouldn't have been enough – the Germans had no real anti-ship aircraft, and Stukas can only do so much. All the RN would have had to do was run their dozen or so battleships into the channel when the crossing was going on, and let fly. Would they have lost some ships? Sure. Better than losing the war though, and it isn't as though they actually needed those battleships especially much anyway.
-Kle.

Would the RN even have needed to shoot at at rive barge invasion fleet -- could they just have sailed through them and swamped / run down sufficient to cause chaos?

Also at Crete, didn't the RN losses occur after the ships had used up all their AA ammo. This wasn't likely to be a problem operating around England.

DOn't underestimate the capabilites of the Stuka in the antiship role. read "Stuka Pilot" by Hans Rudel,he sank russian BB in Leningrad harbor heavily defendeed by AA emplacements. The question is how many did the germans have at the time,probably not a whole lot though.

Yes, I will concede that Rudel WAS shot down numerous times while flying Stukas and later FW 190's.He lost a leg yet continued to fly,an admirable warrior tainted by his undying loyalty to Hitler and the Nazi Party. After the war he immigrated to South America.

Britain was indeed invaded during World War 2… read up on the Channel Islands, okay, so it wasn't Britain proper but it was still part of of the British isles, was it not?

The Stukas demonsytrated their complete inability to hit mobile ships off Dunkirk. Rudel's battleship was of course arge static target. The losses off Crete are intersting in that the ships lost were genearally hit once they'd expended their AA ammunition. Plus the Luftwaffe had actually trained for anti ship operations by that stage (which had't occured by 1940). Putting those elements together (plus the likely MO of the RN would have seen extensive use of night operations) makes it highly unlikely that the Luftwaffe would have been able to prevent an RN onslaught in the Channel.

How much of a warfleet does Germany have at this itme anyways ?

Enough to present any sort of threat ?
How usefull would the submarine fleet be in this sort of thing (if a pitched naval battle occurs) ?

How much of the French fleet was acquired ?

If we want to get really exaggerated, if we assume the Italians pitch in some ships, and most of the French fleet falls to Germany, would that tip the naval balance enough ?

In August-October of 1940 the Germans hadn't added any major French fleet units (the were either in North Africa or Vichy held Toulon) and indeed, never put a major French unit in service. The Germans allocated 2 destroyer flotillas (10 ships total) and 4 torpedo boat flotillas (a maximum of 17 ships) along with 3 MTB flotillas and 27 U-boats to protect the landings while Hipper, Scheer and 2 light cruisers were supposed to demonstrate in the North Sea to draw off the British heavies. Scharnhorst, Gneisnau and Scheer were all laid up with battle damage at the time.

The French Navy was already wrecked courtesy of Mers El Kebir in July and the Italians would have to beat the British Mediterranean fleet to get past Gibraltar, something they were reluctant to try for the entire war so any help from that quarter would probably be fairly meager.

Against this less than imposing German surface force, the RN had an initial available Home Fleet force of 76 destroyers, 12 cruisers, the carrier Furious, the battlecruisers Hood and Repulse and the battleships Nelson, Rodney and Revenge backed up by a ready local reserve of 35+ corvettes plus a few MTB's and 35+ submarines with 135 minelayers of various types available around the south and west coasts. While the Luftwaffe could in theory create local air superiority, for a full invasion the German fleet would have the full attention of Bomber Command, Coastal Command and the entire land based portion of the Fleet Air Arm.

Add in that at this point in time, the RN is the most experienced and professional Navy in the world defending its' home island and the invasion is going to get stuffed. It would likely be costly but in the end, the German Army would have reached the UK in badly shot up pieces that quickly ran out of supplies.

"I recently read where sometime in the early 1950's (IIRC) a top ex-German general met up with a top British General at Sandhurt and played this out as a wargame, using the original Sealion plans"

Early 70s, formed the basis for 'Sealion' by Richard Cox. Galland, Ruge etc were umpires, not players. It was big umpire moderated game using the original plans, OBs and weather run at RMA Sandhurst.

As mentioned above, Germans don't have any vast difficulties getting ashore, but there supply lines were eventually cut to pieces by the RN.

The Luftwaffe found it somewhat hard attack the RN at night, and the Channel is very wide and most of the German shipping very slow…. During the day they didn't have enough planes ot simultaneous provide ground support, interdict the channel and fly in supplies.

Kriegsmarine was blown out of the water, outnumbered 10:1 or more in every category of ship that is hardly surprising.

We had a lenghty thread on this recently.

In order for Sealion to be a goer you need to postulate a number of alternative history senarios.
First is the Luftwaffe winning air superiority. Not impossible as they were getting close until they switched to bombing London.
Second is much increased Kreigsmarine strength. This could be achieved by a number of things – less losses in the Norwegian campaign, capturing the French fleet or Italian naval help. You would probably need all 3 to get anything near a fair fight. Utilising French naval assets would mean postponing till mid '41 at least. By then Bismarck might be available.
Third thing is an effective Luftwaffe antishipping capability. They had this after extensive training as they demonstrated in the med and against arctic convoys, but there was no experienced antishipping bomber wing in '40.
So there you have it – Sealion 1941!

DOn't underestimate the capabilites of the Stuka in the antiship role. read "Stuka Pilot" by Hans Rudel,he sank russian BB in Leningrad harbor heavily defendeed by AA emplacements. The question is how many did the germans have at the time,probably not a whole lot though.

Right. That was Petropavlovsk / Marat. She was built in 1914, and had less than three inches of total horizontal protection, and three inch turret tops.

The Brits weren't fielding much that was quite that delicate, and it's safe to assume that the professional standards of the RN dwarfed those of the Naval Forces of the Workers' and Peasant's Red Army .

Here's a question – how many RN battleships were lost in WW2 to the Luftwaffe?
-Kle.

Here's a question – how many RN battleships were lost in WW2 to the Luftwaffe?

How many were attacked by the Luftwaffe? Not many if any IIRC. They lost a couple in very short order to Japanese air attack so they weren't invulnerable.

I stand corrected as to the date of the simulation. Faulty memory, only skimmed the original, etc. My bad, it was the 70's not the 50's.

As for bragging rights about no successful invasion since 1066, note that I did say "successful". I am by no means an expert, but I would assume that many (perhaps most) of those invasions listed above were not successful.

Is Scotland a free country? No? Then their invasion failed. Is French the native tongue? No? Then their invasions failed too.

Along similar lines, the US has been invaded (and I'm not talking a puny island off Alaska, which wasn't even a state back in WWII) I'm talking by our chums, the Brits, back in that pesky War of 1812. They even burned the capitol (the reason we had to paint it white was because of the scorch marks). But ultimately the invasion was not successful, since our native tongue is nothing like yours : )

Anyway, as a what-if, I see no major stretch allowing the Germans air superiority. And while the RN might not risk everything the actual day of the invasion (caught off-guard perhaps for that first day), they would play havoc over the weeks that followed, royaly messing up any reinforcements and supplies.

As was mentioned, the Germans had daylight hours at best, and would have to fight for every crossing. Nights would see any British craft that could float plopping mines into the channel, and engaging any enemy they encountered.

To really have a chance at ultimate success we must also suppose the Germans could somehow lessen the huge numerical superiority of the opposing fleets. Without that, I believe that any invasion, though initially successful, would end in failure.

Steve

The Germans were close to gaining air superiority over southern England, but the West and North of Britain still had relatively untouched assets. Whether they could have maintained air superiority using captured airbases and the French airfields is another matter.

The British plan relied on fighting a series of delaying actions at fixed defensive lines with the army. The British army had received significant equipment losses at Dunkirk, but still had large amounts of artillery and some armoured units had remained in the UK (The German plan did not allow for any of their own in the initial waves).

Hopefully the army would hold the enemy at bay long enough for the RAF and the RN to penetrate the Channel and gain control, thus preventing supply and reinforcement. It was envisaged that the Germans would lay vast amounts of mines to deny access to the Channel during the invasion.

It would appear that Hitler wanted to use the real threat of an invasion to force the British to the negotiating table and end the war in the West so he could concentrate on what he termed 'the real enemy'. He was also simultaneously courting Franco to further isolate Britain to this end.

Many other politicians at the time would have capitulated, so Churchill is to be honoured for his stubbornness. However, he had also approved the use of poison gas and the flooding of the sea and major rivers with fuel to be set alight in the event of an invasion. Along with the establishment of guerrilla groups (the auxiliaries), all of this would have ensured trials of British politicians and generals for war crimes post-invasion.

I must admit that 'Sealion' is my favourite 'what if' of WW2 though.

>Is Scotland a free country? No? Then their
>invasion failed. Is French the native tongue?
>No? Then their invasions failed too.

Interesting point, but I checked quickly with a
few relatives and by switching the TV on, and it
seems no one is speaking German as its native
tongue here too, so it looks like the German
1940 invasion of France also failed <VBG>
FWIW, I'd suggest 'invasion' and 'colonization'
should perhaps be differenciated.

Given that Hitler did want the British to stay
at least neutral in his long nurtured war with
'judeo-bolchevist' Russia, I really wonder if 'Sea
Lion' wasn't nothing more than a 'threatening
posture' to strenghten the peace seeking crowd within
the British political circles.

Otherwise, I can't see any other explanation to
the Mers El Kebir attack than an understandable if
tactless concern with the French possibly turning
jackets to the Germans against GB.
A collateral damage of this being a strong deterent
to any significant 'free french' move toward
joining the British and a huge booster to Petain's
pro-active policy with the IIIrd Reich.
(Petain was 'only' Premier during Mers El Kebir
and became head of state of few days afterward)

The British didn't think the French navy would turn and attack Britain, the British had more respect for the French navy than that.

They didn't trust the Germans to keep their hand off such quality warships given Hitlers track record on breaking any treaty when it suited him!

How many were attacked by the Luftwaffe? Not many if any IIRC. They lost a couple in very short order to Japanese air attack so they weren't invulnerable.

The Japanese had a large force of aircraft specifically designed for anti-shipping attacks, and a large number of aircrew specifically trained for that task. The Luftwaffe had neither.

If you don't think this matters, look up how many enemy warships were sunk by the USAAC vs. the USN in WW2.
-Kle.

BTW, I made an error – in 1940 Marat / Petropavlovsk's turret top armor was increased to six inches, but deck armor remained at less than 3 inches total.
-Kle.

>The British didn't think the French navy would turn
>and attack Britain, the British had more respect for
>the French navy than that.

Agree, would call it 'the most reasonnable' view, but
then, why killing 1,300 french sailors at Mers El Kebir ?
Bridge burning policy based on purely internal British matters ?(Churchill/Halifax)

Here's a question – how many RN battleships were lost in WW2 to the Luftwaffe?

How many were attacked by the Luftwaffe?

Okay, Barham was under air attack at least 4 times in the Med. theatre – this means either Luftwaffe or Regia Aeronautica (who did have good anti-shipping aircraft).

Maylaya was under air attack at least 4 times in the Med.

Queen Elisabeth Under air attack at least once in Med.

Valiant Under air attack once off Norway, 5 times in Med, damaged off Crete.

WarspiteAttaked by aircraft at least six times in Med, damaged 4 times, once by radio-controlled glide bomb.

RamillesUnder air attack at least once in Med.

ResolutionAttaked at least once, hit once by aircraft off Narvik.

Nelson Attacked by aircraft in home waters, several days of air attacks off Salerno, hit by aerial torpedo in Med.

Rodney Air attacks in North Sea, Scapa Flow, off Norway (1 hit), 2 more attacks off Norway, 1 Attack in Med, 1 attack off Normandy.

Prince of Wales Came under air attack at least once in Med.

Hood Came under air attack Faeroes-Iceland gap, 1 hit.

Renown Suffered at least one air attack in Med.

That was all from a rather cursory examination of the subject. So, in answer I'd say they tried a heck of a lot to sink RN battleships, and had no successes.
-Kle.

France made a 'separate peace' with Germany. Hadn't they agreed this wouldn't happen? I guess this means they weren't allies any more.
The French were given 4 options: setting sail with the RN would, I think, have been the honourable thing to do. But they could have scuttled their ships or sailed them to the US. The stupid thing – and I don't know whether it reflects more badly on Gensoul, Darlan or the British – is that the French were prepared to scuttle their ships rather than let them fall into German hands. Why they didn't think of informing the British of this I can't imagine.

The Japanese had a large force of aircraft specifically designed for anti-shipping attacks, and a large number of aircrew specifically trained for that task. The Luftwaffe had neither.

Not in 1940 they didn't. They did later on as the number of ships lost in the med and on Artic convoys attests. Which is why you can't postulate Sea Lion before '41 as the Luftwaffe need more time to train the bombers. Even then relying on the Luftwaffe to neutralise the RN would be marginal at best. You need more ships, Italian, captured French and German to make it a goer. The Kreigsmarine weren't planning on war before '43 IIRC.

Okay, Barham was under air attack at least 4 times in the Med. theatre – this means either Luftwaffe or Regia Aeronautica (who did have good anti-shipping aircraft).

A lot of the attacks you quote are '40-41 before the Luftwaffe got better at attacking shipping. Neither sides air power had much influence on the Norway campaign. They did manage to sink a few battleships. Was it 2 or 3 Italian battleships that the Luftwaffe sank after the Italian armistice?

>France made a 'separate peace' with Germany.
>Hadn't they agreed this wouldn't happen?
>I guess this means they weren't allies any more.

Armistices terms were pretty concise on this, as you
can imagine.
Officially, after June 22nd, France was to become a
neutral country, with its navy definitely out of German
reach (the Germans made it very clear from the beginning
of armistice talkings).
Like the rest of Vichy forces ('armistice army'), the
navy was only subject to German armistice commissions
control.
Basically, the Germans didn't want any French Scapa
Flow, so they stayed very cautious in their demands.

>The French were given 4 options: setting sail with
>the RN would, I think, have been the honourable thing
>to do.

Though such a move on a large scale was doubtfull
after the armistice, which the navy, as the rest
of Vichy forces was legally bound to, the Mers
El Kebir attack made even marginal disobedience
nearly impossible.

>But they could have scuttled their ships or
>sailed them to the US.

The US were neutral too at this time, and the Germans
had made it clear they would leave the French Navy
alone.
Guess it's worth reminding that countries like the USA
or USSR had fully recognized Vichy France government,
as well as its neutral status.
As a matter of fact, both countries had significant diplomatic representations in Vichy.

>The stupid thing – and I don't know whether
>it reflects more badly on Gensoul, Darlan or
>the British – is that the French were prepared
>to scuttle their ships rather than let them fall
>into German hands.

Darlan or Gensoul had to obey their government and
the armistice convention the latter had agreed with.
Only the South Zone (Vichy independant territory)
invasion in November 1942, by clearly threatenning
the Toulon base naval forces neutrality, made
the issue look different.

Matter of factly, the French armistice forces
existence on French territory ceased at that
time.

Yet, even after this invasion, Vichy was 'supposed' to
stay neutral (Syria notwithstanding) and the move
toward joining the allies (US and GB) was to be made
very cautiously, by fear of German probable represals
in continental France.

The US support for Girault (evaded from German POW
camp and exfiltrated by Vichy to North Africa) IMHO
makes it clear that at least one of the main ally
didn't want to burn bridges with Vichy.
On the other hand, the British and Russian strong
support to de Gaulle witnessed that other agendas
were meanwhile existing.

>Why they didn't think of
>informing the British of this I can't imagine.

Admittedly French sailors in Mers El Kebir couldn't
imagine that a former ally (yet not a belligerent by
any standart in July 1940) would shot them to pieces
either <g>
The issue remains for me, why Churchill, who was
plainly aware of the armistice terms between France
and Germany and the, at least temporary, French navy neutrality choose then to make this bold move ?

A lot of the attacks you quote are '40-41 before the Luftwaffe got better at attacking shipping. Neither sides air power had much influence on the Norway campaign. They did manage to sink a few battleships. Was it 2 or 3 Italian battleships that the Luftwaffe sank after the Italian armistice?

Right, but we're talking about Sealion here – it would have had to be early in the war for there to have been any chance of it happening at all. In 1943, Germany was in no position to be taking the offensive on a new front.
-Kle.

Right, but we're talking about Sealion here – it would have had to be early in the war for there to have been any chance of it happening at all. In 1943, Germany was in no position to be taking the offensive on a new front.

Quite, but you could go for summer '41. That gives the Luftwaffe nearly a year to train the bomber crews for anti shipping role. You still need a much increased naval presence – '41 gives you Scharnhorst, Gneisenau & Bismarck. Still need the Italian navy I would have thought.

The Luftwaffe sank 1 Italian battleship (Roma) after the 1943 armistice using FX-1400 radio-controlled glide bombs. These weapons allowed the attacker to avoid much of the effects of a ship's AA fire, but of course they did not exist in 1940. In the case of the Roma, there was also some confusion as to whether the approaching aircraft were friendly.

Anyone see Time Team on one the stop line outside London?
Just how effective would the Foogas bomb have been against tanks?
It was an explosive charge which projected a wall of burnig petrol at a tank when it was alongside the bomb, deadly against any supporting troops bet a tank?

It mnay not have reached Seattle, but scotland is very much a free country, with its own parliment and legal system, free elections and all that.

Churchill has always had a bnad press from the south side of the channel over the destruction of the capital ships of the french navy.

Churchill had attempted to link france and the uk to a joint war cause which was rejected, he requested decommisioning and neutral internment and those were rejected too. The threat of an active Franco german kreigsmarine controlled atlantic striking force was too big a risk to rely on Vichy France to resist to the death. vichy was the definition of collaberation. It is worth noting that of the 50,000 french forces evacuated from dunkirk, 40,000 returned to vichy controlled areas rather than remain as Free French.
Churchills decision ultimately led to French interests being best fulfilled, even at the cost of French lives.

Churchill could have negotiated a much better peace for a Vichy style Britain than Vichy France ever could have. the fact he didn't bow to that pressure was to stop Hitler having control over europe, not stop hitler having control over britian.

Going back to the point about Luftwaffe success against RN in '40, you just have to look at the damage caused by air attack to shipping off Dunkirk. 6 destroyers sunk, 19 badly damaged alone and that doesn't include Dutch or French loses. Hence the reason to keep all capital assets as far north as possible in Scarpa Flow untill the moment of invasion.

The vanguard of channel defence was left to destroyers or smaller sized classes for the precise fear of air attack.

But the RN would be mobile when attacking the German invasion forces, many of the losses at Dunkirk were stationary or slow moving.

Coming back to the 'separate peace' issue – the British might be understandably wary of any assurances made after that agreement went by the board (even if it was bowing to the inevitable). And they had no good reason to take any German assurances about anything seriously. Who can say whether 'neutral' warships might not have ended up in the Atlantic protecting 'neutral' interests by destroying British shipping?
One is always a little suspicious of Churchill's motives – was he trying to pull a Copenhagen in emulation of a more famous man? It certainly wasn't a PR hit in France, but it possibly did demonstrate to other onlookers a ruthless refusal to roll over.
Re Sealion – maybe it just wasn't a go until Britain could be blockaded, which would have meant winning the Battle of the Atlantic. Did Germany have the resources to do this while preparing to have a go at the USSR? The resources for the one weren't really transferrable to the other.

The Old Fox: But the RN would be mobile when attacking the German invasion forces, many of the losses at Dunkirk were stationary or slow moving.

A moot point. The Germans planned to deny access to the channel by the use of dense belts of mines at either end of the invasion route and the deployment of their E-Boats and U-Boats.

By the time the RN had beat off the aircraft, mines, torpedo boats and anything else that could be used to disrupt their deployment, it was hoped that the invasion force would have advanced far enough to force a surrender.

Symbiotic Relationship:Re Sealion – maybe it just wasn't a go until Britain could be blockaded, which would have meant winning the Battle of the Atlantic. Did Germany have the resources to do this while preparing to have a go at the USSR?

I believe the invasion was called off to allow the deployment of troops for Russia in the end.

As for Vichy, it was regarded as an enemy at worst and collaborators at best. I get the impression that Churchill tended to see things in Black and White, so if they weren't with us…

The Germans were in a catch 22 situation, they could lay mines but British naval forces could sweep them and lay their own!.

In the run up to oppration Sealion he German navy would have had to deploy ships tow the barges, escort the barges and use ships to provide artillery support the invading force.

After the invasion the same amount of forces would have been needed for re-enforcing and resupplying the German army.

The RN also had laid mines this would mean the German forces would have to sweep a path to the invasion point, if they only swept one area then they reveal the exact points of the invasion, if they also sweep diversionary areas as well then they again reduce the forces available for mine laying.

If they sweep too many days in advance then they risk the RN relaying the mines.

The Luftwaffe will be needed for the air battle over the beach head thus cannot drop mines

Re the French navy, didn't the German army use masses of French army equipment, tanks trucks etc.
So when the Germans needed the French ships…………

The United Kingdom, shortly after the Armistice (22 June 1940), attacked a large French naval contingent in Mers-el-Kebir, killing 1,297 French military personnel. Unsurprisingly, Vichy severed diplomatic relations. Britain feared that the French naval fleet could wind up in German hands and be used against her own naval forces, which were so vital to maintaining world-wide shipping and communications. Under the armistice, France had been allowed to retain the French Navy, the Marine Nationale, under strict conditions. Vichy pledged that the fleet would never fall into the hands of Germany, but refused to send the fleet beyond Germany's reach, either by sending it to Britain, or even to far away territories of the French empire, such as the West Indies. This was not enough security for Winston Churchill. French ships in British ports were seized by the Royal Navy. The French squadron at Alexandria, under Admiral Renι-Emile Godfroy, was effectively interned until 1943 after an agreement was reached with Admiral Andrew Browne Cunningham, commander of the Mediterranean Fleet.

link

As far as I remember, the French thretened to scuttle the fleet if the Germans tried to take it.

As far as I remember, the French thretened to scuttle the fleet if the Germans tried to take it.

Saying you are going to do something and then actually delivering it are 2 different things. The possibility of a German coup de main or the Vichy government changing their minds was too great a risk for Churchill to take IMHO. The presence of the French fleet in enemy hands would have posed a significant threat to RN naval superiority in the Atlantic. Remember there was no prospect of US or USSR involvement in the war at this stage.

Going back to the point about Luftwaffe success against RN in '40, you just have to look at the damage caused by air attack to shipping off Dunkirk. 6 destroyers sunk, 19 badly damaged alone and that doesn't include Dutch or French loses. Hence the reason to keep all capital assets as far north as possible in Scapa Flow untill the moment of invasion.

The vanguard of channel defence was left to destroyers or smaller sized classes for the precise fear of air attack.

Yes, it was – but it was foolish. Sinking even a CA was vastly harder than a DD with air attack. Battleships were even harder, especially without torpedo bombers. Look at how much punishment Mikuma and Mogami took before one of them sunk, after Midway.

The British were conserving their battleships, because they thought they might need them for some sort of decisive surface action. If invasion was imminent, that would've been the time to use them. They probably would have lost one or two, but they had battleships to spare.
-Kle.

Not sure it was foolish to retire the fleet back from the channel ports.

The RN had to retire both cruisers Suffolk and AA Curacoa due to heavy damage from JU-88 attacks during the Norwegian campaign, the former bearly making it back to port.

Positioning the main fleet at Scapa Flow allowed access to two fronts with the threat of commerce raiding and possible landings on the eastern seaboard.

You're right in saying that the larger classes could take more punishment than the DDs and smaller classes, but the Pas de Calais is a very narrow stretch of water to operate in. Sinking and combat effectiveness are two seperate issues.

My recollection of the 1970s wargame was that the RN accepted that they would probably have the battleships they sent to the chanel sunk so they simply ran one aground on a handy sandbank. It is difficult to sink a battleship that is already on the bottom :)

Essentially a 1940 Sealion was a pipe dream. If the Germans had not invaded Russia and built up for a serious attempt at invasion in 1941 they might have been able to pull it off but the discrepancy in naval power between the Germans and the Brits was huge.

It might be possible in games like Third Reich where unless the British put a training camp next to every port the Germans can paradrop a port then 'strategically redeploy' their whole panzer force across the North sea without any chance of the RN intervening but in reality it was never going to ammount to anything significant other than a lot of captured Germans.