Operation Sea Lion: Hitler's Daring Plan to Invade Britain...
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 05. 2024
- The Battle of Britain was one of the most unique and decisive battles in history. Fought almost entirely in the air, the defeat of Britain’s Royal Air Force would have opened the door to an invasion of Britain and the total subjugation of western Europe under the Swastika. Fortunately, the British defenders prevailed in what is remembered as their finest hour but while much is discussed about the battle for the skies, less is known about the efforts made to actually carry out the invasion had the German Luftwaffe won the Battle of Britain. This is the story of the trials and tribulations of the German preparations for Operation Sea Lion; the invasion of Britain. Welcome to Wars of the World.
00:00 Introduction
01:07 Conception
07:21 Too Many Cooks
14:14 The Closing Window
19:25 Could Sea Lion Have Succeeded?
Prefer to listen on the go? Check out the WotW Podcast:
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4i0FnOK...
iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
Google: podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0...
RSS Feed: feeds.buzzsprout.com/988960.rss
🎶🎶 All music from CO.AG
/ @co.agmusic
Narrated by: Will Earl
Written & Researched by: Tony Wilkins
Edited by: Jamit Productions
History Should Never Be Forgotten...
Despite the lack of weapons in the UK, Britian still had five million 40's year old battle hardened trench warfare experts defending their homes and families. And Germany didn't have steel motorised land craft, they were going to tow wooden boats similar to the Galipolli landings against the grand fleet, 150 British war ships, any invasion would have failed.
They could have used uboots to move soldiers across at night. They had enough. And they would use paratroopers.
@@MrLeovdmeerThey certainly did not have anywhere near enough U-Boats to carry over any meaningful amount of troops and many of the U-Boats would be lost attempting such a foolish thing. U-boat would also only be able to carry light infantry across. German paratroopers weren’t very good and they would only be able to drop in unsupported light infantry in enemy territory meaning a paratrooper attack would fail.
Even if Germany put everything it had into Operation Sea Lion it would’ve still failed. Such an operation was impossible for Germany to achieve due to geography, lack of experience, lack of naval forces, logistical challenges, lack of air superiority and the entrenchment of British and Allied forces.
They could very wel have succeeded. Yes you need more then that but it can be done. And in the time after duinkerk it could heve been done. And not only Uboats would be used. @@redtob2119
@@MrLeovdmeerlol no they didn’t nowhere near enough how many troops do you think could be crammed into a claustrophobic u-boat? 🤣🤣
@@MrLeovdmeer They didn't have enough U-Boats to get serious numbers of troops across (even assuming they lost none to minefields and/or British ships or shore batteries) and there weren't enough paratroops to capture entire ports intact, which is the only way they could have successfully brought in enough troops and equipment. After Crete, Fallschirmjaeger never dropped in large numbers again as they were nearly wiped out there (it was really only air support that saved them there).
Sea Lion has been wargamed multiple times by historians, military experts and analysts. It stood roughly a 0% chance of succeeding. Germany would have lost its entire invasion force, either in the English Channel at the hands of the RAF and RN whose home fleet planned to sail at full speed straight through the pathetic German barge fleet, or in Kent and E.Sussex at the hands of the army. So many people latch onto the myth that the British army was destroyed at Dunkirk. It wasn’t. The BEF lost most of its heavy weapons but over 300,000 troops were evacuated back to Britain. The BEF was not the whole British army, just as many troops were at home defending Britain. The next myth is that the army had no weapons. Between Dunkirk and the end of 1940, the British army rapidly re equipped. They had more tanks than Germany could ship across the channel. The Germans planned to land 100,000 troops on day one. The home guard alone numbered 1.5million men. As for the broom handles myth, that was true early in the year but soon after Dunkirk my Grandfather proudly sported a Bren in his position just North of Rye. The home guard were also ready to blow every bridge , flood every marsh and block every road heading north from the invasion beaches. They had saboteurs ready to blow railway lines, bridges, roads, lay mines and Churchill even considered mustard gas for release on the beaches. There were thousands of pill boxes, gun emplacements, lines of dragons teeth all over the South East, many of which are still here. Their job was not to defeat the Germans but merely to slow them down. The regular army were held inland, ready to be vectored in large numbers with armour to exactly where the Germans started pushing.
The last time I saw an analysis of Sea Lion,the experts calculated that the German forces would have penetrated no more than 12 miles inland before being overwhelmed by our defences. Hitler’s decision not to invade was not a failure, it was probably one of his best decisions of the war. Then invading Russia was his worst decision…..
Excellent overview. From what I have read on the subject Germany would have had virtually no chance of a successful invasion.
The Germans, if it had be their wish or intention to invade the UK, would have use the same tactic as they used, when helping Franko move troop from Morocco to Spain. A tactic that was so successful during the German invasion of Crete, Norway and Denmark.They would have never crossed the Channel in boats. 100,000 of the troops evacuate from Dunkirk were French. "rapidly re equipped. They had more tanks" After Dunkirk 2/3 of the UK strategic armour was sent to Egypt, it's a myth, that the UK had armour enough, for home defence. "The Germans planned to land 100,000 troops on day one." What plan was that? "As for the broom handles myth" A myth it was not and only when when the Americans started to supply the UK with the M1917 Enfield rifle, would the home guard be quipped with weapons. The rest of what you write is based on nationalist feelings and wishful thinking and has nothing todo, historical facts.
@@michaelmayo3127 "They would have never crossed the Channel in boats" - It is a matter of unquestioned, historical fact that that is exactly what the plan was. So what are you suggesting? Secondly, literally hundreds of military historians have analysed the potential for an invasion of Britain at that time and arrived at the same conclusion: It would have failed. But you know better than all of them? Are you seriously suggesting that there is a sensible comparison to be made between the invasions of Crete, Norway or Denmark and the challenge of invading England? I can't imagine that you are. Anyway, the cost to the German Navy of the invasion of Norway was so severe that it never really recovered from the losses sustained, which in the immediate aftermath prevented it from interfering with the evacuation of Dunkirk or supporting an invasion of Britain.
@@Dionysos640 "unquestioned, historical fact" Well maybe you could give us the source to theses "unquestionable" fact?
Hundreds? well I never. " military historians" are not generals.
"sensible comparison" Yes and on the basis of the `facts` their invasion strategy worked.
The assessment of Sea Lion is no more than conjecture. Sea Lion was only a half-hearted study.
"challenge of invading England?" What challenges would they be? The UK had on standing army, yes they had a very large navy but, the problem with naval deployment however, is that, boats aren't good a sailing on land.
"so severe that it never really recovered from the losses sustained" That is a myth.
And the invasion of Norway wasn't a naval operation, however it must be stated that the German navy's cunning deployment in the invasion of both Norway and Denmark, have been accredited by other major navies around the world, as a stroke-of-genius. The tactics of which, are still being taught in naval collages to this day.
"evacuation of Dunkirk" Was allowed because Hitler ordered his general to halt their offensive, Thus allowing the Brits to evacuate.
@@Dionysos640And Crete was so bad for airborne troops that they were never airdropped in numbers by the Germans again! Without total air superiority they wouldn't have had any survivors. You could argue that the Germans would have had that if they'd won the BoB, but it would still have been a far taller order to get enough troops air landed/dropped to capture and hold a few large ports, which is the only way they could have got enough men and equipment into Britain.
I, too, have yet to see any credible historian/re-enactment/wargaming scenario say that Sealion could have succeeded.
The 1st Canadian Division evacuated from the Port of Brest intact & armed, and settled in Southeastern England for defence. And numerous Canadians volunteered in the RAF.
I'm an older Brit who has known for a long time the supporting part played mostly by the commonwealth countries... you forgot to mention the burgeoning Royal Canadian Navy who increasingly shouldered a MAJOR part of the battle of the Atlantic. Our Canadian brothers and sisters are not forgotten.
Now all we have to do is drive the corporate globalist puppets from our prospective governments.
Best wishes from the UK.
The Canadians were good friends in our time of need, as were other parts of the commonwealth and empire.
Churchill's bunker in London is preserved as a museum. When I visited, there was a 1940 wall map of the British Isles with all the potential invasion beaches marked. It was a reminder that worst-case preparations were needed back then.
It still doesn't mean Hitler meant to invade he did not.
One thing I read years ago that struck me was that the RN would only have to drive by those invasion barges very fast and their wakes would have swamped them, no need to actually bomb them or something. It made sense to me considering how many more ships they had than the german navy
I've actually seen some of these old barges years ago. When I was in the RN. In the Plymouth area. Early 1980s.
The failed Austrian painter should've issued rubber dinghies to the Wehrmacht.
Quislings in the British government would've given the invaders free hotel rooms.
Sad.
yes they had very shallow drafts, easy to swamp them I would think@@VaultPete
This remains one of the great "what if" scenarios of WWII, although given with hindisight we know what enormous resources the Allies required for a successful invasion in Normandy, and that was with the US and UK, who had far more naval power than Germany, it seems likely they simply never had the resources to prosecute a full invasion. And even if the UK lost air superiority, I don't doubt the RN would still have committed everything to repelling any such attempted invasion, regardless of cost. The Nazi strategy was in line with their Blitzkreig, quick attacks, overrun the enemy, not to dig in for a protracted campaign like this. That said, to the people in 1940s Britain, it must have looked terrifyingly likely, given how quickly Western Europe had been taken, it must have been terrifying thinking that any day those jackboots may be wading ashore on British beaches. Not for the first time, I am in awe of the sheer determination of those who came before us to risk everything to protect these islands.
They wargamed this in the US in the 70s. Germany could not win.
They wargamed this in the US in the 70s. Germany could not win.
They wargamed this in the US in the 70s. Germany could not win.
@@rick7424did they wargame this in the 70s by any chance
@@rick7424They did that in England 1974.
Good discussion of Sea Lion. And a rare mention of Bomber Command's role. At the peak of mobilization, as you mentioned [ 15:05], RAF Bomber Command lit up the Channel ports where the barges were being assembled. In addition, Bomber Command had slowed down the Panzers moving toward Dunkirk and was hitting Luftwaffe air bases launching the attacks on Britain. The role of Bomber Command is too often ignored.
Great video again. And Merry Christmas everyone.
While I was an undergraduate in the 1970s, I spent three months in Augsburg working at MBB. I spent a short period in a department where the manager spoke English with an Oxford accent. He had studied at Oxford Uni and spent months getting in and out of barges as he and his comrades readied to cross the channel. He told me that had they succeeded in the invasion, he would be part of the South of England administration. They were serious about their intent to cross the channel.
Hey listen, I have a little military experience and frankly the whole idea is a fairy tale mate. The landing force would have to cross the channel in a shallow draught towed barge, which would take a miracle alone. One poorly handling MTB would make mincemeat of them. Then they have to land, opposed, but not from landing craft, they have to take turns climbing over the side. This is after they have not been swamped by Royal Navy ships or simply sunk by rough water. Then after making a beach head (with what engineer assets I don’t know) they need to reinforce to sufficient numbers to overcome the defences. That’s 3-4 to 1. Then routine resupply, casivac, repairs, spare parts, rations, ammunition…. Bollocks mate. The battle is one tenth guts, nine tenths logistics. Hitler believed his own bullshit and even he knew it was a bluff.
With Hitler leading ? Seriously NUTS
Why do the English constantly hark back to the Second World War. Is it because it was the last time Great Britain was of any relevance in the world. Any way they don’t seem to be fighting against the invasion that is happening right now, Maybe the English need to loose this one . Prophesy-- give it another 50 years and the English will be strangers in their own land.
this gentleman's barges were not capable of fording the channel. He was not aware of the difficulties.
@@rlkinnard he absolutely understood that he couldn’t invade, it’s why he didn’t try. He fully understood the Kreigsmarine’s shortcomings; he wanted the UK to join him.
Excellent post. Several points
1. The biggest problem with the broad front attack was the tidal difference of 6 hours between Lyme Regis and Dover. The plans for September between Selsey Bill and Folkestone (under an hour's difference).
2. The 7th Paratroopers were not to be dropped by aeroplane but landed at Folkstone by boat.
And the bonkers bits.
1. towing pairs of river barges (one powered) line astern along the English channel with tugs at exactly 5kts (6MPH) then all turning simultaneously for a choreographed assault. Nearer the landing zones the powered barge was set free to beach itself while the unpowered barges were towed into position to set an anchor and wait a few hours for the tide to recede. The very definition of a sitting duck.
2. the First Mountain division were tasked to climb the cliffs below Pett and then make their way to Flimwell. This seems particularly bonkers as the sandstone and clay cliffs are very unstable, plus Pett Level adjacent to the cliffs is as it sounds, level!
You could add that, after heavy losses in Norway & THe Netherlands, the so-called 7th Paratroop division only had around 4,500 trained men still available.About one third of a division.
Excellent post Peter. Thank you.
Turns out all the Germans needed was an unlimited supply of dinghys and a hoard of doctors and engineers
I think you mean a handful of "doctors and engineers" who were used as the subterfuge to flood in millions of unwashed, unskilled, empty bellied and empty handed economic migrants.
There you go. It was easy after all.
Their biggest problem was they hadn't managed to install a nest of traitors in the Houses of Parliament eager to do their bidding, just as modern day corporate globalists have done.
Hitler’s bad assumption: Hitler assumed that Britain would make peace with Germany.
He (wrongly) assumed that all Aryans, especially Germanics like the English, would ally themselves against what he saw as inferior races. It's not widely known, but he was particularly in awe of the British Empire, and wanted to copy what we'd achieved, only in Eastern Europe.
@@white-dragon4424 … You can make a list of fatally bad assumptions Hitler made.
Well, if King Edward who was a Nazi sympathizer, had been on the throne, he might have urged it. But his younger brother George V who took the throne after Edward abstained "to marry the woman he loved", was all in with Churchill!
The chamberlain government would
@@white-dragon4424and he copied America to.
Great video. Very informative.
Maps would have been a valuable addition.
Warsoftheworld thanks for sharing. This is informative.
Good video structure. Helpful.
I would recommend reading "The Most Dangerous Enemy" by Stephen Bungay. It is an excellent statistical review of the Battle of Brittain, demonstrating the huge edge the UK actually had in manufacturing, efficient use of resources, well thought out tactical and strategic planning and excellent logistics. It also touches on the huge Naval disparity which would not have been significantly damaged by the Lufwaffe which had almost no anti-shipping experience and which would have crushed a German landing force.
One might also conside rthe eargaming done by British and German Military Staff officers at Sandhurst in the 1970s which proved over and over again that a German invasion would have failed utterly with huge casualties.
Which after Dunkrik was worthless if Hitler invalded
@@JeffHenry-cq3is Nonsense German could never have done so. Any invading force would be cut off by the British Navy and probably lead to declaration of war by the USA on Germany.
@@JeffHenry-cq3is
The Royal Navy would have stopped any intended invasion, Dunkirk, or no Dunkirk, and the mad Nazi could do nothing about it.
@@drscopeify Rest assured there was never ANY prospect of the US "declaring war" on nazi Germany... she was making TOO much profit from BOTH sides of the European war to jeopardise by declaring war against one of her customers.
It took the nazi declaration of war on the US on 11th Dec 1941 to drag them into the European conflict (which was in fact the ONLY legal declaration of war made by nazi Germany in its short 12 year history).
There could be much better use of the medium, rather than just providing all 'b' roll making this essentially an audio essay; the simple addition of some maps of relevant areas when you are discussing geography and listing landing grounds and such.... It would be a simple but valuable addition raising the quality of your videos, the maps can be free with numbers added to landmarks as simple as that, or pictures of terrain when discussing particulars of location. Lots of potential and very good already, and thank you for the video.
In the last section "Could Sea Lion Have Succeeded?", there is a photo of soldiers marching along a dock. To their left is a rail line, while on their right is the dock. Does anyone know where this photo was taken?
The Kriegsmarine had been decimated in the Norwegian Campaign . The German Army had zero chance getting across the English Channel in converted river barges . The Royal Navy's Home Fleet would have decimated them . Add to this , the German Army would have had to capture an intact port , just to provide the tons of supplies required each day .
As such , if you examine the bombing pattern of the Luftwaffe - they left Dover Alone . But they hit Portsmouth , Plymouth , the London Docks , Bristol , Cardiff , Belfast , Liverpool , Glasgow and tried to have a go at Newcastle . So this was more of a siege of Britain . As well as the Luftwaffe bombed Coventry and Birmingham .
.
One point not mentioned, the largely sea borne invasion of Norway cost the Kriegsmarine dear in terms of lost ships. I'm sure that must have been a consideration for Kriegsmarine planners.
Additionally, Germany’s airlift capacity had also been devastated during the Norway invasion and, in particular, during the attack on The Netherlands. The chances of them being able to conduct a successful parachute or airlanding operation against the UK were minimal, even assuming that the RAF could be prevented from intervening.
I mentioned this in reply to another, later post. Yes, the Norway losses were a key factor and also prevented the Germany navy from interfering witht the Dunkirk evacuation.
I always wonder, how much effect the Battle of Britain had on Operation Barbarossa. All those Losses in men and equipment.
A very serious effect. At the start of Barbarossa, the strength of the Luftwaffe amounted to 4,389 aircraft, of which 2,598 were combat types and 1,939 were operational. The inventory amounted to 929 bombers, 793 fighters, 376 dive-bombers, 70 destroyers (Messerschmitt Bf 110s), 102 reconnaissance, and 60 ground attack aircraft, plus 200 fighters in reserve and 60 miscellaneous types.
This force was spread across; 31 bomber, eight dive bomber, "one, one-third" ground attack, two twin-engine, and 19 single-engine fighter groups (Gruppen). Around 68 per cent of the German air strength was operational.
In a document issued by the Department of the Luftwaffe General Staff on 15 November 1940, it was clear that production was barely adequate to maintain current strength, much less expansion of the Luftwaffe. It stated:
[Germany's] own [aircraft] production at best ensures maintenance of the present strength. Expansion is impossible (either in personnel or in material).
Some 1700 aircraft had been lost during the Battle of Britain, but probably even more important was the loss of almost 2700 experienced aircrew.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 and @tonycavanagh1929 Add to that the losses the Luftwaffe had suffered during operations in the Netherlands in 1940 (at least 250 aircraft) and during the invasion of Crete (1941) and you may wonder if Operation Barbarossa in 1941 was such a good idea...
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Yes, very interesting. Thank you.
In so much study of wars, we concentrate on each battle almost in isolation.
Especially in the European theater. But each battle must of had an effect on the next.
Such as Luftwaffe strength, at the start of the invasion of Russia.
Add in transport plane looses at Crete and Belgium it showed when the Germans reached outside of Moscow
@@Franky46Boy Not to mention the quick occupation of Yugoslavia and the aftermath of dealing with constant partisan attacks that sapped supplies and manpower away from the planned attack
Actually , the closest Britain came to negotiating terms , occurred during the May 26 - 28th , 1940 War Cabinet Crisis .
May 25th - French General Blanchard promises Lord Gort , 3 French divisions and a 100 tanks to implement the Weygand Plan. In the early evening , Lord Gord is informed that the French can only provide one division , so he makes the decision to evacuate the BEF .
May 26th - Operation Dynamo is implemented .
The initial estimate given to the British War Cabinet ( Churchill , Lord Halifax , Chamberlain , Attlee and Greenwood ) was that only 45,000 solders of the BEF could be evacuated from Dunkirk.
Then Lord Halifax was baited into a meeting by the Italian ambassador , who then switches topics , and offers to mediate a peace agreement .
Facing the loss of 150,000 BEF solders , the British War Cabinet has a series of heated meetings . Lord Halifax attempted to get the British war cabinet to agree to enter into negotiations to explore what was on offer . Churchill disagreed and said Hitler hasn't honoured any terms he has agreed to , and will turn Britain into a slave state. Halifax said Luftwaffe would bomb Britain into submission . Some historians think Churchill was buying time too see how the evacuation would turn out .
Churchill then does an end round on Halifax , meets with the 25 member outer cabinet , and persuades them
Britain should continue fighting .
Had Churchill not been able to convince the cabinet to keep fighting , Hitler would have been able to unleash the entire Wehrmacht on the Soviets in the spring of 1941 . Either way , Hitler or Stalin would have ended up controlling Russia , Continental Europe , North Africa and the Middle East . The world would have become a different place . For this reason , the British War cabinet crisis is one of the defining moments of the 20th Century .
.
Well said, I fully agree... but you'll have have your work cut out convincing a young modern audience who get their "facts" from wikipedia and the globalist MSM.
The rubber dinghies landing at Dover make these Nazis look like amateurs .
Having planned and participated in amphibious operations the German plans were more of a river crossing than the need for planning, rehearsals, specialized equipment as well as command of the air and sea. It’s chances were near zero
I really enjoyed the video, that being said pardon my pedantry but on a couple of occasions when discussing the German ORBAT the word "compromising" was used when it should have been "comprising".
One big problem with this. The royal navy
“Paratroopers would capture Limp Knee airfield” - no mate Lympne is pronounced “Lim”. I lived there for 10 years. 😂
I had a subscription to “Strategy and Tactics” magazine in the 1970’s. They had an article about Sealion that held it negatively because of motorized transport. In the article it was estimated that they would have to confiscate every civilian truck and use every available military truck as well and still would come up short. The effect on military production by this would have a big negative effect as well. Contrary to the British and American armies, Germany still utilized a lot of horse drawn transport in infantry and other units. More horses were used in WWII than any other war previously. Horses also don’t transport well in ships, with the English Channel not a placid body of water would make horses skittish as well.
Getting off of the beachheads would be hard without enough transport to quicken the advance. A logistics nightmare was going to happen.
Great video and analysis. One of the issues not really mentioned is that Europe is a landmass and getting across it is relatively straightforward. Germany was not used to crossing large stretches of water though it and Italy supply their troops in North Africa. It took the Allied forces years to plan Normandy invasions along with all the deception which went with it. Never felt that Germany really had their heart in it to invade UK or were that prepared.
the german army "plan" was more like a large river crossing than an actual amphibious landing. Compared to D-Day 5 divisions - the amount of actual planning and assembled resources are worlds apart
And yet in 1940 Germany successfully invaded Norway, despite the opposition from France, Britain and the Norwegians. Yes they incurred losses, which is why they were keen to establish air superiority before invading Britain. If they had taken out the RAF, then Germany could have destroyed resistance at will. The battle of Britain saved us from occupation.
@@londonEnglishVideos Sweden helped them A LOT.
Operation Sealion
The situation which had developed in the destruction of the English expeditionary force and the weakness of the English land defences caused us to entertain the idea of deciding the war in our favor by a rapid invasion of England. On account of the circumstances previously described as existing before the war and the surprisingly rapid development of the situation in the west, no preparations of any sort had been made. Since an invasion could only succeed if it took place quickly, in any case before the coming autumn, it was necessary now (Hitler himself gave orders for its preparation) to attempt to create the necessary conditions, both as regards material and training, with the greatest haste and with every means of improvisation. To produce new landing craft in great numbers and in time was, from the point of view of material and construction, no longer possible even though at this time the naval ferry barge (M. F. F.) had been designed and completed. It was, therefore, necessary to fall back in the greatest possible measure on available tugs, as well as barges of the coastal and inland water transport system. These were modified for landing purposes. Their greatest disadvantage lay in their very limited seaworthiness (up to sea 3); and, as most of them were not self-propelled, they required towing. Investigations were made into landing conditions on the south coast of England and current and weather conditions in the Channel. Training of the troops intended for the landing was extended as more of the necessary materials became available and all possible preparations of a tactical nature were made.
From the beginning it was clear to the leaders that the invasion could succeed only under certain particular conditions. The navy was certainly not in a position to protect the landing forces against the English Fleet, whose full weight would have to be reckoned with in such a situation. This task would have to be taken over by the air force. To this end it was necessary not only to wipe out completely the Royal Air Force but also to attack beforehand the ports near the landing area with such effect that the English naval forces would have to withdraw to more distant bases. Otherwise the air force would not be able to prevent the enemy's naval forces from reaching the landing forces at night by short approach routes.
When in September 1940 the preparations for invasion were complete, it also became apparent that complete defeat of the English Air Force had by no means been achieved. Thus, one of the most important prerequisites for an invasion was lacking. There could be no question of a short postponement, for once October and the beginning of the autumn gales had set in, a longer period of good weather such as would be required for success could no longer be expected. Postponement to the spring of 1941 could only render the military conditions less favorable. With such limited prospects of success, the resolve to carry on with the invasion of England could not be justified unless it presented the only and final means of ending successfully the war against England. This was not the case, for the German leaders saw in the Mediterranean another possibility of striking a decisive blow against England. This was quite apart from the shipping war which, as U-boat numbers increased and with the yet-hoped-for forceful participation of the air force, should gradually produce some result.
Hitler, therefore, decided to abandon the invasion, although the apparent threat of it was to be maintained
Grossadmiral Karl Dönitz, Kriegsmarine.
I've seen alternate histories such as "GB-SS" by Len Deighton that show a world in which Sea Lion was successful, but I've always wondered how the course of World War II would have changed if Hitler had given the go ahead for Sea Lion only to see the invasion fail. Would he have gone ahead with Barbarossa after such a loss and what impact would it have had on Germany as a whole?
I think it would have made Barbarossa less serious (in relative terms!), the loss of personnel, aircraft, weapons etc would have an impact, and the psychological effect would probably at least delay the invasion of the USSR, albeit it would still play out similarly, just marginally less bloody, as the USSR would have more time to prepare, or else the invasion would happen at a poor time (winter).
I make this comment because I saw the cover of this video, is it possible to point out the source of that image?
as it appears to be near seven sister which is where I lived, and I often visit that exact valley which have some world war II bunkers left there. I'm always curious about the story there so is it possible to tell me that where you find that photo?
Cuckmere Haven was a designated landing site for the Germans during the planned operation Sealion.
If you google "Cuckmere haven sealion defences" you will find various websites that detail the extensive defensive structures that were constructed hastily in summer 1940 in the area, and many of which as still in situ.... if buried within the undergrowth.
03:14 "storming the White Cliffs of Dover". I very much doubt the Germans ever even thought about doing do. With many gently sloping beaches in southern England, no general in his right mind would have considered storming the White Cliffs of Dover.
I always wondered how a barge could unload troops on a beach without heavy losses to man and machine. The allies had purpose built landing craft on D day and in the far East with training for months too and still counted the cost so a barge unloading troops each side and wading onto the beach surely would be an easy target. Great video and insight into the operation.
It was only to go ahead if it was possible to gain absolute air-superiority, to land everywhere at once, at dawn in foggy weather. That was the plan. Exactly as with the Allies on D-Day. When any fog cleared the aircraft hit the battlefield
Are there torture victims that will be forced to open fire near there?
Before ww2 they were doing amphibious landings with just normal small mainly wooden boats. You can see the sort of things they used in photos of gallipoli, where the landings were generally very successful, the problems came when they started to move off the beaches.
The sort of things the germans were planning to use were industrial barges used ordinarily to ferry coal and similar heavy goods down canals and rivere, so very steep sided, deep interiors and dragged along by horses on the bank or other boats. As far as I'm aware though some (likely most) had limited engines to move them very slowly so as to get them the extra distance when they couldnt be dragged any further when close to the beach, nothing strong enough to cope well with the open English channel though.
Soldiers would be going over the sides with net ladders, possibly with some dinghies thrown out. This suggests the infantry would initially carry no kit besides weapon, ammo and emergency rations from the barges due to drowning danger, so they would have had to keep the stuff on the barge and hope its not blown up, or hope another ship brings it ashore later. Overall an utter farce.
Even requisitioned small unarmoured motor boat used by the british armed with machine guns/small cannons going toward the barges would present them a massive risk, and things like mortars would make a complete mess of the slowly disembarking germans. The british also had the advantage of their watercooled, belt fed vickers machine guns in defensive emplacements that could keep firing nonstop without barrel or magazine changes, and even used to fire indirectly from further back to have plunging fire rain down onto the beaches with a large deadly beaten zone, supplementing bren/ lewis machine guns and automatic AA guns like the poms poms used against the barges and individual german soldiers .
@@Sashulya So. This 'at dawn' plan. It therefore involves taking 2-3 knot speed towed barges at night into a 2-3 knot variable current, aiming to hit a 1 km or so section of beach. The distance to be covered is 40km+, implying needing to choose between leaving before evening, risking discovery, or afterwards, risking not landing at dawn. Let me know how that goes.
@@user-hl7vu4yt7r Oh yes, the "barge" myth... It amazes me people still swallow that rubbish
In 1940 Germany had well over 100 ocean-going merchant ships capable of carrying troops, a sizeable fishing fleet and a dozen destroyers and cruisers. The bulk of their forces were to be carried on some of those. The "barges" were pure German propaganda to scare Britain into giving up. Only an monumental idiot would put one of those into the Channel
As I understand the "Plan", paratroopers were to land in Portland, Newhaven, Dover and Ramsgate, together with Sturmtruppen detachments landed by destroyers, S/E boats and other such fast craft. These would secure port facilities and the merchant ships would then land
The difficulty for Germany was not in unloading troops, but tanks. They had few ships which could quickly unload those
after destroying the RAF, could the Luftwaffe have then destroyed British war industries, oil & port facilities, then the RN home port at Scapa Flow, Scotland (Fleet Air Arm & surface combatants) enough to sustain a multi-mode invasion?
Firstly, the Luftwaffe could not have 'destroyed' the RAF. The most they might have achieved would have been a temporary withdrawal of Fighter Command north of the Thames to regroup and re-equip.
The Lufwaffe, with the small, tactical, bombers it operated, was never remotely in any position to destroy British war industries, oil facilities, or port facilities. The vast majority of these were far beyond the reach of German fighter cover, and unescorted bombers were sitting ducks during the day, and hopelessly inaccurate at night. Moreover, the Luftwaffe had no idea of the locations of British Shadow Factories.
Have you the slightest idea exactly how big the Royal Navy of 1939/40 was? Or, come to that, how inept the Luftwaffe of 1939/40 was at hitting ships?
If you think it was so easy, wghy wasn't it done?
At the end of the B of B thr Luftwaffe had been seriously depleted of a/c and aircrews, and in all seriousness, even at the fall of France, fighter and bomber losses had been heavy.
Wrong, so wrong wrong
The initial goal of Operation Eagle was the blunt the RAF fighter capability and attain air superiority over the Channel so their dive bombers would have a chance at directly attacking the Royal Navy as they sailed out to contest the invasion force. The Germans didn't have the warships to defend the invasion, so the dive bombers were going to be their anti-ship ordnance against the RN.
The plan fell apart when the aerial bombardment shifted away from RAF fighter infrastructure as well as the Luftwaffe's dive bomber units getting torn up in the process. The whole reason behind the Battle of Britain was lost to the Germans in two different ways.
@@JeffHenry-cq3is Cmon Jeff.... please illuminate us with your deep understanding of the Pan-European situation in 1940.
Whilst I agree entirely with the broad sentiment of commentary below, one has to consider circumstances. Britain was no doubt in a serious situation, people didn't know what would happen next , this included the government and military commanders. For example my father had a phone call to day the French has formerly surrendered, at that moment a Luftwaffe aircraft flew over, which they fired at. His fellow RAF colleague exclaimed "My god, they're coming straight over!" It later seemed that it was there on recon and the beaches remained quiet, as did the sea lanes. However they were of course ignorant of that, things must of been very scary during 1940.
Britain THOUGHT it was in a serious situation. It wasn't though. Just like the USA thought it was in a serious situation AFTER 9/11. But it wasn't.
Historian Kenneth Macksey wrote a pretty good novel titled "Invasion" back in the 1970's. Wish I still had a copy. Fun read.
Entertaining yes, but it took little or no account of the actual resources available. Nor of the facts.
Sea Lion and the potential invasion was propaganda in order to keep Britain on the defensive. Even with air superiority, the Germans had practically 0% chance of a successful invasion, especially with their total lack of proper amphibious equipment like dedicated landing craft. Not only was the RN the largest in the world at the time, similar in power to what the USN is now, but the English Channel was the most heavily mined stretch of water in the world. And as the video said, even if they did get across, the Germans would've soon had their supplies cut and been annihilated, and Hitler knew this. Just the fact that all he had were converted canal barges for the invasion makes it obvious that Hitler wasn't really interested in an invasion. He wanted one of two things, for Britain to either drop out of the war entirely, or preferably to join him in the Axis in attacking the USSR, then eventually to attack the USA.
It’s nice to see a fellow historian talking facts, completely agree, ill prepared and ill suited for cross channel invasion, and as you said the RN was massive.
The Royal Navy would have destroyed it before it even got going, further more, the British population would have been another problem for the Germans, invading England would have ended badly for the Germans!!
The idea of using "river barges" was insane; I live near the Rhine so I see these barges passing; they aren't built for open sea crossings, and even if they made it, taking them would cripple the European transport system.
Agreed. Whilst undoubtably it would have been seriously considered, it was clearly never practicable, and the British Gov would have known that full well.
@@Korschtal I believe that those barges were just for show. It was just to say to the unsavvy 1940's public, "Hey look, we're getting ready to invade!", whilst in reality not having intension to do such a thing. Hitler was hoping that he could knock Britain out of the war before he was forced to use them. When the bombing failed he just gave up and shot off east to do what he always wanted to do, attack Russia. It's certainly the only reasonable explanation, because thinking you can use them to cross open sea empty is crazy enough, let alone fill them with troops and especially tanks! They'd sink before they got out of port!
I think even if the RAF had not been successful in repelling the Luftwaffe, the Royal Navy would have given the NAZIs a serious Ass kicking! Don't forget we had a navy x2 larger than the biggest in the world!
The German landing invasion of England was going to be called “E Day”. However, as it never occurred, it was never formally titled as such. Unfortunately for them, D comes before E. This is why so few know about this little fact.
What? I was always taught the "D" in D-day means, "day". As in D-Day, H-hour.
@@kcgunesq Don't worry, the commenter is still waiting for F-Day for himself because his imagination is getting the better of him, like in other ways.
There’s no scenario where Germany is able to invade and occupy Great Britain
Yes there is
@@JeffHenry-cq3is Care to elaborate? It doesn't seem possible given Germany's lack of resources and expertise in amphibious operations. Their only amphibious operation was Norway and though successful it was hugely costly to the Kriegsmarine.
@@anthonycruciani939 "Jeff" won't elaborate. He's obviously a low intellect "Brit hater" with nothing worthwhile to add, judging by his many insipid & factless comments in this thread.
@@JeffHenry-cq3isactually no one believed it had any chance of success, not even the German OKW.
@@anthonycruciani939the Norwegian campaign cost the German Navy the majority of its Destroyer fleet….. plus it foreshadowed the Germans tendency for wasting money on wunderwaffen (their destroyers were big, capable, but few in numbers and ended up being exterminated in Norway).
Wait a minute I saw that cover picture….that’s from WarfareGaming on his video about the Sea Lion invasion scenario.
It was always East, that Hitler, intended to go. All the German high command new it would be a total failure.
They just did not have the shipping capacity, or the navy assets needed to protect what they had to deliver enough troops to get and maintain a decent bridgehead,
South east fighter command was under pressure but there was enough fighter groups in the rest of country that could have been switched to fly CAP for the Navy to sortie into the channel and do its thing. Sea Lion was a no hoper, which begs the question was it used to get more supplies from Stalin before the push east started ?
What amazes me is how much the public was expecting invasion. And the extensive defences Britain built. Eg antitank stop lines crissctossing the country.
Blame those who…shit the germanic royalty did England, Bloody Mary and so forth.
Also the prison colonies got ya from behind. Good thing theres always the Scots and Irish to blame.
@@bunk95yh yh, we still the fkg best , go cry
Can you do a video based on the Russian Civil War 1918-1923? No documentary ever covers this, I was wondering if you can do that.
I think the issue is that accurate information is impossible to find. Records were destroyed by the USSR. Records that exist are incredibly biased.
Well, why don't you make that video?
@@waveygravey9347 I don’t have the money, time, or resources to make one.
Why do a video about the most useless culture in the world?
@@ChadwickTheChad Excuse me!? What kind of question is that!? Russia is not the “most useless culture in the world”, there’s a lot of Russian history that many people did not know about such as how Russia conquered Siberia, the Great Northern War 1700-1721, the political leadership within Russia over the course of a few centuries such as Catherine the Great, Alexander I, Alexander II, Vladimir Lenin, Nikita Kurschev, etc., how serfdom lasted for many decades until it was abolished in 1861, and so on. I can go on, but you get the idea. While Russia does have internal problems, especially politically, Russia is still held strong to where it is today. I mean like how 3 nations tried to invade Russia, but all failed such as the Swedish Empire under Charles XII during the Great Northern War 1700-1721, the First French Empire under Napoleon Bonaparte during the Patriotic War/ Napoleonic Invasion of Russia 1812, & Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler during the Great Patriotic War/ Eastern Front of World War II 1941-1945. Yeah, I think history speaks for itself. So, when you asked like, “Why do a video about the most useless culture in the world?”, not only it’s offensive, it’s very ignorant. In fact, you shouldn’t say that to any culture period. You can disagree and criticize the government of any country, that’s fine. But don’t just insult the country’s culture if you don’t know them yourself. So, please heed to this advice and next time, not only think before you say it, but be open minded and learn new things.
Ah the days when we had a Royal Navy that put protection of our shores as its priority, following the destruction of the Kriegsmarine 's destroyer fleet.at Narvik.
As opposed to the now corporate globalist direction that is on the RN "Wheel" nowadays (as well as the RNLI).
Whats part of the [Royal Navy] is made to kill what is [from Earth] and theres [no] reason we need to make the waste we killed with the [Navy] before.
It was rather unfortunate for the Allied cause that Sea Lion was not attempted. Britain would have crushed it. The British army may have lost in France but time has gone on for it to recover more and establish defenses. The nation rallied to the cause of defense. The RAF still resisted the skies.
But the greatest guarantor of British victory was the Royal Navy. People forget that at the start of WWII, the RN was the most powerful navy in the world. They were capably handling both the German and Italian navies at the same time. Long before Germany declared war on the USA in December 1941. I'm sure some troops would have been landed along with some airborne drops. After that it was going to get mighty ugly for the Germans.
If Sea Lion had been attempted, the war would have been over sooner in Allied victory.
The fact it would have inevitably failed can be seen by how difficult the landing of D-Day was for the Allies. The UK and the USA had the two most powerful navies in the world at the time and where the absolute best suited nations for that type of a navel landing operation at that scale.
Even with both their combined recourses and efforts, the D-Day landings where complete hell and was literally an uphill battle just to maintain control of their beach heads, and that was with the combined navel and air superiority of the Allies, not even mentioning the saboteurs in France working behind the lines.
If Germany attempted this sort of attack, they would not have navel superiority, numerical superiority, and the British would have had the home field advantage in the truest sense of the word (it would not be like Germany defending occupied land).
A good video. Many have been aired and many books written about how the RAF "saved" Britain. While not wishing the diminish the heroics of the Few and their extraordinary courage the role of the RN kept the invasion fleet in port. We could thank Grand Admiral Erich Raeder, head of the Kriegsmarine, for many times telling Hitler the weather, tides, etc would imperial any landing attempt. It seems Hitler had little understanding of naval power.
My uncle and his unit were once detailed to pick up the bodies of German troops which had washed up along the Essex beaches around the Clacton area during 1940. He said there were hundreds of them. I wonder what calamity befell their preparations.
I am sorry, but that is not correct. Had such an event occurred, why would the British government have kept it a secret? I suspect you are thinking of Shingle Street.
Glad you're sorry.....my uncle would not have been mistaken. He was a staunch, very straight-talking Yorkshireman and never inclined to bend the truth. If you are so taken in by British politicians and goverments you need your head read. Ever heard of the "Lancastria"? There would have been a reason (probably to do with alarming the public) that it was not broadcast and not much, if at all, alluded to after the war. Who knows?
@@sirdudleynightshade8747 Odd that your first response would be a comnbination of insult and abuse. Oh well, so be it.
Churchill actually said of the 'Lancastria,' 'People have had enough bad news for today,' and vetoed publication of the news. Just as the Admiralty in WW1 had kept the mining and sinking of HMS Audacious secret, and as the sinking of HMS Barham, and the attacks on HMS Queen Elizabeth & HMS Valiant in Alexandria harbour secret in WW2. In all cases, to keep the information secret from the enemy.
Why exactly would the Government seek to keep a failed invasion attempt, or even a failed raid, secret from the British people? It would have been in every British, & American, newspaper, the following day.
As Oliver Cromwell once said, 'I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.'
In this case, you, or, at least, your uncle, is mistaken.
Superficial similarities?
- Sealion - 9 divisions landing over a 100 km front, with swimming tanks, and capturing docks (Folkstone and Newhaven) for 2nd wave and resupply. Paratroopers to capture nearby crossroads and bridges.
- Overlord - 6 divisions landing over a 100 km front, with swimming tanks, and bring-your-own docks for resupply. Paratroopers to capture nearby crossroads and bridges.
Elements of nine divisions, lacking both divisional artillery, and motor transport. A tiny number of Panzer IIs, and a number of Pz. IIIs intended to drive along the sea bed after dropping off barges, which had only been previously tested in calm, shallow, lakes.
Capturing two ports? What with? The 4,500 paratroops still available. dropping from the 220 transport aurcraft still operational? The allies used just under 16,000 aircraft of all types on 6 June, and dropped, from over 1,200 aircraft, 13,000 US Paratroopers ( followed by 4,000 glider borne infantry) and 7,000 British paratroopers, again followed by glider borne infantry.
Naval support :- Sealion. None to speak of.
Overlord :- 1213 warships (892 British).
@@dovetonsturdee7033Yup. Only *_superficial_* similarities. The Nazis agreed with you, that they didn't have the stuff to do the plan.
Overlord had 7000 ships and 20,000 aircraft. How many did the Germans have?
I don't think you could launch a seaborne invasion with barges (the Spanish did better than that). I know people were frightened at the time, but in retrospect (yeah, it's easy eh) it really seems the Germans didn't have a chance here, even if they had destroyed the RAF. My mother's street was hit by a V1 when she was four!
Invasion by barge. Unintentionally comedic.
Curt Assman, big fan
The question is how the war had turned out if Germany had somehow managed just Aerial domination over the UK. At that point the UK was alone and while they managed to save a lot of men from Dunkirk equipping them all would need time and ressources. Plus Germany had at least partially managed to inflict heavy losses on the sea trade routes (Churchill called the FW 200 the scourge of the atlantic at one point). Let's say Germany had kept to strictly bomb the factories, radar stations, air fields and dock yards. This would have slowly pushed the RAF up north of the Island while also denying them spare parts and new machines if said factories can't be rebuild or relocated quickly. And ships without dockyards can't be maintained long. Of course this is under the assumption that Germany had managed to keep it's Luftwaffe supplied with new machines and more importantly new crews and lots and lots of fuel.
It's a tough hypothetical to discuss, because the Luftwaffe wasn't really close to crippling the RAF's ability to fight in numbers and with force.
Successfully destroying the factories would require an impossible number of planes, given the relative lack of payload and the inacuracy of the bombs, it's simply a dream.
And that's before we get to the main problem: the Royal Navy. The Luftwaffe's record against ships would politely be described as 'lacking', they simply could not have dislodged the Navy's ships from the channel in any numbers, those ships would simply destroy any resupply and reinforcements, leaving any German forces ashore in England alone, and just waiting for another Dunkirk, but with no chance of rescue. Any analysis with even a vague hint of realism demonstrates a flawed plan, doomed to failure.
Being an island, and resolute we were and still would be a tough nut to crack…
@@_fool_of_a_took_ Do you mean a "5th Column" like the one we have sat in the Houses of Parliament today.
Also don’t forget the Beaches themselves Some were shingle beaches difficult if impossible for tanks
It wouldn't matter, as Germany had no tank landing craft in any case.
He never wanted a war with Britain. That's why he sent 12 offers of peace, all declined by Churchill. Even offered to defend the British Empire with German soldiers, arms and munitions. He held off response to British terror bombings of German civilians and cities for 3 months, before he responded.
Rudolf Hess parachuted in with a last offer but was incarcerated for the rest of his life and tortured to the brink of insanity.
There was no genuine plan to actually invade, it was a backup plan if anything. Churchill actually suggested gas bombings on Berlin, in an admiralty meeting when he was drunk as a skunk (as always) and when protested by his military staff, he proclaimed; "Why is it a matter of morality, when in the previous war, everyone did it?"
Still no legitimate peace treaty signed between the NSDAP and the Allies. Germany is an occupied illegal state setup by the Allies and Soviets. They are not autonomous and deserve their freedom.
Does it still annoy you, after around 80 years, herr obergruppenfuhrer? So many Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, Slavs, Gypsies, homosexuals, political opponents, and mentally/physically disadvantaged people still, annoying, ungassed? Perhaps you might provide details of these imaginary twelve peace offers? I have asked your neo colleagues on numerous occasions, and any has come there none.
When did hitler offer to defend the British Empire?
You don't consider the bombings of Spanish towns and villages, followed by those of Warsaw, and then Rotterdam, to have been relevant.then? Moreover, if you really don't seek conflict, then invading Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, THe Netherlands, Belgium, and the Soviet Union, all without declarations of war, is really not the best means of proving your peaceful intentions, is it?
If you seriously seek peace, would you :-
1). Make confidential approaches via the British embassies in Switzerland, Sweden, or Spain, or even ask the United States, again confidentially, to mediate?
or:
2). Send a crank in an aircraft to Scotland, in the hope that he might manage to find a Scottish aristocrat who might possibly have had some sort of connection with the Westminster government, whilst hoping that your crank might be taken remotely seriously?
Give reasons for your answer, and write on both sides of the examination paper!!
If there was no genuine invasion plan, the Germans expended a vast amount of time and resources, not to mention 2,700 aircraft and 1,600 experienced aircrew, on a bluff, didn't they?
Churchill never considered the use of gas bombs, by the way, although the British did briefly consider that the Germans might.
Why would there be a Peace Treaty with the nsdap, by the way? That debased organisation was a political party, not a state.
Go away, little neo, and light a candle in front of your print of der bannertrager, whilst singing the horst wessel song sadly to yourself. Your collection of SS daggers needs a good polish, by the way.
Lympne is pronounced more like 'Lim' than 'limp knee' by the way.
The Germans did not have the sea lift capacity, the specialized landing craft, the speciaiized units and training-recall the scene of the British beachmaster in "The Longest Day"-had not conducted the extensive beach and and landing site reconnaissance, did not really understand the effects of tides and currents.. And they did not have air superiority, let alone air supremacy. They had not grasped that an amphibious operation on the .ocean is not just a river crossing on a larger scale.
As a lover of alternate history i have read enough variations of the invasion. The only realistic ones solved the problem by starting all preparation for the operation right from 1933 In 7 years the Kriegsmarine would be ready for the alternate Sea Lion. Not the classic one and without Hitler helping the brittish with the evacuation.
In the 1990's, there were two seperate ,Televised gatherings, of Military Historians and Heads of NATO ( which included German heads Too) . They had all the historic documents and technical aids needed, to Discuss this very issue. WHAT IF Hitler's invasion plan, had taken place. After two hours discussion on both occassions , which were several months apart, Both groups drew the same conclusion,100%.Which was FAILURE. All agreed the key issue was, the size and power of the Royal Navy. Even if the RAF had been virtually destroyed, and the navy, with heavy losses. It would certainly have been a catastrophe for the Germans, casualty and material wise. This would have delayed Hitlers attack on the Soviet Union, considerably, with consequencies , unfathemable. Having watched both programmes, they made perfect sense to me.
"100%.Which was FAILURE" - that show was scripted. history was often romanticized heavily in favor of the victor
Perhaps "Audacious" rather than "Daring", bearing in mind he never actually dared to attempt it.
The thumbnail would be good for a puzzle lol
Maybe but then I would have to be the original creator to do so
Operation Sealion would've most certainly failed. For one: Germany didn't even have any landing crafts like the Allies did on D-Day (all they had were barges and tugboats)
For another point: The RAF and the Royal Navy would've been too strong for the German invasion forces to overcome as the British air force had proven to be a defiant fighting force during the battle of Britain.... plus do I really need to mention the inferiority of the Kriegsmarine in comparison to the much larger Royal Navy? Long story short, Operation Sealion was doomed from the start
Some arguement could be made the the beginning of the end of Nazi Germany was losing the battle of Britain.... and then of course turning toward invading Russia... by leaving Britain intact the allies and America had the opportunity to build their large invasion force by 1944 and a bomber base used in the years prior.
Especially since hitler had roundly condemned Kaiser Bill for getting involved in a two front war, then brilliantly chose to get entangled on several fronts.
Commonly agreed that it had no chance of success
What “submersible tanks” were the Germans going to use?
Read about the German's "Tauchpanzer III". Plenty of information about them online. They were hastily developed for use in "Operation Sealion", but obviously never employed. So as not to waste the effort that had gone into their creation, the nazis employed them a year later in Ukraine, during Barbarossa to cross the River Bug.
unique: Being the only one of its kind
"The battle of Britain was one of the most unique" fucked things up from the get go
You go on about Gr. Admiral Raeder meeting Hitler at the Berghof 6:05 and there are plenty of people there & Raeder isn't one of them
Have you considered the likelihood that the footage is stock newsreel footage and not actual footage of the Berghof meeting referred to?
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 That was what I was alluding to in a roundabout English way, sorry. I don't like to spoon-feed people as if they are idiots. Just the occasional still pic of old Erich would have been nice at these points
Compromising=/=comprising
There were a few more nationalities fighting in the RAF during the Battle of Britain. I think you should do a bit more research.
Indeed. Many nations but Poles and Czechs in particular.
You are correct and it is well known, in fact if you talk to younger generations, they mostly think it was all poles
Yes I very much agree the plan would of failed even if the 1st waves of troops were successful in capturing a beachhead, and moved inland etc.
Holding the British isles is another matter, and does not seem feasible to me.
A lesson in biting off more than one can chew in regards to stretching his forces far to thin.
If he was serious (which he wasn't), it makes me wonder how the hell he expected to get any tanks over on those converted canal barges.
Same with Ukraine. Even if Russia "wins", Ukraine will never be defeated.
Build a ramp
@@white-dragon4424 Please do some reading on the 4 battalions of "Tauchpanzer IIIs" that were adapted for the operation. Together with the 2500 Rhine barges and 13 Wehrmacht divisions including 2 panzer divisions that were stationed in the Pas de Calais thought the summer and autumn of 1940.
Its not unusual for infantry to still train with wooden/dummy rifles now
As a man from Scotland UK am glad we fighting rather go for peace . I would rather die free than live as a slave living by the ways and rules and laws of a different countrys leader
They also had well trained canadians waiting to defend the island
QAnd an overwhelmingly powerful navy to ensure that no Germans landed anyway.
3 issues: 1, the barges; 2, the weather and 3, the RN AND RAF. That's a bit rude. The RN and RAF are only worth 1/2 a problem each. Well they got that wrong.
A single spitfire could attack a barge and kill a platoon!!! How about sink the barge and kill a company!!
The differences in organisational and planning ability between the Germans early in the war versus The Brits and Americans at the end were galaxies apart. The Allies had landed at Dieppe (disaster), Op Torch, Sicily and Anzio (nearly a disaster) before D-Day, so they had plenty of practice and time to produce materials. The Germans had nothing apart from a bad plan and an uncommitted staff. It would have been a disaster.
300000 Germans would have drowned in the Channel. Their cockleshells compared to the D Day Allied force one hell of a larf'. Cockleshells without air cover versus the Home Fleet. Odds on winner. Hitler knew that for sure.
5 letters as to why no invasion of UK home islands ... RAF RN.😊
I'm not any sort of expert, but if understood correctly, the Germans intended to focus on invading SE England. That sounds to me like the worst possible place in terms of opposing troops and English motivation.
The army forces that were earmarked for Operation Sealion would become German 6th Army during the war with the Soviet Union. Had Hitler attempted Sealion the soldiers who froze to death in Stalingrad would have drowned in the English Channel instead.
No they wouldn’t
Be having tea in london
@@JeffHenry-cq3is Dream on.
Would have been a disaster a kin to Stalingrad.
Agreed. Over its four hundred year history, the RN has one job, preventing invasion of the UK. The German invasion barges set out and are met by two hundred destroyers, sixty cruisers, fifty corvettes/escorts, seventy submarines, fifteen battleships/battlecruisers, etc..... it would be the Spanish Armada repeated, with tens of thousands of German soldiers washing up on beaches, to the extent that Barbarossa and the Afrika Corp would needed to be postponed or canceled.
@@admiralbeez8143 www.naval-history.net/xDKWW2-4006-15RNHome1.htm
Back to reality for a moment, less than half of that "dream-fleet" of yours was in Home Waters in mid-1940. The rest were spread all over the world. Much of it was obsolete too.
Operation Seelowe assumed the temporary destruction of the RAF in southern/central England. So assume that's happened and the RAF takes little active part here. Also, this was to be a night-crossing and was to take place in bad visibility. On the morning of the landings there were 1,200 German aircraft earmarked solely for fleet protection (much of which was not involved in the Battle of Britain and were at operational strength). Germany had subs too. Don't forget minelaying either, destroyers, minelayers, S-boats, etc all crossing together. The German capital ships were to assemble in the Thames estuary as Britain had no capital ships in the Channel area.
Now, it takes much longer for a fleet to assemble off Scapa or Rosyth and move to the Channel than it takes to cross the Channel. Yes, Britain would probably have gotten some significant naval forces down there but they would have gone in piecemeal. They certainly could have caused problems for any second wave but that need not go in immediately. I won't comment on any naval actions but it would not have been the slaughter the English media would like you to believe.
Far from your dream-world of "tens of thousands of German soldiers washing up on beaches", with just a little crappy weather that fleet could have gotten across almost completely unscathed as did the Allied D-Day fleet (which also had complete air superiority and bad weather). What came after that would largely depend on who's in charge of the respective divisions and the supply situations
20:13 - I'm sorry... Kurt Who now?
It's funny how eighty years ago we could stop the might of Germany from invading our shores and now we can't even stop a flotilla of small boats. Those who lost their lives defending these shores must be turning in their graves.
*yawn*
You could, if you drafted even a fraction of home guard numbers to do it.
It's not worth it, though- your economy needs cheap labor that's afraid of the authorities,
and rich people don't fear poor people as long as they yank them around with precarian lives, wedge issues, populism and "let us control it all, or you will loose your meagre previleges".
Of course, you could simply use a resonable migration policy, but then what would the conservatives strawman to scare you into voting for them?
Trans people? Woke language? The EU?
@@nos9784 based
We are not at war with the people crossing the Channel in small boats...
@@jerry2357 They'll be "at war" with us in the future. Enoch Powell was absolutely correct.
I don't think there ever was a plan to invade it was blockades surrender your alone but i think the first thing was to change all the measurements etc to metric by pressure n negotiating then when the german paratroopers arrive its all a bit easier for them ppl dnt appreciate how having miles instead of km is a tactical advantage or at least its helpful like the locals moving the signs sround
Really? You don't believe there was a plan called Operation Sea Lion despite the fact there are tens of thousands of documents and testimonies referring to this plan?
Hmm I book I read about sealion showed how the Royal Navy would steam into the channel and play havoc with the invasion. Fleet.
"Ritual baby"?
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 Must start wearing my glasses. 😂
My parents were in the artillery on the south coast. And they told me that Germany did try to invade. But we set the sea on fire. It still remains a secret.
No. There is an Urban Myth about Shingle Street, but it did not happen. If an attempt had been made, and defeated, why on earth would Churchill seek to hush it up?
Both painter and Napoleon faced the same problem with the brits
And the Spanish with their armada.
@@white-dragon4424 They made a drama out of armada.
The RN wasn’t hiding In Scotland and the army equipment wasn’t left in france then
@JeffHenry-cq3is it was always the RNs wet dream to be able to drag the german navy into open battle
@@JeffHenry-cq3is "Hiding in Scotland"? You've forgotten about the 7 Cruisers, 57 Destroyers and countless motor gun and torpedo boats that were IMMEDIATELY available on the south & east coasts of England specifically for anti invasion duties in late summer/autumn 1940, backed up by several battleships, battlecruisers and aircraft carriers within 9 hours sailing of the Channel.
"hiding in Scotland" indeed how stupid of you !!!
At the time when such a military possibly might (very remotely) have been an undertaking( i.e. before Barbarossa) there was no political imperative. The ‘gamble’ that Britain would “see sense” was still very much on the table.
And, it certainly didn’t fit with the overall aim of acquiring German hegemony in the East at the expense of the Slavs and the annihilation of Bolshevism.
We still find ww2 bombs at our beach studland uk which was also used to train for D Day
Would never have worked
Hitler turn his head towards Russia instead of keeping his eye on England
Can you honestly say that being totally unprepared logistically and having no coherent plan to invade in place is daring?
There was a plan, anbd it was certainly 'daring.' In the sense that doing a parachute jump whilst not wearing a parachute could also be considered daring.
Germany successfully invaded and occupied the British Channel islands from 1940 to 1945. 5 years they had occupied a part of Britain
Islands much nearer France than Britain and which we never defended or attempted to take back during the war? So what?
@@silgen much nearer France? It was still the UK Germany successfully invaded for a long period of time
@@lukelang6954 Yes, they are just off the coast of Normandy. And no, they are not part of the UK, they are Crown Dependencies. And the Germans weren't as successful as the UK at invading Germany, eh?
Whilst the Soviets methodically advanced from the East only for the Americans to trudge on in Africa and provide limitless support to the Soviets.
You cant Blitzkrieg an island.
Of the 318,000 troops evacuated from Dunkirk, 123,000 were French, most of whom were immediately returned to France and most that remained refused to join the Free French. Of the British troops, the first to be evacuated were the second line troops and labour battalions so there was a high proportion of such troops in the evacuated force. The first German naval plans for an invasion were done in 1939 and were for the invasion of East Anglia, which was then the closest British territory to German forces. British planners continued to believe an invasion of East Anglia was likely right up to the proposed invasion date, even believing it to be the preferred invasion site. They only grudgingly reinforced the south coast after seeing the deployment of barges in the invasion ports. Terror attacks were part of Douhet's theories and had always been part of the German plan of attack on Britain. If you look at the German documents, you will see that the switch to the attack on London was already scheduled with or without any attacks on Berlin. It was caused by poor German intelligence that said the RAF was defeated, not by a puny attack on Berlin that probably missed if was anything like the RAF's bombing record from the time. The Sealion wargame was fixed and was stressed at the time that it was a game and not a simulation by its creator. He had intended that the British could be mislead by diveraionary attacks but the map made by the newspapers etc made such diversions impossible. The German forces for the wargame were decided in ignorance of their real strength and the British forces were based on false assumptions. The ports would not have been demolished. They were to be damaged only to the point that they could be in use again a week after their recapture. There were at most 50 destroyers and light cruisers available, not 150. The rest were spread around the world or on convoy duty. The Germans had 150 escort vessels varying from R-boats, S-boats, improvised heavy gun boats, destroyers etc probably many no match for the cruisers and destroyers but they were on the whole bigger and better and more numerous than the 1940 British coastal forces (1941 is a different story). They also had 50 U-boats though as many would be training boats inexperience would be a factor. It may have been that the combination of 100 heavy coastal guns forcing the British ships into a narrower area where the Luftwaffe can pick them off or they hit mines or U-boats plus the close-in escort of a wide variety of ships might have been enough to put a dent in the British naval effort. They only had to dent the British ships enough to put them in port for a few weeks, not sink them. British ships were told not to sail during daylight in the channel from July 1940 onwards. Both German and British capital ships were not to sail into the Channel at all - they were to be used on raids on the Atlantic Convoys (the British didn't know how few were left after Norway). There's lots to comforting things you can say, which have already been said, but when you research the topic you find it's a little more complex than a fictional story concocted by a famous naval writer about cruiser wash (it's cruiser wash, not destroyer wash in the story) sinking barges. Any CZcams video about this topic should include links to three CZcams videos of tourists using exaclty the same barges to cross the channel in both directions.
'There were at most 50 destroyers and light cruisers available, not 150.' Wrong. You should read the Toyal Navy 'Pink List' for 16 September, 1940. This was the RN's Order of Battle for that day. It shows 182 destroyers. Of these, 17 were under repair, and 8 on escort duty. 48 were overseas. 21 (including RCN boats) in escort ports, and 23 with the Home Fleet at Scapa & Rosyth. 64 were in anti-invasion ports, supported by six light cruisers. These were within five hours of Dover. In immediate support of these were some five hundred smaller warships, ranging from sloops, corvettes.fleet minesweepers and gunboats to auxiliary minesweepers, armed trawlers & drifters, and a variety of Coastal Forces MTBs, MGBs, and MLs.
'The Germans had 150 escort vessels varying from R-boats, S-boats, improvised heavy gun boats, destroyers etc.' Actually, according to German records, there were 7 operational destroyers, based in Cherbourg, 7 'Wolf/Mowe' class torpedo boats, mainly at Den Helder, 6 'T' boats, at Cherbourg and Den Helder, and 13 operational 'S' boats. The 'R' boats were 19 knot vessels, armed with 2/3 37mm or 20mm AA guns. Yo describe them as 'escorts' is stretching the point.
'They also had 50 U-boats though as many would be training boats inexperience would be a factor. It may have been that the combination of 100 heavy coastal guns forcing the British ships into a narrower area where the Luftwaffe can pick them off or they hit mines or U-boats plus the close-in escort of a wide variety of ships might have been enough to put a dent in the British naval effort.' Oh dear! In September, 1940, there were acrually 61 U-boats, of which 27 were front line vessels (frontboote) and the remainder training boats or new boats working up. 'Inexperience' is a masterly understatement, given that the last time U-boats were sent into the Channel, in October 1939, all three were immediately sunk. Presumably, you don't consider that the mines which you believe would hamper the RN would be ungracious enough to have a similar effect on U boats?
Next, the wonderful coastal batteries. By the end of August, there were a total of 150 medium, heavy, and super heavy guns lining the French side of the Channel, and the first firing at British coastal convoys began on 12 August. What subsequently happened may be left to the post war Admiralty records - 'No British or Foreign ship was damaged. Seven British merchant ships, of an aggregate tonnage of 8,000, were damaged.' That, of course, was in the whole of WW2. These convoys consisted of small coasters steaming at eight or nine knots. Yet you argue that guns which could not hit such targets would suddenly bvecome effective against fast moving, highly manoeuverable, cruisers and destroyers.
The reality is that, on 29 September, the old Monitor HMS Erebus shelled Calais. She was capable of, at best, eight knots. The great Gris Nez guns targetted her. But failed to hit. On 10/11 October, the Battleship HMS Revenge, supported by a destroyer flotilla, bombarded Cherbourg with 120 fifteen inch shells, and 801 4.7 inch shells from the destroyers. German shore batteries engaged her for ninety minutes, again without success. You see the problem with your reasoning, I trust?
'They only had to dent the British ships enough to put them in port for a few weeks, not sink them.' Nonsense. Have you not heard of the condition of some of Cunningham's ships in the Mediterranean. They still remained in operation.
Of course British ships did not use the Channel in daylight. Why should they? In war, you act in a manner your enemy would least desire. The Luftwaffe of 1940 could barely hit ships in daylight. In the whole of WW2, they sank 31 RN destroyers, and no RN ship larger than a light cruiser. At night, the Luftwaffe was even more incapable, whereas the RN certainly was not. Moreover, why would the RN wish to use Capital Ships against barges in any case, given that quick firing 3 inch, 4 inch, 4.7 inch & 6 inch guns were far more effective?
'Any CZcams video about this topic should include links to three CZcams videos of tourists using exaclty the same barges to cross the channel in both directions.' The videos don't seem to show the barges (actually, in the case of Sealion, towed in pairs by tugs or trawlers, at little more than walking pace), coming under fire from cruisers, destroyers, sloops, or gunboats, etc., do they? Unless I missed that bit?
Oh, and you are wrong about the Sandhurst WarGame. Paddy Griffith, who organised it, wanted it to be as accurate as possible. The only major changes he made were to move the RN anti-invasion forces back from their actual locations, in order to give the Germans a small window of opportunity, after if had become obvious that, had this not been done, no organised forces were likely to have landed at all.
I apologise for being so dismissive, but as a naval historian I have indeed researched Sealion, in considerable detail & over many years.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 I've seen the pink lists, I've also seen which ships were under repair, which ships were supposed to available for anti-invasion duty and were actually on convoy duty etc, etc. The channel guns did not all have the range to cover the entire width of the channel but the shorter ranged ones did have enough range to keep British ships on their side of the channel. Nobody considers the combined effects of all the measures the Germans proposed to take, just the individual measures on their own, which would not have been very effective. Doenitz was one of the few top commanders to give full backing to the invasion and to commit every u-boat he had and the smaller boats were suitable for use in shallow waters. The uboats were supposed to attack British ships before they got into the channel, not in the channel. The British ships would be entering the channel at night so travelling at least part of the way at night. it would have been harder to detect the uboats if the ships were being harassed by aircraft, dodging mines, shot at by channel guns, and peppered by small boats in confined waters. The primary mission wasn't to get u-boats but to sink German ships and they would have been in a hurry to get to the Channel. All rather speculative and a lot of luck was required for German success. I'm not saying it would have been successful, just not as easy for the defenders as is usually said. There are accounts of the radar directed channel guns firing at night and causing British destroyers to run away from the huge shell splashes around them. Perhaps the channel guns would be more accurate in daylight if the Germans had air superiority and could use spotter aircraft. At any rate, they weren't ignored by British shipping and regarded as no threat at all. In the event of a successful landing the Admiralty was very worried about the possibility of heavy German guns being placed on the north side of the channel to shoot at shipping from that side, too, which is precisely what the Germans planned to do. Your numbers of German ships don't agree with Peter Schenk's figures. I can tell you exactly how many ships and guns they had. The raid on Cherbourg was at night and lasted minutes, then the British ships ran away. If the threat of being fired on by the shore defences and (if caught in daylight) the Luftwaffe meant that the attackers couldn't stick around then the defenders have succeeded. A few fast moving ships is rather a different target from 150 ships ranging in size up to cruisers and confined to their side of the Channel.
The real effect of Luftwaffe attacks on shipping may be debatable but the British admiralty was scared enough of them to ban British surface ships from parts of the North Sea during and after the Norwegian invasion. The restriction on channel operations lasted until at least the Dieppe raid in 1942, which is why nothing larger than a destroyer was used to support that raid. If the Luftwaffe can restrict British naval activity in this way then it is having a useful effect. Damage during the Norwegian campaign could have been a lot worse - a single bomb missed a British carrier but unseated its drive shafts, causing the carrier to head for home. A heavy cruiser returned to port with its deck awash. It only took a few such incidents to make the Admiralty jittery. Once again, we aren't talking about British shipping in wide expanses of water that is unmolested by other German craft, guns, or mines. Possibly it might have been easier to hit 150 British ships in narrow waters should they have ventured there during daylight.
There was a mixture of powered and unpowered barges, which were to be lashed together in a fashion that does sound ghastly but not all the initial invasion fleets would have used them. The most westerly invasion fleet would have towed empty barges behind the ships so they could be used for unloading. How much they were, or were not being shoot at depends of the effectiveness of the defences, the time of day, and how much surprise was achieved. All the barges had some the ability to shoot back to some extent (from AA guns to 75mm guns). It is telling that the Cromwell alert was issued when no invasion had been launched - this indicates that some surprise was possible, as the British high command couldn't tell when the barges were being loaded for the invasion. The criteria for the Cromwell alert didn't match the German criteria (tide, moon, sea state etc) for the landings. I'm not wrong about Paddy Griffith, I'm almost quoting from his book about the event. Yes he wanted it to be accurate and annoyed him that it was messed up. His data was inaccurate and biased, though. I agree, and so did the Admiralty, that you didn't need heavy guns to sink and invasion fleet, but most people seem to miss that fact and (Americans especially) describe some sort of death ride of the Royal Navy as the last resort, which is nonsense. The point is that the Germans only needed a few weeks to establish the bridgehead and if British ships were damaged enough to send them back to port during that time, the Germans would have had a greater chance of success (still only a chance though). As a naval historian you might be interested to read my article for War in History or at least the chart of German and Allied amphibious operations between 1916 and 1945.
How many allies retreated ? They should have stayed to fight.
@@christopherwebber3804 'I've seen the pink lists, I've also seen which ships were under repair, which ships were supposed to available for anti-invasion duty and were actually on convoy duty etc, etc.' Good. Then you must know that my information is accurate. I assume that I don't, therefore, need to tell you the names of the eight destroyers on convoy duty.
'The uboats were supposed to attack British ships before they got into the channel, not in the channel.' Really? That would be impressive, given that over half of the cruisers intended to intercept Sealion were already in Channel bases.
'The British ships would be entering the channel at night so travelling at least part of the way at night. it would have been harder to detect the uboats if the ships were being harassed by aircraft, dodging mines, shot at by channel guns, and peppered by small boats in confined waters.' This seems to be simply a wish fulfilment fantasy. There were regular destroyer patrols in both directions through the Channel throughout the invasion period. For example DF1 (4 destroyers) on 7/8 September, (6 destroyers, supported by 2 light cruisers, in two groups). One group actually entered Boulogne and shelled the inner harbour, whilst the second inspected Calais unobserved. On the same night, DF1 (4 destroyers) pareolled from Le Touquet to the mouth of the Seine.
9/10 September. 6 destroyers from The Nore shelled the harbours of Calais & Boulogne, whilst DF1 (6 destroyers) carried out another sweep of the Channel coast. 10/11 SeptemberDF16 (3 destroyers) engaged a small convoy off Ostend, and were fired on by shore batteries, without result.
11/12 September. A major operation involving destroyers, MTBs, and gunboats, from Plymouth, Portsmouth, & The Nore, examined ports from the mouth of the Meuse to Cherbourg, in some cases entering ports, and shelling targets of opportunity. 12/13 DF16 (3 destroyers) swept from Boulogne to Cap Gris Nez.
In all of these operations, the total damage to the RN forces involved was to one cruiser, by mining. No 'peppering by small boats, no damage from channel guns, etc. Nor can you argue that the guns lacking the range, by the way.
'All rather speculative and a lot of luck was required for German success.' A masterly understatement, I suggest!
'There are accounts of the radar directed channel guns firing at night and causing British destroyers to run away from the huge shell splashes around them.' Source, please.
'Your numbers of German ships don't agree with Peter Schenk's figures.' Please tell me where they differ. I too have read Schenk.
Of course Operation Medium was at night. Did that make it any less effective? Moreover, the German response was undeniably ineffectual. The pejorative tem 'ran away' by the way, is most enlightening.
'The point is that the Germans only needed a few weeks to establish the bridgehead and if British ships were damaged enough to send them back to port during that time, the Germans would have had a greater chance of success.' Presumably, you don't consider the need for re-supply ro have been of any importance, then?
Finally, the actual invasion force :-
17 & 35 Infantry Divisions. 150 barges (75 towing vessels) from Dunkirk, with 50 barges (25 tugs) from Ostend. Later, 57 transports & 114 barges (57 tugs) from Rotterdam & Ostend.
7 Infantry & 1 Mountain. 200 barges (100 tugs) from Calais.
26 & 34 Infantry Divisions. 330 barges (165 tugs) from Boulogne, and 50 barges (25 tugs) from Le Havre.
8 & 28 Infantry, & 6 Mountain Division, in 300 motor barges from Le Havre,
7th Parachute Division (actually 4,500 men at best) to capture Lymphne airfield.
Thus, the First Wave, of elements of 9 Divisions, albeit without much of their divisional artillery or motorised transport, would require :-
844 barges, 365 tugs/trawlers, 57 transports, & 300 motor boats.
Admiral Walter Ansel ( Hitler Confronts England) who had worked on the Allied D-Day planning, calculated from German records that, at the end of September, invasion resources in invasion ports, consisted of :-
1859 barges, 397 tugs/trawlers, 159 transports, and 1168 motor boats.
Can you remove your blinkers long enough to see the problem? Towing Vessels of course. The German plan had no reserves of tugs. Any lost could not be replaced. It was, almost literally, a single shot weapon.
Finally, of course, 'All the barges had some the ability to shoot back to some extent (from AA guns to 75mm guns).' Really? Ex army field guns, and light AA weapons on temporary platforms on unstable vessels? Manned by almost untrained (possibly even seasick!) gunners. Of course these would easily deter regular naval weapons with director firing and experienced crews.
It really makes you wonder why nation states even bothered to build proper warships, when a few old guns on planks would have done the job!
I enjoy reading the works of Sealion 'Would haves.' Thank you for the entertainment.
I will not, however, respond further. By the way, did you get some of these ideas from the infamous Fred Leander, author of the inadvertently hysterical 'River Wide Ocen Deep?'
If it had realistic chance, the OKW would have done it. It never had a chance.
A future where Hitler is fucking forgotten as I'm tired of hearing about it and paying for it
You mentioned Hitler, that'll be £10 please.
Would have been brutal.