WI: Sealion Attempted and Failed

All right... sorry about breaking the Sealion taboo. :eek:

I personally think that Sealion failing (assuming the "late" Sealion) would have resulted in a quicker German defeat, even without Barbarossa. I'm not totally knowledgeable about WW2, but from what I know about Sealion, a lot of Germany's coal supplies would have been put into it, basically wiping out the Krigsmarine. Without enough coal to run their surface engines, what happens to the Wolfpacks? More American arms get to England, and the Brits manage to put together some successful attacks. Italian Africa will probably fall to the better-equipped Commonwealth forces, and the Middle East oil will be more secure. However, without the Soviet front, Germany will probably be able to dedicate more troops to Britain, and casaulties will be higher on both sides.
On the other hand, Stalin is loving the whole package.
 

Faeelin

Banned
TheLoneAmigo said:
All right... sorry about breaking the Sealion taboo. :eek:

There is no taboo. Knightyknight's just sore because every time he brings it up, he's unable to respond to the barrage of counterproposals explaining why it won't work.
 
The real question is whether a disastrous attempt on England would cancel or delay Barbarossa. I suspect it wouldn't, as the USSR was known to be massively expanding its military and giving another year or two could prove a bad mistake. Also remember that Hitler was of two minds on the British Empire, and especially as to breaking it when Japan and the US would get all the spoils of his effort.

In the short run the British are of much higher morale, and probably see early benefits. French West Africa, including Dakar, six heavy and light cruisers, and one battleship fall to a larger British/Free French force. By early 1941 Algeria/Tunisia/Morocco may be all the empire Vichy has left. Meanwhile the world never sees the glory of Rommel, as Churchill, certain that no further invasion attempts can be launched until mid 1941, pours several divisions into Egypt. Rommel himself barely escapes when a few shreds of German units fight valiantly around the port of Tripoli but fail to save Italian North Africa. By summer of 1941, Pantelleria has fallen, Crete resisted the German airborne, and the invasion of Sicily is in the final stages. At this point a momentous decision must be made to go ahead with Barbarossa or delay until 1942 and Hitler decides...
 
Faeelin said:
There is no taboo. Knightyknight's just sore because every time he brings it up, he's unable to respond to the barrage of counterproposals explaining why it won't work.

I always say it doesn't work, what the heck are you talking about?
 
TheLoneAmigo said:
So, would Hitler have been insane enough to let Barbarossa go ahead? Would the army have stopped him?

Late Sea Lion would have zapped too much strength from both the Luftwaffe and the Heer and I say no, despite all the "All you need is to kick in the door..." bluster.

With a July Sea Lion the Wehrmacht has wasted the assault echelons of 5 or 6 divisions. Hitler would partially mobilize in the remainder of the year and make up the losses in weapons (but maybe not men) so I think he would go ahead with Barbarossa.
 
I'd like to hear more from Grimm Reaper.

Sealion succedding?-nah. I thought once a tunnel would work. Would require SU to remain an ally for the time being, and avoiding pissing off the Americans. But that's like asking if the Mad Hatter's tea party could come up with the UN Charter.
 
Sealion in July is far too early. Germany is far too preoccupied cleaning up the French. Besides the RAF is, more or less, untouched & very strong. Before any attempt at Sealion can be made, the RAF has to be dealt with. So we're really talking about August or September as a realistic date for Sealion to be attempted. Any date later than September is pointless as the weather will be against any crossing of the Channel I would imagine.

The Heer, though, wouldn't be overly effected by a failed Sealion. We're talking at most 8 divisions. The Luftwaffe, however, is a completely different story as, yes, they'll be hurt badly. But as I said earlier, it'll be the loss of the Rhine barges that'll hurt the most as industrial production in Germany will fall dramatically. This makes any attack on Russia in 1941 impossible as Germany won't have the means to undertake such an audacious attack upon Russia.

So that leaves Germany & UK facing off. As Sealion would have shown, the UK is safe. But not Egypt. So Grimm Reaper's scenario is looking interesting indeed wherein the North Africa theatre becomes the main battlefield. Maybe the UK, Commonwealth & Allies can pull off an early victory there, although I expect Germany to rush reinforcements there aka OTL & I wouldn't be surprised if history repeats itself somewhat. If so, Barbarossa, may be called off until 1943 until Germany defeats the UK et al in Africa first & foremost.

In the end, though, if Germany wants to win WW2, it must kick the UK out of the war altogether before Barbarossa. Otherwise, the UK will be used as an unsinkable aircraft carrier &, as the USA is bound to end up in the war, one way or another by 1942, history will repeat itself with the UK & USA bombing Germany relentlessly followed by D-Day taking place probably a year later in 1945.
 
fortyseven! Ask and I shall be glad to annoy the board! Good evening ladies and...good evening gentlemen(no ladies here)! The bus stopped with a jerk and here I am! Take my wife please! <gunshot in background, large man groans, falls to ground>

Based on the Nazi hierarchy, I suspect that Barbarossa MUST happen in 1941. With the US increasingly hostile, Hitler probably expects to fight the US soon enough. The last thing he wants is Stalin sitting back and laughing, or perhaps helping himself to a few territories here and there. Further, given the development of the Red Army and the recovery from the purges, giving the USSR another year or two might not be the wisest. So how might Barbarossa be done following a Sea Lion debacle?

Through January of 1941 I foresee Germany frantically replacing the shipping lost, diverting from naval construction except for U-boats and a few ships nearly completed. Sweden probably can gain a few favors as well in return for shipping.

In addition, the devastating losses to the Luftwaffe are compounded by the casualties suffered in Germany's Ju-52 and other transports, whose pilots normally serve as instructors. Possibly the shortages of several months cause a decision to delay the Tiger and stick with the Panther?

Above all, determined not to give Stalin and/or FDR another year, Hitler chooses to avoid diversionary campaigns. Given the enhanced British position, he understands that the Wehrmacht can destroy the British Army in an open confrontation. Therefore he must avoid smaller campaigns where British air and naval power can limit Wehrmacht involvment and give England easier victories. In particular, he negotiates a settlement between Mussolini and Greece, in which Greece is not only spared but given Southern Albania IN RETURN FOR TRUE NEUTRALITY. No RAF bases. Yugoslavia is also able to avoid the war. Alas, a small British force seizes the Dodecanese Islands and the RAF can still threaten Ploesti on a reduced scale. Meanwhile Vichy France is able to use the British threat to begin rearming in the remaining North African territories, setting a goal of 7 divisions(one armored) with 100,000 men. If Hitler does NOT agree there is the subtle hint that the remaining colonies and the fleet might just go over to the British. Of course, once the French have doubled or tripled the rump army of 100,000 and the US is in the war...

Alas, this does not greatly enhance Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union.

1) The miserable rains of spring mean that Barbarossa can not be advanced by more than 2-3 weeks, as panzers do poorly when trapped in the mud.

2) The new forces available are less than they might be due to the need for greater forces guarding against the British, especially the Balkans and Norway. Also, production was reduced for 5-8 months.

As a result the city fighting in Moscow and Leningrad proves incredibly bloody, but when Marshal Zhukov's forces are combined with the Russian Winter at Moscow, the Wehrmacht is forced into a bloody retreat. Although Moscow and Leningrad are both horribly damaged, and the Soviet government is disrupted for months, German losses are increased by the order of 10-15 divisions of manpower(260,000 to 390,000) ABOVE the 1941 losses. Also, this wasn't just a bloody attrition but ended(January 1942) in an outright defeat. And when the US then enters the war, with a stronger England harming Japan's prospects...

How sad that the aftermath of this convinces the Wehrmacht NEVER to engage in large scale city fighting with Russians again, and by better use of armor and other mobile forces, the summer 1942 offensive is ultimately a success...
 
Top