WWI after the FAILURE of the Unmentionable Sea-Mammal

[metalstar316]

The census among members of this board, as well as among historians, is that Operation Sea Lion (I can hear the collective groan) would have been a massive failure and possibly doomed the Nazis. I am not going to debate that, or attempt to construct a Nazi-victory scenario.

What I will do, however, is pose to you the following question- after the defeat/surrender/evacuation/whatever ending you want to give to Sea Lion, Britain would have had the initiative, not to mention a massive military/logistical advantage. So what would have been her next move? Surely she would have been too weak to invade the continent. But the Germans also would have been weak, perhaps too weak to defend if Britain attacked. Would GB have ventured a Mediterreanean strategy? I think Hitler would have been on the defensive at least for a year or two; depending on how many troops had been committed to Sea Lion, it is possible that there might not have been enough to invade the USSR. What say you, oh great and wise fans of AH?

 

[Nerdlinger]

I didn't realize there were Nazis in WWI.

 

[Julius Vogel]

I didn't realize there were Nazis in WWI.

You need to read more. I suggest starting with the seminal work "Time Travelling Nazis Throughout History", alternatively titled for the US as "The Swastika Swims the River of Time"

 

[The Kiat]

I didn't realize there were Nazis in WWI.

Probably just a typo... like there aren't a few of those around here.

 

[stevep]

The census among members of this board, as well as among historians, is that Operation Sea Lion (I can hear the collective groan) would have been a massive failure and possibly doomed the Nazis. I am not going to debate that, or attempt to construct a Nazi-victory scenario.

What I will do, however, is pose to you the following question- after the defeat/surrender/evacuation/whatever ending you want to give to Sea Lion, Britain would have had the initiative, not to mention a massive military/logistical advantage. So what would have been her next move? Surely she would have been too weak to invade the continent. But the Germans also would have been weak, perhaps too weak to defend if Britain attacked. Would GB have ventured a Mediterreanean strategy? I think Hitler would have been on the defensive at least for a year or two; depending on how many troops had been committed to Sea Lion, it is possible that there might not have been enough to invade the USSR. What say you, oh great and wise fans of AH?

metalstar316

Ignoring the typo, the defeat wouldn't seriously weaken the German army as too small a proportion of its total strength would be lost, only a few divisions at most. How the Luftwaffe faired would depend on the circumstances. The Naval could easily lose much if not the bulk of its surviving strength. Most damaging might be political/diplomatic at the clear defeat and economical if a lot of the Rhine barges and their crews were lost.

It would also depend on the degree of British losses and possibly whether public opinion was fearful enough of another invasion, regardless of its impossibility. Britain definitely couldn't invade the continent as it lacks both the army and the amphibious units while the RAF would probably still be too weak to take the offensive.

However what is more likely is that Britain would feel more confident about sending forces to N Africa say, including possibly air and naval, and that Germany might be less willing to commit force to that theatre. [Especially if Adolph is still determined on Barbarossa in 41]. The other key point would be what Germany gives up to make up the losses. [Do they reduce pressure on Britain by concentrating on air/ground replacements so they can strike east? Or have a weaker army so they can make up some more naval and air losses for continued pressure on Britain? Or, being the Nazis, try and manage everything with less forces?]

Steve

 

[Wolfman]

Either way, it would be difficult, thus creating a stalemate.

 

[Tom_B]

Hitler's control over the military would be very seriously weakened by a failed Sea Lion. If he orders Barbarossa afterwards I would see a military coup as probable though not inevitable.

 

[metalstar316]

Hitler's control over the military would be very seriously weakened by a failed Sea Lion. If he orders Barbarossa afterwards I would see a military coup as probable though not inevitable.

If he should do that, I imagine it would be a different Barbarossa than OTL, what with fewer troops and resources, possibly dead commanders like Manstein, etc. Plus the Wehrmacht likely would have learned a thing or two from fighting in Britain, and would be likely to at least attempt to put those lessons to use in the USSR.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

One point to make is that Luftwaffe losses are liable to be severe for the following reasons:

1) Pilots shot down but not killed are doing so on British soil, so British pilots return to service while Germans go to POW camps.

2) To deploy the German airborne means that the Luftwaffe air transport fleet is deployed...and the pilots of these craft were the training instructors for the Luftwaffe so losses in this area could disrupt the replacement of pilots for quite a few months.



In January 1941 the British could field 30 divisions plus an additional 5 armored divisions in the Home Islands. If confident that invasion is impossible half that force could dramatically change the situation in North Africa.

 

[esl]

Since the vast majority of the invasion fleet was captured or civilian vessels, it would not impact the KM that much. Germany had just scooped 20,000 locomotives and 1/2 million freight cars from captured France and had all the internal transportation that it needed . Since rail traffic constituted 85% of the capacity, even the loss of some barges would have little impact , especially since Germany had almost quadrupled its barge fleet capturing France and the Lowlands.



BTW who cares about opinions?

You should never base history on opinions, especially the opinions of historians or participants in the war . Nothing is more subjective than a soldiers opinion. Adam Tooze is right that far too much of historical writing is based on opinions and not enough based on facts. When you read the half backed responses to this subject you realize that the bulk of the ‘expert opinion’ is based on nothing more than a few misplaced and misguided facts. Perhaps if people spent their time more wisely doing actual research, they might not fall into this rather predictable trench.

 

[stevep]

Since the vast majority of the invasion fleet was captured or civilian vessels, it would not impact the KM that much.

So your suggesting that the Germans will attempt to invade without any naval escorts? That would really make it a duck-shoot.

Of course the KM will seek to protect the invasion fleet. Which means it will take losses. Since its got 3-4 fairly obsolete CLs, a number of DDs and hosts of lighter units they are likely to suffer heavy casualties. The RN will probably do so as well but its got much stronger forces along with plenty of defended and well equipped ports nearby for damaged ships to limp back to. Also its cruisers and destroyers won't be tied to trying to defend slow chains of barges.

Germany had just scooped 20,000 locomotives and 1/2 million freight cars from captured France and had all the internal transportation that it needed . Since rail traffic constituted 85% of the capacity, even the loss of some barges would have little impact , especially since Germany had almost quadrupled its barge fleet capturing France and the Lowlands.

It can loot more of them than it did historically but will need to keep a lot in France. Unless it wants its occupation forces to go without food and ammo and the Luftwaffe units to be grounded by lack of fuel. Not to mention the resources it extracted from France OTL have to be got back to Germany. Also if it takes too harsh a line with the extractions I have a feeling the breakdown rate for those trains might escalate dramatically.

Not to mention there are other problems with using trains to replace lost barges. Limitations on tracks and switching capacity - unless the French trains can steam up the Rhine. Manpower to operate and maintain them. Parts for different engines and carriages. Not to mention that for cheap bulk loads waterways still have an advantage over railways in terms of efficiency.

The Germans may have picked up a lot of extra barges by their conquests but how many of them would have been involved in Sealion as well?

Steve